Apr 20
U.S. Military, Africom and Libya: Between the Rocks and the Crusaders, Horace Campbell
41 Comments »
The author is Professor of African American Studies and Political Science at Syracuse University.
The Western bombardment of Gaddafi’s forces in Libya has become an opportunistic public relations ploy for the United States Africa Command (Africom) and a new inroad for US military stronghold on the continent. This involvement of Africom in the bombardment is now serving to expose the contradictions and deceit that have surrounded the formation of this combatant command, which is a front for military humanitarian assistance to Africa in coordination with the US Department of State and the US Agency for International Development (USAID)…
WHY SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN LIBYA
I really don”™t want to get into anyone”™s ” cuss cuss”. I believe that if we are serious about global politics and about the future for Africans inside and outside of Africa, we need to be focused on how the world works and be able to engage on global levels that matter. Let me explain.
We could start with the horrors of the Atlantic African Slave Trade to explain why Africans are there on the continent and we are here in the Western world.
Next stage ““ we need not merely political independence but we urgently need economic empowerment.
Third stage ““ what has Ghadaffi done relative to the two previous observations I just made?
Recall the recent struggles against Apartheid and the last colonial Portuguese outposts of Mozambique and Angola? Who was it who lent financial support, military training and other forms of tangible assistance in support of the Southern African liberation struggles? Well it was leaders like Fidel Castro and Ghadaffi. Recall that it was Thatcher of the UK and Reagan of the US who had been strong opponents from the Western powers who resisted timely change in the Southern African countries. When Apartheid fell there was an attempt to get Mandela to condemn Castro and Ghadaffi. Nelson Mandela did not ““ he appreciated the assistance that was given when the ANC needed help. Now ““ if we can get to the point where we can see that not all Arabs or Whites are the Black people”™s enemies ““ then maybe we can begin to understand what is really happening in the world and start to grasp how countries are built and what needs to be done to oppose imperialism.
Maybe to make my point I can quote this from the New York Times:-
” ” What kind of brother would I be if a man has been that way to me, and to us, and when he”™s in trouble I refuse to raise my voice in his defense?” Mr. Farrakhan said to cheers and applause from hundreds of the faithful gathered at the mosque.”
Likewise ““ what kind of man would Mandela have been, if given the significant assistance received from Castro and Ghaddafi he could not see beyond the boundaries of colour?
Watch this if I need the point to be made more forcefully:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLrLgOVHT8E
And if you need reminding about the nature of imperialism ““ then watch this:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqKtk2T_IpQ
The point I am making is that Africa is resource rich ““ the Congo being the richest of the areas of all of Africa. Why should we be concerned about Libya? Because the global game relates to the desire by others to gain control of those mineral and natural resources. Ghadaffi stands on the right side of history in his verifiable opposition to oppressors and his support of the progressive forces in Africa. If you look at the CIA fact book you will see that Libya, bar none on the African continent has the best general average for provision of welfare for its people ““ and that observation can be statistically verified by looking at the GNP/GDP and other indices for the Arab and sub-Saharan nations on the continent. That is what ultimately counts ““ the welfare of the people and how a leader provides for his people. What is attempted to be used against Ghadafi is the suggestion that he was behind the Lockerbie bombing. The fingerprints go back to the US when it downed the Iranian civilian flight with about 290 persons on board ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OdzRRcA2WA). The strike in Lockerbie will show Iranian and Syrian involvement and you can call it ” blowback” and revenge for what was done originally.
Those who do not read will not know of the Libyan water project. Just watch this – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V78E8D49Xyg
Ghaddafi has the continent”™s and world”™s largest irrigation scheme. The US/NATO is bombing the Libyan people and setting out to destroy the country to inhibit the country”™s advance to self-sufficiency in Libya and consequential assistance for significant parts of sub-Saharan Africa. There is no credible opposition that the US can point to. What there is ““ really is ““ is this attempt by the CIA/US/NATO to support factions in its attempt to divide Libya. The end game would be control over Libyan resources and like Iraq ““ you can see the disastrous future that the Libyan people would be facing. The IMF and World Bank are not a part of solutions ““ these institutions and a large part of what they do is a significant part of the world”™s problems.
If what I have said is not very sound reasons why we ““ the people of the African Diaspora and in the Caribbean should not merely be concerned but deeply concerned about the illegal bombing of Libya and its people ““ then we do need to go back to school ““ political school that is – our political understanding needs to be expanded. Events in the world are interlinked and it would be prudent to consider that with no actual opposition that exists as a coherent force in Libya that what we are looking at is this:-
A. Focus by the US/NATO on the oil and water resources of Libya in the old imperialist tradition of
invasion and domination.
B. The intended division ( call it Balkanization if you will) of Libya.
C. A new imposed political order that is as definitely destined for failure as the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq have proven to be.
It is narrow-minded and nonsensical to think merely within the confines of colour without linking one”™s consciousness of self to the social, political and economic world within which our being and our humanity and concerns interlinks and interfaces from our humanity to others. Then we can consider and assess ways forward for the betterment of the ” race” such as it is in the world as it is.
Nuff said.
Courtenay Barnett ( http://www.globaljusticeonline.com)
CARICOM CAN PLAY A USEFUL INTERNATIONAL ROLE – OR – WE CAN REMAIN ACCOMODATIVE SUPPLICANTS.
The situation in Libya and with respect to Ghadafi is somewhat more complex than Courtney Bardett portrays. Many of us supported Robert Mugabe 40 years ago when he fought for the liberation of Zimbabwe. Would we support Robert Mugabe today just because of that history? I think not! Walter Rodney didn’t hesitate to call Forbes Burnham King Kong, or to point out that, despite the unquestioned racist nature of the slave trade, some Africans helped Europeans capture and sell slaves. Do we honour the memory of Forbes Burham because he was on the side of the ANC and other African liberation movements. No, because he also repressed his Guyanese “subjects”? Ghadafi may have supported liberation movements, but he has done things since which make me question his record. What is the balance to strike here? I’m not an expert on this situation, but I believe it’s harder to weigh the balance (as if there were an easy one) than Mr. Bardett suggests. I don’t like what the US, UK, France and NATO are doing there illegally either, but neither do I like what Ghadafi is doing.
Bob Thomson, Ottawa
Bob Thompson makes this rhetorical observation:-
” Do we honour the memory of Forbes Burham because he was on the side of the ANC and other African liberation movements. No, because he also repressed his Guyanese ” subjects”?”
The difficulty with juxtaposing the Burnhan situation and Libya”™s Ghaddafi is that much irony and misunderstanding is embedded in the comparison.
1. Did the CIA/MI6 play a role in installing Burnham in power as a palatable choice over Jagan? That is
the first question you have to ask.
2. Is there a long history of US interventions since the 1953 overthrow of Mossadeque in Iran and
throughout South America and Africa with Western support of dictators?
3. Where was/is the ” humanitarian interventionist” impulses for assistance in respect of Rwanda ““ in
the Congo ““ and so we can go to conflict after conflict around the world ““ some areas with resources
to be had ““ others of no consequence ““ with no intervention.
4. How does one go beyond the confines of Resolution 1973 and reach the point of discharging over 100
Tomahawk missiles into Libya? Is that the way to protect people and their rights?
5. If in Canada, where you are Mr. Thomson ““ there was a secessionist movement where First Nation
Canadians or French Canadians decided to arm themselves and advance towards Ottawa on mission
of destiny with history for the ” liberation” of their peoples ““ tell me – do you think that the Canadian
government would merely respond with entreaties and pleas that they lay down their arms ““ or ““
would there be robust military resistance to preserve the government by any means necessary?
6. Do you not see a marked difference between the mass protests of unarmed people in Egypt and the
want of any real coherent opposition in Libya ( funded as it is by the CIA for dissident activity and
arming of the so-called ” rebels” in Libya)?As I write I have yet to see the ground swell of opposition to
Ghaddafi.
Come on Bob ““ it is an Imperialist resource war about oil and water. Yet, I would not deny that internally Libya no doubt has its problems ““ which country on the face of the planet does not?
7. Why does the archaic, barbaric, and shamefully anti-female regime in Saudi Arabia not deserve
primary Western attention for regime change? Answer ““ those corrupt ones are squarely in the
corrupt Western camp, a useful buffer to Iran ““ and the blind eye of ” no see ““ no hear ““ no care” for
blatant human rights violations is played out in the most hypocritical manner. The Saudi ruling elite is
no target for change while they mutilate, torture, plunder national wealth ““ but – Ghaffidi is suddenly
““ global enemy number 1.
Guess I am naive.
No ““ I do not support Mugabe ““ but ““ I do not see him in the same light that I do Ghaddafi. I note the mansion in which Mugabe lives versus the good for Libyans and Africa that Ghadaffi has done. The two do not equate Mr. Thomson.
In fairness to you Mr. Thomson, you do state:-
” I don”™t like what the US, UK, France and NATO are doing there illegally either, but neither do I like what Ghadafi is doing.”
However in terms of real politic ““ what are the choices? A Libya as occupied supplicant ““ or ““ the type of Libya that helped and continues to assist sub-Saharan Africa? Will a French and American backed Libyan leader offer the Libya people and Africa a better choice and a more promising future than the one that has been ” built” in Iraq? I suspect not ““ Mr. Thomson.
You are right on one thing ““ I am no supporter of these imperialist incursions ““ where Sarkozy just got funded by Libya money for this election then turns to try and serve the hand that just fed him ( you should look more closely at these things). You do need to make a choice ““ and you might as well side with the better of two evils.
I stand my ground in what I said.
Courtenay Barnett ( http://www.globlajusticeonline.com)
AND IF YOU THINK THAT THE MAINSTREAM WESTERN MEDIA ARE NOT PARTICIPANTS IN THE ORCHESTRATED ATTACK ON LIBYA THEN WITH AN OPEN MIND JUST READ THIS:-
” Clusters of Hypocrisy
by craig on Apr 16th in Uncategorized
Sky News is reporting as its lead story that Gadaffi forces are using cluster bombs, fired as mortar rounds. They tell us that this will strengthen the hand of those calling for regime change. The layers of hypocrisy here are so thick it is hard to peel them back. But here are just a few:
The United States has the largest stocks of cluster bombs in the world and refuses to join the international ban
The United Kingdom joined the ban but entered a secret deal for US cluster bombs to be stored on British soil
” Middle East Peace Envoy” Tony Blair throughout his period as Prime Minister blocked UK agreement to a cluster bomb ban and until 2009 cluster bombs were manufacturedon a large scale at Raytheon in Northern Ireland
The cluster bombs being used by Gadaffi are Spanish and were sold to him with the active collusion of the Spanish government
Israel used more than a million cluster bombs in Southern Lebanon without a word of condemnation from Sky News. Sky are reporting that Gadaffi has used ” at least three” as its lead headline.
There was no Sky News condemnation of the widespread use of cluster bombs by Israel in Gaza in 2009.
The use of cluster bombs by Gadaffi forces is wrong, and Human Rights Watch were right to break the story. But hypocritical whipping up of indignation, with the purpose of promoting a war that will kill many more people, is also wrong. Even more so when the wesrtern position on cluster bombs is so monumentally hypocritical.
UPDATE
” Gadaffi Cluster Bombs” is also the lead story on the BBC”
I agree with Mr Barnett on the need to see the resource-driven motives behind the West”™s sudden interest in Libya and, increasingly, regime change. However, like Bob Thomson,it cannot be emphasized enough that Gadaffi is no hero to black Africans in Africa either.
In fact- except for a few old style dictators types like Mugabe and Blaise Compaore of Burkina Faso and a few others, he was/is viewed with a mixture of joke figure/ enormous pain in the nether regions. In spite of the diplomatic niceties in Addis, the African Union diplomats there find him an enormous headache even as he grandstands and speads the wealth around.
The rumour in Dakar was that one or two of the Benzes that crossed the Sahara was always filled to the brim with hard cash to do some serious influence-buying at its most literal.Most African leaders took his cash/largesse when given but found this whole “˜leader of Africa”™ thing highly nauseating/amusing. He certainly created a spectacle when the 100-strong Benzocade braved the roadless Sahara numerous times and headed “˜down South”™ to various capitals (including Dakar, Senegal while I was there and Kampala) with great pomp and splendour -and he even took to wearing the West African “˜bou bou”™ robe (male attire) to identify more with his (intended) “™subjects”™.
He tended to make grand promises and then did not deliver, and where he did, he was/is still viewed with suspicion, for eg in Uganda where enormous sums have been invested and now all assets have been frozen by another suspicious “˜friend”™ of his: Pres. Yoweri Museveni.
We must understand his motivations viz Sub-Saharan Africa:in the last decade or so, he has heavily championed the concept of a “˜United States of Africa”™. The open secret/quid pro quo was that he would be at the helm as the President in return for the enormous largesse dispensed. Horace Campbell himself has written about this in March 2010 in an article entitled: Muammar Gadaffi:an obstacle to African unity”™.
What he never quite grasped was the depth of the mistrust beteen the Maghreb (North African Arabs) and the black peoples of sub-Saharan Africa. Most Sahelian countries – inc Mali, Senegal, Niger,Ghana, Nigeria -have had long and bad histories with their Arab neighbours in the North and the history of the region is heavily tainted – even to this day for eg in Mauretania – by Arab views of Black Africans as inferior and Arab enslavement of Black Africans. so Gadaffi was always probably deluded by the spectacles put on for him – including “˜rent-a-crowds”™ of African schoolkids with Libyan flags, as he waved regally at them.
More recently there has been the issue of maltreatment of black African economic migrants en route to Europe by the Libyan authorities which culminated in riots in their detention camps a few years ago. Now, according to reports he is using black African migrants and/or black Libyans to do some of his dirty work for him in fighting the rebels.
So, while the West does not come out looking too good in the hypocrisy stakes in the 2011 Libyan “˜revolution”™, let’s not believe the hype on Gadaffi and sub-Saharan Africa either. It was – and is – sheer influence-peddling and an enormous ego trip type of relationship for a particular goal -the leadership of a unified Africa – that never really sat comfortably with most sub-Saharan African nations anyway.
I am enlightened by what has been posted by Kala Ramnath-Bond and wish to share some thoughts in reply.
Myself a lawyer with specialist interest in international law, I want to be clear on my position.
It gives me no small measure of concern when sovereignty is breached. All will recall the attempts in the inter-war years ( i.e. between World War 1 and World War 11 ) to construct a decent international architecture to ensure as much global peace as practically possible. We start with the League of Nations and then post-World War 11 end up with and still have the United Nations. More particularly the provisions of Article 2 of the UN Charter, quite clearly establish the legitimate basis for engaging in warfare. More narrowly, the intent of the Article”™s aim can be gleaned by reading Article 2(4):-
” Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
And Article 51 prescribes the right to resort to military action in self-defence.
All together not bad constructs in attempts at introducing some order into international relations and for the maintenance of peace in the world.
Do recall some of the words in the preamble of the United Nations Charter:-
” WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
“¢ to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
“¢ to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
“¢ to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
“¢ to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
“¢ to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
“¢ to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
“¢ to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
“¢ to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, “¦”
etc.
Thus, my main point is that upon closer scrutiny one will surely find flaws with Ghadaffi and his government. That is not the point. The point is the greater danger by reason of transgressions from the rules designed to maintain international peace. If those principles are not upheld then what we descend to is literally the law of the jungle with the mightiest and fittest of the fittest surviving, stealing national resources and with each subsequent breach of the rules designed to respect territorial integrity creating greater instability in the world.
Now, turning to some of the points that Kala Ramnath-Bond made:-
” In spite of the diplomatic niceties in Addis, the African Union diplomats there find him an enormous headache even as he grandstands and spreads the wealth around.”
Comment in reply:-
That Ghadaffi does in fact spread the wealth around is the point, and the options are:-
i) That he does and brings some positive benefits and is criticized for so doing; or
ii) That he does not and does not bring positive benefits and is criticized for so doing.
You choose which is the more attractive of the two options.
” The rumour in Dakar was that one or two of the Benzes that crossed the Sahara was always filled to the brim with hard cash to do some serious influence-buying at its most literal.”
Comment in reply:-
The CIA, MI6 and intelligence services around the world do the same thing. It is not unusual that if one wants to project power or influence political results then money does actually play a very useful and influential role.
” He tended to make grand promises and then did not deliver,”¦”
Comment in reply:-
Which aspirant to the projection of continental or global power does not act in precisely the same manner ““ US? UK? France? ““ take your pick.
” Most Sahelian countries – inc Mali, Senegal, Niger,Ghana, Nigeria -have had long and bad histories with their Arab neighbours in the North and the history of the region is heavily tainted – even to this day for eg in Mauretania – by Arab views of Black Africans as inferior and Arab enslavement of Black Africans.”
Comment in reply:-
I agree with you ““ there is much truth in your observation.
” More recently there has been the issue of maltreatment of black African economic migrants en route to Europe by the Libyan authorities which culminated in riots in their detention camps a few years ago. Now, according to reports he is using black African migrants and/or black Libyans to do some of his dirty work for him in fighting the rebels.”
Comment reply:-
I do not have any reason to doubt that there is truth in what you have written. As an aside ““ having spent a decade living and studying in Europe, I could cite you quite a few comparable instances from Britain to France and across the Western European continent.
So, in essence the sub-Saharan nations view Libyan largesse with suspicion. The reason as you clearly intimate is by virtue of the uneven and exploitative historical relationships. Now, when we consider our own neo-colonial relationships with Britain or France etc. here in the Caribbean ““ is there not some universal truth contained in your observations ““ if we are to be brutally frank about historical relations and human feelings?
I do agree with you, Mr Barnett on the danger of ‘transgressions from the rules designed to ensure international peace’. However ‘just’ all of this is though, I think we will exhaust ourselves trying to count the times when power politics reared its ugly head in the post-WWI era as countries have acted in what they perceived as their strategic interest. The hypocrisy is more than palpable: its clear and recent history is littered with examples to support this conclusion.
The point has been made many times recently about the criteria for ‘help’ during these Arab spring revolutions – who ‘deserves help’ and why: why the Libyan rebels (long-time enemy, huge oil stocks), why not Ouattara’s Muslim northerners in the Ivory Coast (no oil, only cocoa-although the French stepped in, in the end),or the Yemeni protesters (not much of economic interest) or democracy-seekers in Syria (not much economic interest), or Algeria (ditto, plus France does not want another Algerian war), or Morocco (friendly despot/king who keeps the extremists at bay), or Bahrain (US naval Fleet stationed there)or even Myanmar (inspite of much hand-wringing, the Chinese still call the shots). It’s clear to many that at the end of the day – whether we like it or not – big power politics and risk analysis(not to mention financial futures markets) hold sway, along with the historical and neo-colonial context that you highlighted.
So while there is no ‘law of the jungle’ sanctioned in international law and we have noble Charters to guide us, most sensible people would admit (and there is ample evidence to suggest) that it DOES exist – call it strategic self-interest, ‘enlightened self-interest’, ‘influence’,'friendly relationships/partnerships/blocs’, essentially it will always will exist: a kind of global ‘free-for-all’ where ‘might’ still rules – whether it’s military/political or economic. The nice-sounding international codes do generally bear up to the pressure but if powerful countries wish to act, they act- its human nature writ large: a depressing thought, but there you go.
Your comments on mine about Gadaffi’s motives are spot-on – we’ve all heard about the US’s dollar diplomacy in the final days of the Iraq campaign where generals were basically handing out cash for peace to the tribal leaders and there’s little reason to disbelieve that it does not happen in other ‘hotspots’: money can buy influence – and sometimes peace. The point I tried to make about Gadaffi, though, was that his largesse to sub-saharan Africa was for one reason: he wanted desperately to be the leader of a United States of Africa and much of the nineties and the noughties was spent (pardon the pun) buying influence – but he had little to show for it because of black African skepticism about his motives.
Another point to note is that much of this money did not even end up for the common good in the countries he courted but into the pockets of political gatekeepers, minders, middle-men and cronies of the maximum leaders (and of course the leaders themselves) in these countries.
Further, ‘uneven historical relationships’ with the colonial powers did manifest themselves in the not too distant past of people from the colonies being called up to do the dirty work of the masters: think France’s use of Senegalese soldiers to crush rebellions in their far-flung colonies like Vietnam, Madagascar and other francophone African countries – thousands of whom died in the process and if they survived, did so in relative poverty…pension-less; think of Britain’s similar use of tens of thousands of Indians, Black African colonial subjects (the King’s East African Rifles for eg)and many from the Anglophone Caribbean (Royal West India Regiment) in WWII, with their second-class status always re-iterated even as they fought for the ‘Mother Country’.
I’m not sure also that lofty, noble thoughts about historical relations and human feelings are paramount in any power broker’s mind when they think about strategic interests for themselves and their countries: think Putin/Medvedev and the Chechens and Georgians, think the UK and the plight of the Chagos Islanders and the tortured Mau Mau pensioners case recently in London…but lest we be deluded that this is a developed country phenomenon, think Gbagbo and his party’s creation of the idea of Ivoirite – a kind of ‘apartheid’ which essentially aimed to dis-enfranchise Muslim Ivoiriens who comprised half the country – his intransigence led to the death -directly or indirectly – of thousands??), think Buthelezi in apartheid South Africa…this list is also long.
Its a cruel world. However, I’m still glad that there esists international legal ‘checks and balances’like the UN Charters. Maybe we need to make them work better. Maybe the advent of the BRICS countries onto the world stage will shake things up a bit…although I would hazard a guess that Brazil, India, China and South Africa will probably still be acting in their strategic self-interest first and foremost if and when they supplant the old powers. A depressing thought to ponder on for our small ‘rocks’ in the Region indeed!
And our little “rocks” in the region should be focused on the global implications of big powers advancing into less powerful countries for resouces in breach of international law. Surely, as sentient beings ( small beings in a big world) we would be quite prudent in insisting that the international laws and rules, such as these exist, are adhered to. If this were not to be CARICOM’S unequivocal and principled position, then we place ourselves in the following position:-
i) Supplicants to Western interests.
ii) Oblivious about where our best long-term strategic interests are ( i.e. do small states want to endorse the arbitray and illegal use of military force?). Is this in our interest – when our turn comes to be targeted?
iii) Maybe – beyond the propoganda being projected in the Westerrn media – some – yes – some of us who follow such events might just be sufficiently informed to assist those of us who sit at the levers of our small regional power and raise out collective voices that CARICOM should show leadership and advance a principled postion on the Libyan question.
Let me rely on the analysis of a goodly professor to outline what seems to be the agenda afoot:-
“Press TV has interviewed Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of US Treasury from Panama City, who gives his insight on the revolution in Libya and why US President Barack Obama needs to overthrow Qaddafi when no other US presidents did.
Press TV: Russia has criticized NATO for going far beyond its UN mandate. In other news a joint Op Ed is going to be written by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy who have said that ” leaving Qaddafi in power would be an unconscionable betrayal to the Libyan people”.
We do know that the mandate does not call for regime change; the Obama administration has been saying they are not in there for regime change; but things seem a little different now don’t they?
Roberts: Yes they do. First of all, notice that the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain or Tunisia and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion.
There are more differences: another is that these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is – they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset to head up the Libyan rebellion.
In my opinion, what this is about is to eliminate China from the Mediterranean. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.
The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that’s the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.
And the third reason is that Libya controls part of the Mediterranean coast and it’s not in American hands.
Press TV: Who are the revolutionaries. The US say they don’t know who they’re dealing with, but considering the CIA is on the ground in contact with revolutionaries – Who are the people under whom Libya will function in any post-Qaddafi era?
Roberts: Whether or not Libya functions under ” revolutionaries” depends if the CIA wins – we don’t know that yet. As you said earlier, the UN resolution puts constraints on what the European and American forces can achieve in Libya. They can have a no fly zone, but they are not supposed to be in there fighting together with the rebels.
But of course the CIA is. So we do have these violations of the UN resolution. If NATO, which is now the cover for the ” world community,” succeeds in overthrowing Qaddafi, the next target will be Syria. Syria has already been demonized.
Why are they targeting Syria? – Because the Russians have a very large naval base in Syria. And it gives the Russian navy a presence in the Mediterranean; the US and NATO do not want that. If there is success in overthrowing Qaddafi, Syria is next.
Already, they are blaming Iran for Syria and Libya. Iran is a major target because it is an independent state that is not a puppet of the Western colonialists.
Press TV: With regards to the expansionist agenda of the West, when the UN mandate on Libya was debated in the UN Security Council, Russia did not veto it. Surely Russia must see this expansionist policy of the US, France and Britain.
Roberts: Yes they must see that; and the same for China. It’s a greater threat to China because it has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya. So the question is why did Russia and China abstain rather than veto and block? We don’t know the answer.
Possibly the countries are thinking to let the Americans get further over- extended, or they may not have wanted to confront the US with a military or diplomatic position and have an onslaught of Western propaganda against them. We don’t know the reasons, but we know they did abstain because they did not agree with the policy, and they continue to criticize it.
Press TV: A sizeable portion of Qaddafi’s assets have been frozen in the US as well as some other countries. We also know that the Libyan revolutionaries have set up a central bank and that they have started limited production of oil and they are dealing with American and other Western firms. It begs the question that we’ve never seen something like this happen in the middle of a revolution. Don’t you find that bizarre?
Roberts: Yes it’s very bizarre and very suggestive. It brings back the fact of all the reports that the CIA is the originator of this so-called revolt and protest and is fomenting it and controlling it in a way that excludes China from its own Libyan oil investments.
In my opinion, what is going on is comparable to what the US and Britain did to Japan in the 1930s. When they cut Japan off from oil, from rubber, from minerals; that was the origin of World War II in the pacific. And now the Americans and the British are doing the same thing to China.
The difference is that China has nuclear weapons and it also has a stronger economy than do the Americans. And so the Americans are taking a very high risk not only with themselves, but with the rest of the world. The entire world is now at stake on American over-reach; American hubris – the drive for American hegemony over the world is driving the rest of the world into a World War.
Press TV: In the context of America’s expansionist policies, how far do you think the US will stretch beyond the UN mandate? Are we going to see boots on the ground?
Roberts: Most likely – unless they can find some way of defeating Qaddafi without that. Ever since we’ve had Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and now Obama, what we’ve learned is law means nothing to the executive branch in the US. They don’t obey our own laws; they don’t obey international law; they violate all the civil liberties and buried the principal of habeas corpus, no crime without intent, and the ability for a defendant to be legally represented.
They don’t pay any attention to law so they’re not going to pay any attention to the UN. The UN is an American puppet organization and Washington will use it as a cover. So, yes, if they cannot run Qaddafi out they will put troops on the ground – that’s why we have the French and the British involved. We’re using the French elsewhere in Africa also; we use the British in Afghanistan – they’re puppets.
These countries are not independent. Sarkozy doesn’t report to the French people – he reports to Washington. The British PM doesn’t report to the English people he reports to Washington. These are puppet rulers of an empire; they have nothing to do with their own people and we put them in office.
Press TV: So these other countries would welcome having NATO troops on the ground?
Roberts: Of course. They are in the CIAs pocket. It’s a CIA operation, not a legitimate protest of the Libyan people. It’s an armed rebellion that has no support in the capital city. It’s taking place in the east where the oil is and is directed at China.
Press TV: Where do you see the situation headed? There seems to be a rift between NATO countries with Britain and France wanting to increase the momentum of these air strikes, but the US saying no, there is no need.
Roberts: The rift is not real. The rift is just part of the cover, just part of the propaganda. Qaddafi has been ruling for 40 years – he goes back to Gamal Abdel Nasser (before Anwar Sadat) who wanted to give independence to Egypt.
He (Qaddafi) was never before called a brutal dictator that has to be removed. No other president has ever said Qaddafi has to go. Not even Ronald Reagan who actually bombed Qaddafi’s compound. But all of a sudden he has to go. Why?
Because he’s blocking the US African Command, he controls part of the Mediterranean and he has let China in to find its energy needs for the future. Washington is trying to cripple its main rival, China, by denying China energy. That’s what this is really about; a reaction by the US to China”™s penetration of Africa.
If the US was concerned about humanitarianism, it wouldn’t be killing all these people in Afghanistan and Pakistan with their drones and military strikes. Almost always it’s civilians that are killed. And the US is reluctant to issue apologies about any of it. They say we thought we were killing Taliban or some other made-up enemy.
Press TV: Who will benefit from all of this other than the US? The other countries that comply with US wishes – What do they stand to gain from this?
Roberts: We are only talking about NATO countries, the American puppet states. Britain, France, Italy, Germany, all belong to the American empire. We’ve had troops stationed in Germany since 1945. You’re talking about 66 years of American occupation of Germany. The Americans have military bases in Italy – how is that an independent country? France was somewhat independent until Washington put Sarkozy in power. So they all do what they’re told.
Washington wants to rule Russia, China, Iran, and Africa, all of South America. Washington wants hegemony over the world. That’s what the word hegemony means. And Washington will pursue it at all costs.”
BUT MAYBE SMALLL ISLANDS DON’T WANT TO ADDRESS AND RESPOND INTELLIGENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY TO BIG WORLD PROBLEMS – IN ” OUR SELF-INTEREST”?
US FUNDED SYRIAN OPPOSITION GROUPS
The weird thing is that immefiately after I read Courtenay’s latest comment with the Craig Roberts interview mentioning Washnigton’s designs on Syria, I encountered the following report on Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/04/2011418114117731717.html
US ‘funded Syria opposition groups’
Washington channelled money to organisations including dissident broadcaster, newspaper reports leaked cables as saying.
Many Syrians opposed to the goverment of Bashar al-Assad live outside the country [EPA]
The US government has secretly funded Syrian opposition groups, including a London-based television station, according to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks to The Washington Post.
The newspaper reported on Monday that the US state department has channelled up to $6m since 2006 to a group of Syrian exiles to operate Barada TV, and to finance activities inside Syria.
The television station is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles, the paper said, and has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria.
It added that US money for Syrian opposition groups began under George Bush, the former US president, after ties with Damascus were frozen in 2005.
The financial backing has continued under Barack Obama, the current president, despite an attempt by his administration to rebuild relations with the Middle Eastern nation.
The article said it was unclear whether Washington was still funding Syrian opposition groups, but the cables
indicate money was set aside at least through September 2010.
Cables provided by WikiLeaks revealed some US diplomats questioning the decision to provide funding, saying that Syrian authorities “would undoubtedly view any US funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change”.
“A reassessment of current US-sponsored programming that supports … factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive,” the cable said.
Protests calling for political reform and challenging the government of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, erupted on March 15.
The uprising has claimed the lives of scores of people, with human rights groups saying that at least 200 people have been killed.
Syrian authorities have blamed the violence on armed gangs.
Can I be devil’s advocate for a minute and ask Norman and Courtenay two questions- even as I agree with them on much that has been written so far:
1) whether ‘assisted democracy’(for want of a better phase) – to their mind – is such a bad thing after all IN CERTAIN CASES, even as one recognises that it violates the UN CHarter. Precedent aside, is it bad that Iraq is rid of Saddam, Chemical Ali et al and has actually had relatively free elections, in spite of the thousands/millions of deaths?
Is it bad that the Egyptians and the Tunisians have regime change and seem empowered/intoxicated with freedom and change (well, sort of) when old despots with billion dollar bank accounts have been in power with an iron fist for the last 40 years suddely fall like dominoes in the space of weeks? AND
2) Are all of these tens of thousands of people on the streets of Damascus tonight simply carrying out the CIA’s instructions or have they themselves harboured long-held innate desires for freedom from one-party oppressive rule as well?
I’m curious about this – it’s just that while on the one hand the ‘strategic, resource-hungry, power-politics’ view of the world explains about 50-75% of political behaviour, I wonder – as many others do – about what explains the other 25-50% -maybe this is where the ‘sentient human being’ explanation comes in…
I find it hard to believe, for example, that so many people can be out on the streets day in day out, without some sense that they really believe that they want their dictatorial regime out and they sense some momentum, and whether the CIA sometimes becomes an unlikely bit-part player, though undoubtedly happy about the turn of events. After all, even Washington and other Western capitals were caught blind-sided by the whole Jasmine revolution tide and seemed unsure of why their favoured bogeyman – Al Quaeda – was not involved and available to pummel, punch, berate and denigrate to the world’s media. It just seemed to be people feeling that they had had enough in one country, doing what they needed to do and then the success story emboldening others.
I guess what I’m asking is whether other factors should or should not be recognised as well. In real life after all, there’s hardly ever a simple, single explanation for any phenomenon – its usually a confluence of factors. Can we agree to some extent on this in certain cases moreso than others and if not why not? There’s my devil’s advocacy for the day, gentlemen…over to you…
Hi Kala,
no problem. Here is my own take on the issues you raise.
1. I am not all sure that the benefit of removing Saddam was worth the cost. All accounts I have read suggest that life for ordinary Iraquis is much, much worse since the U.S–led invasion, and as a consequence of it, than under Saddam. And the cost in terms of civilian draths, 100,000 by the most conservarive estimates and up to 1 million in orhers, has been horrendous. And that the ‘democracy’ introduced by the occupying forces is seriously flawed, to say the least, Are you seriously trying to justify the US-led action, which, on top of all of that, was (a) in flagrant breach of international law, and (b) sought moral, extra-legal justification on the basis of the lies that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? And by the way, nobody is saying that Saddam was an angel. To denounce this crime is not to endorse Saddam and evrything that he did (ditto the case of the NATO action against Gaddafi).
2. I agree that the thousands of people demonstrating against the Syrian regime cannot all be due to CIA manipulation and suggests serious disaafection with the regime. The problem I have is with the hypocrisy and double standards evident in supporting ‘pro-democracy’ forces mobilising against some aurthoritarian regimes–i..e. those that threaten Western interests in one way ot another like Libya, Syria and Iran–compared to the slaps on the wrist and covert support provided to others such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrein and Jordan–those that are supportive of Western interests re oil, militatry bases and military alliances. This is also played out in the way the Western media frames and plays these events. As Courtenay points out, every case of Western intervention is preceded by an orchestrated media campaign of demonisation calculated to arouse the moral outrage of ordinary, decent people. (This is a historical constant in the justifiaction invoked for Western imperialism, by the way–’White Man’s Burden’ and all that. But that is another story).
3. “Assisted democracy’ that is in breach of international law is a very slippery slope that threatens the sovereignty and independence of all nations, particularly the smallest and weakest. The problem is, who decides when, and where, such actions outside of international law are justified? For example, who is going to arrest the US and British leaders responsible for the illegal invasion of Iraq as war crminials? The reality is that only the largest and most powerful nations–the US and the NATO alliance–have the capabilities to understake unilateral military actions with impunity and unaccountability. Such actions invariably serve their own strategic interests–moral justification (unilateral humanitrian interventions) is invoked as a cover to justify their actions to their own people and to the world. This is where the ‘selective demonsation’ of foreign leaders come in. And when these nations have moral license for unilateral interevention outside of international law, then no nation is safe.
I understand Courtnay’s position to be: as imperfecrt as the system of international law is, it is one of the only means of protection available to small nations like CARICOM against the powerful. With this, I agree.
Sincerely, Norman
Hi Kala,
Norman has correctly stated my position under international law.
It is not that I have some sort of Utopian ideal about the law ( heavens forbid – I just reflect on the amount of crooked Judges I have appeared before over my 30 year career. Not saying all Judges are crooked, nor am I implying that the law does not serve a valid, necessary and important role in human societies).
The observations that I make are these:-
1. These professed concerns coming from the West about their deep regard for human rights is oh so hypocritical. Well I recall reading about what the CIA did in destroying fledgling democracy in Iran, so that the Anglo-American oil interests could retain control and resist nationalization of Iranian oil. Now, having set the stage for the corrupt and barbarous Shah of Iran to remain in power until the revolution ““ the same group of bandits again want to undermine the Iranian government to do what? ““ have a handle on Iranian oil and dominate the Middle East with no strong regionally based nation present? Or ““ the West just wants to assist in saving the people from their government by installing a democracy that they destroyed in 1953?
2. The humanitarian ploy, like the professed concern for democracy is a quite attractive narrative, yet in Libya I still await:-
i) The pictures of the stacked bodies of people massacred by Ghadaffi”™s forces; the videos of the military excesses of the government in trying to preserve law, order and peace within Libya; the military attack on only civilians. Truth be told, from a distance, for each of those points of reference, it seems to me so far that NATO/US involvement has done a better job of killing civilians than Ghadaffi”™s forces allegedly has. Surely, if the proof of these atrocities from the Libyan forces existed, the Western media would be full of pictures and credibly verified news items of precisely how many such attacks had taken place and what estimated numbers of slaughtered civilians there are. No ““ I definitely do not support this type of Orwellian political gamesmanship of these types of ” peace” and ” humanitarian” global adventures. There is a significant lack of credibility and illegality in what has been done. For goodness sakes, under the US Constitution it is the Congress that has the lawful power to declare war ““ not the President. What did Obama do? He set the train in motion to start the war in Libya via the UN and then has yet to have the matter credibly addressed by Congress. I am suggesting that the illegality is not only of breaches under international law in overstepping the strictures of Resolution 1973, but there is an identifiable breach of US domestic law. Surely ““ one cannot suggest that as a brilliant Constitutional scholar President Obama was not aware of the rights and wrongs of what he was doing and has done.
ii) You would have to be naïve in the extreme not to discern the thinly disguised Western advance of its interests under some form of palatable pretext ““ call it ” humanitarian” interventionist concerns.
Footnote: Of course, a case can be made for genuine humanitarian intervention in conformity with international law. My points are that what has transpired in Libya is a transparent effort of a type of intervention that is directed at breaching Libyan independence and sovereignty ““ and ““ if a case is to be made for humanitarian interventions it must be made within the ambit of international law and under the strictures of genuine multilateralism ( not this type of self-serving illegal multilateralism overstepping the confines of Resolution 1973 – now unleashed on Libya).
iii) In the UK Independent there is a news item of a wilileaks disclosure about the oil interests backing the invasion of Libya.
NOW ““ TELL ME ABOUT ” HUMANITARIAN INTERVERNTIONS”. NEITHER NATO NOR THE US HAVE THE MORAL BASIS TO CONDUCT SUCH INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS. THE CIA ASSISTED THUGS TO REMOVE THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED ARISTIDE ““ THEN THE US HAND PICKS WHO IT WANTS IN POWER AND SOMEHOW MANIPULATES EDICTS TO EXCLUDE ARITSTIE AND ANY OTHER GENUINELY POPULAR LEADER. PLEASE ““ DID SOMEONE ASK ME ABOUT ” ASSISTED DEMOCRACY” ““ HATIAN STYLE YOU MEAN?”“ OR ““ SOME OTHER CREDIBLE VERSION?
Correction: The oil link I mentioned was not to Libya ““ but the one in Iraq, published in the Independent (19th April, 2011) under the heading:-
” Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq”
By Paul Bignell
The article contains this statement:-
” The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.
The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK’s involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as “highly inaccurate”. BP denied that it had any “strategic interest” in Iraq, while Tony Blair described “the oil conspiracy theory” as “the most absurd”.
But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.”
And it goes on:-
” The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP’s behalf because the oil giant feared it was being “locked out” of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.”
Déjà vu ““ Libya? I would wager hard earned cash that it is just a matter of time before there is much the same expose of what is driving this Libyan war.
See here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html
Kala ““ it is for quite honest and pragmatic reasons such as these that I cannot give a thumbs up to your ” humanitarian interventionist” and ” assisted democracy” lines of reasoning.
I JUST RECEIVED THIS OUT OF BARBADOS – AND I BELIEVE IT VERY TIMELY AND PERTINENT TO THE DEBATE WE HAVE HERE BEEN CONDUCTING:-
Clement Payne Centre
Crumpton Street
Bridgetown
BARBADOS
PRESS RELEASE
TIME FOR A “SPECIAL SESSION” OF
THE U.N . GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The governments of Britain, France and the United States of America are in the process of committing a terrible crime against the nation and people of Libya, and they are doing it in the names of all of us – the citizens of all the countries that are members of the United Nations (UN)!
The latest and most compelling evidence of this crime emerged last Thursday, when President Barack Obama , Prime Minister David Cameron and President Nicholas Sarkhozy issued a joint public statement in which they declared – boldly and unequivocally – that they were determined to continue their military assault on Libya until they drove the governmental regime headed by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi out of power, and seemingly, out of Libya as well.
And, of course , they purported to be carrying out this objective as members of the United Nations Security Council , and under a mandate conferred by the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) , adopted on 17th March 2011.
Now, the first point that needs to be made is that the said U N Security Council Resolution 1973(2011) never authorised a military attack on Libya for the purpose removing the government of Libya!
The relevant portions of the Resolution read as follows:-
” The Security Council ,
4. Authorizes Member States …to take all necessary measures ….to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory ….;
6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;
8. Authorizes Member States.. …to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6…”
Thus , the joint UK, British and French military operation to drive the Gaddafi-led regime from power and out of Libya is in contravention of both Security Council Resolution 1973 and the Charter of the United Nations, which states in Article 2 that ” all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State…” The US , Britain and France are therefore committing a fundamental breach of international law!
But what should cause us even more concern is that they are committing this fundamental breach in OUR names!
And we say this , because Article 24 of the United Nations Charter stipulates that the member nations of the UN “confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security,”and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf”.
It is now therefore incumbent upon the nations and citizens of the world who do not support this egregious perversion of the name and authority of the United Nations Security Council to take active measures to halt and rectify this unlawful abuse.
The first step that the governments of the moral majority of nations must take is to officially request Mr Ban-ki-Moon, the Secretary-General of the UN, to convoke a “Special Session” of the UN General Assembly for the purpose of discussing the specific threat to international peace and security created by the US, France and Britain engaging in a military assault on the nation of Libya, outside of the parameters – and indeed in violation- of Security Council Resolution 1973.
( Of course, Article 20 of the UN Charter establishes that “Special Sessions” of the General Assembly shall be convoked at the request of a majority of the member nations, while Article 11 authorises the General Assembly to discuss any question relating to the maintenance of international peace and secutity, and to make recommendations to the States concerned or to the Security Council.)
And we stress that the purpose of the Special Session of the General Assembly must not be to discuss the general situation in Libya , but rather to discuss “the specific threat to international peace and security created by the US, Britain and France engaging in a military assault on Libya OUTSIDE of the parameters of the Security Council Resolution 1973″
By correctly and lawfully framing the issue in this manner we would avoid any conflict with Article 12 of the UN Charter which stipulates that -” while the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests”
And so we appeal to the governments of the Caribbean, Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe to recognise the power that their numerical strength gives them in the international arena, and to use that strength in numbers to put the United Nations into motion, so that the authority and power of the General Assembly of the UN can be used to rein in the unlawful actions of these three rogue states.
The time for action is NOW! For God”™s sake, do not delay any longer!
David A Comissiong
President
Webmaster’s note: this document was posted earlier on this website.
Norman and Courtney, thanks for the passionate and well-argued responses – most of which I heartily agree with. Thanks also to Mr Commissiong who seems to be one of the Caribbean’s few politicians who comes across as sane, timely and rational in taking principled stands on the contentious issues of the day including within his home country.
I have to disappoint you both, though, but I tend to get that devil’s advocate feeling usually whenever the arguments are precisely so compelling. I always think, if it”™s so outrageous in this case (we refer here to Libya) and historically globally, then the logic should be able to extend right across the board. It does to a great extent. And yet, it doesn”™t always. I think of those peoples on the streets of Cairo, Tunis, Amman, Rabat, Sanaa, Manama, Algiers and even the handful who managed to show themselves in Jeddah and other Saudi cities. Now the CIA and the State Department would have to be really working overtime to convince all these people that regime change is a rather good idea. My point is that while in Libya we all spotted early on that the Western urgency for resolution was keen and blatant ““ the importance of Libyan oil ““ the actions of those ordinary people in the “˜oil-less”™ states also need to be explained/rationalized. If Western greed and oil futures are not the issue, then what is it that brings these people out to risk their lives? What force motivated/motivates them?
I”™ve said before on another blog that in this Arab “˜spring”™, I rather feel sorry for those poor souls who happen to belong to dictatorships that are traditionally part of the “˜coalition of the willing”™: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. We can all be pretty sure that there will be no UN resolutions and no UN no-fly zones for them: in spite of the fact that they are also similar aspirants for democratic change, as some of those in Libya no doubt are.
I am also reminded and think of the motivations of the long-suffering Tibetan people. Why has the global rage at China dissipated and why does it now take the odd, occasional missive or two from famous Buddhists: like Richard Gere and the aging Dalai Lama himself -to remind us that genocide has been carried out on the people of Tibet since the late 50s and still continues today. Where”™s the sustained global outrage? Where are the UN resolutions and “˜no-fly zones”™? Is it because China, sitting on the SC and famously intolerant of criticism ““ has us in the West totally compromised also because of its global economic dominance? After all, where would we get our cheap consumerables from? What would happen if the Chinese called time on their considerable debts owed by the US? How come the Chinese get away with doing ““ to use a West Indian colloquialism ““ “˜what they damn well please”™ in Tibet and there”™s not much coverage or critique or, indeed, action?
Ditto Burma, a place where 30 UN Resolutions have been passed ““ none binding, but the country remains pretty much effectively a forced labour camp for the military and its cronies ““ assured at the international level of powerful Chinese protection whenever touchy issues like adherence to existing Resolutions and human rights are raised. So many of our developing countries large and small are also so compromised by Chinese largesse: that of the “˜just do what we want, no questions asked”™ variety: the silence is deafening. On a Burmese website, they even list the long litany of failed attempts to get adherence on UN resolutions and as the world-weary Burmese commentator notes: ” The people of Burma are not excited after listening to the news from the UN. They realise very well what the UN is, and what the military rulers in Burma are all about. As long as the junta is in power, the UN has to go through its “˜rituals”™ (Mizzima website, 23/11/09).My point I suppose is who and what”™s involved and who”™s doing the outrage and what are the criteria for manufacturing it?
At a personal level, I can see clearly at the double standards that operate both ways and I would be the first to admit that I have contradictory feelings and act very contradictorily indeed about these things. For example, I share your outrage at the hypocrisy and blatant violation of the letter of the UN resolutions on Libya, and yet I have absolutely no problems with a deposed Gadaffi if it were to happen tomorrow. Equally, like many Americans and Europeans, me and my family in the Caribbean consume a lot of Chinese-origin goods: yet I feel outrage at Tibet and Burma ““what am I doing about it? Not much. Equally, I have family in the US like most West Indians. Yet I am quite often shocked as a West Indian by the US”™s hegemonistic policies. Likewise, I see some of our West Indian politicians fulminating, grandstanding, even oppressing ““sometimes replete with Marxist ideological backup – against the US/the West, and then it turns out all of their families ““ like some of mine – are happily and comfortably ensconced in the States while they themselves have multiple indefinite visas. Should we be bothered by this at an individual/societal level, or should we just conveniently ignore it because it compromises us? I”™m not sure I have the answers, but I do like to ask the questions even though it might shore up my own imperfections.
So while I agree with about 90-ish percent of what you are saying specifically in relation to Libya, , I still feel generally that we should not totally dismiss genuine reasons for aspirations to ‘Western’ notions of democracy ““ no matter how small in places even where that hypocrisy by the West is crystal clear, like Libya: its largely oil, yes, but perhaps some disaffection that the largesse didn”™t spread to the oil regions of the east, much like the oil-rich Ogoni delta dwellers-turned-militants in Nigeria.
We therefore should not discount – and advocate for – ‘humanitarian interventionism’ in international affairs where there are morally-compelling reasons to do so. Read yesterday”™s BBC Africa website and hear what the Ivoirien reggae star Alpha Blondy has to say about the role of the intervention in preventing genocide in his country. In a similar vein, I recall some years ago Peter Penfold, the former British High Commissioner being welcomed as a hero by huge crowds in Freetown ““ an odd sight indeed – because local people recognised that he was instrumental in getting the world”™s attention focussed on Sierra Leone and its ultimate resolution by British-led force. Rwanda was not good, but more for the fact of lack of action that caused the genocide. It”™s not all roses these issues, there are lots of thorns too: I just like to think that these things are sometimes more multi-faceted that we like to admit: inconvenient truths if you like, and no-one is immune ““ whatever the ideology or the economic motivations that backs up these powerful and mighty actors.
Dear Norman:
I associate myself strongly with the call by David Commissiong for the convening of a special general meeting of the UN to bring pressure against the governments of Britain, France, and the United States for their interferance in Libya under the guise of the Security Council recent order.
Guidance,
Margaret Kawamuinyo
Kala,
I do not have a difficulty with anyone honestly pointing out the ironies and/or contradictions of human existence in general and political actions in particular. However, is that really the point?
Let me cut to the chase and offer you 3 choices Kala:-
1. The West backs the rebels that they are funding and oust Ghadaffi and install a puppet regime that dances to their tune ““ with the promise as in Iraq that Democracy and propsertiy are being brought to Libya post-Ghadaffi; or
2. The Libyans be left to sort out their own differences, without foreign invervention ( i.e. the point here is that if it were that there is a huge united front against Gahdaffi, then he would have to go, because it would simply follow that since soldiers are also citizens and human, their feelings would constitute a significant part of the disaffected – if that were the true case – and the regime would be toppled) ; or
3. The invitation of the Libyan government to have credible and independent international bodies enter Libya and report on any past or present attacks on civilians or atrocities committed by the Libyan government and a cease fire be simultaneously implemented to avoid more loss of human life.
Option 1 it seems to me holds no promise for a better future for the Libyan people.
Option 2 may invite some reforms with Ghaffafi continuing to hold power even if there is some delegation.
Option 3 is a credible step towards a cease fire in circumstances where either the truth of massacres will emerge ““ or ““ like the Iraq WMD ruse the truth in favour of the Libyan government will emerge.
Now – in an honest and peace loving world ( since neither the UN nor any of the Western powers profess that they are seeking, or are lawfully entitled to effect, regime change) – there would be only options 2 or 3 left.
But ““ you tell us Kala ““ what option do you propose for Libya? More war with the CIA and US, France and Britain continuing to destabilise ““ or ““ a resumption to peace and prosperity for the Libyan people. Please ““ tell us.
My point can be made by reference to the facts such as the IMF”™s report ( below) on Libya; the welfare of the Libyan people relative to the rest of the African continent and the Arabian region and the assistance that Ghadaffi has given to sub-Saharan Africa. But let”™s leave the floor for some other voices to speak their truths as they see it:-
http://www.afronline.org/?p=14929
Libya: Basic Economic and Financial Indicators, 2004-07
2004 2005 2006 2007Prel
(Annual percent changes, unless otherwise indicated)
National income and prices
Real GDP 6.0 9.9 5.9 6.8
Non hydrocarbons 6.8 13.6 7.9 10.3
Hydrocarbon 5.5 7.2 4.3 3.9
Gross Investment / GDP (at market prices) % 29.4 24.6 22.4 20.1
CPI inflation 1.0 2.9 1.4 6.2
Central government finance (In percent of GDP)
Revenue 53.6 62.9 65.1 61.4
of which : Hydrocarbons 46.4 58.5 60.2 55.2
Nonhydrocarbon 7.2 4.5 4.9 6.2
Expenditure and net lending 39.7 32.1 29.5 35.2
Current 23.5 13.9 13.4 14.2
Capital 16.2 18.2 16.2 21.0
Overall fiscal balance 13.9 30.9 35.5 26.2
Nonhydrocarbon balance (deficit -) -32.5 -27.6 -24.7 -29.0
Monetary indicators (Annual percent changes, unless otherwise specified)
Broad money 13.3 30.6 15.3 40.8
Deposit rates (1 year deposits, in percent) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
External sector (In billions of dollars, unless otherwise specified)
Exports of goods 20.4 31.4 39.2 44.5
of which: Hydrocarbons 19.5 30.5 38.2 43.4
Imports of goods 8.8 11.2 13.1 17.4
Current accounts balance 7.4 17.4 25.2 23.8
In percent of GDP 22.3 38.4 45.8 34.0
Net foreign assets of CBL 25.9 39.3 58.7 78.8
Net international reserves 16.2 23.0 27.9 35.7
(In months of next year’s imports) 14.4 17.4 16.2 15.7
Real effective exchange rate (% change) -8.50 9.11 -3.14 0.40
Source: IMF Article IV Consultation Report
And on to your point about ” contradictions”:-
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/article_7725.shtml
” Libyan investments in Africa and the important contributions Gadhafi made toward the continent’s development are worth noting. He might be the single most important individual in recent history in terms of creating a mechanism for African development. To trash him and his accomplishments and to force African leaders to impose sanctions on Libya, the way the Western powers are doing, with President Obama, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain leading the charge, smells of imperialist designs on the continent.”
And an All Africa .com writer has this to add:-
” It was Gaddafi’s Libya that offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times – connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas.” http://allafrica.com/stories/201104150792.html
But somehow we are to believe that after the lies and slaughter that have destroyed Iraq, we can expect an itoa better this time round in Libya, once the West is in control in yet another illegal invasion for domination of oil supplies led by France, Britain and the US.
Where do you think the riches of Libya will be going once the West has its way with Libya ““ to the Libyan people in greater amounts than under Ghadaffi ““ or ““ to the Western oil companies presently engineering contracts while a central bank for the new puppet regime is being set up. Pray ““ tell ““ what is better for the Libyan people? The ” evil” they know ““ or ““ the foreign devils about to invade and occupy?
Again Kala, I do not support this war of aggression and resource driven violation of the independence of the Libyan people and the attack on the sovereignty of the Libyan state. I do not at this stage know what more I need to advance by way of argument, supported by reason and facts, to say that the route that France the UK and US have taken is not merely illegal, but immoral, unconscionable and in truth a reversion to times not long ago when it was the ” white man”™s burden” and his duty to steal the lands, riches and resources of the entire non-European world.
Plus sa change plus c est la meme chose.
Hi Courtney,
Plus sa change plus c’est la meme chose indeed! Look, I have no problems with most of what you say, Courtney – in fact I am a fully paid up member of the ‘hypocrisy in international affairs’ brigade. However, while no fan of this current western ‘Crusade’, I think – given the man’s history – that its possible -even fair – to have concerns about Gadaffi,be careful about lionising him too much -and not be a CIA/MI6 fan too!
By the way, I can think of so many other great African role models for the continent but Norman will probably cut my submission for being too long! All I’m trying to point out is that the solution to sub-Saharan African problems does not necessarily mean submitting 54 nation states with different socio-political, economic and cultural differences to the whims and fancies of this man – this was actually Ugandan Pres Museveni’s main bone of contention. A recent Wikileaks cable also showed that even Museveni himself feared (confessing to Jendayi Fraser, the US Sec of State for Afr Affairs) that Gadaffi might bomb his plane after his refusal to go along with the President of Africa thing – so much for engendering trust and winning friends/influencing people. It seems like this Kenyan academic agrees too:
It’s a slightly different take on things from an East African perspective on both Museveni (I lived in Kampala for under two years in the late 90s and I’m quite familiar with his politics) and Gadaffi. Museveni is extremely relevant to the saga as he was the one who – while entertaining Libyan investment in Uganda, in 2007 stopped Gadaffi in his tracks in his/Gadaffi’s quest to be anointed ‘King of Kings’ of Africa, and who – more importantly – also quashed/vetoed the whole single state of Africa idea and who – while liking Gadaffi’s help in African countries, did not feel comfortable with his motives, especially with his buying off of the poorer West African states like Guinea.
Taken from the Nairobi Star today (21/4/11):
Dr Carey F. Onyango argues here that the Ugandan president”™ argument about the north African country and its leader in an article last week was unconvincing to say the least.
“President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda has written a rather curious article, appearing in the Daily Nation in two parts on Tuesday March 22 and Wednesday March 23, on the Libyan situation that unsurprisingly seems rather apologetic to the fate of his erstwhile comrade, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
The Myth Of Narcissus And Nemesis: The Kenyan historian Bethwell Ogot probably summed up everything about Museveni in a paper titled the “Museveni, the Ugandan Narcissus”. Narcissus was a hunter who was renowned for his beauty. Nemesis saw this and attracted Narcissus to a pool where he saw his own reflection in the waters and fell in love with it. Not realizing it was merely an image and unable to leave the beauty of his reflection, Narcissus died.
Leaders like Gaddafi and Museveni are like Narcissus, they think that they are so good to the point of being God’ s very gifts to human kind, and that explains why they think they should be in power for so long. Their excessive personal regard for their selves has led them to think they are actually indispensable.
The fate that befell Narcissus is exactly the one that has befallen Gaddafi. In 1969 he came, he saw, and he conquered Libya. He led the overthrow of King Idriss and pretending to be a follower of Jamal Abdel Nasser but not actually wanting to leave the scene, he virtually turned Libya into his fiefdom.
Like Narcissus who could not budge after falling in love with his image in the water, Gaddafi seems to believe that he is Libya and that Libya is Muammar. How then can someone in their right senses be asking for diplomacy as the first option in solutions to a problem where an apparently delusional Gaddafi has trained his weapons on Libyans?
Museveni and Gaddafi, comparisons and contrasts: It is not a surprise that Museveni has omitted from his grand chronicle of Gaddafi’s mistakes the latter’s oppression of his own people. The same Museveni criticizes Gaddafi for either ignoring or supporting the suffering of the people of Southern Sudan but cannot criticise Gaddafi for repressing Libyans.This omission is deliberate because Museveni himself, though not as repressive as Gaddafi, Idi-Amin, or even Obote, does not have a very good human rights record.
Let us give credit to Museveni where it is due, he helped to bring back Uganda from disaster, and indeed he is a popular figure in that county and around East Africa. The National Resistance Movement came to power promising to restore security and respect for human rights.
Indeed, this was part of the NRM’s ten-point programme,as Museveni noted in his swearing-in speech.
The National Resistance Army initially earned a reputation for respecting the rights of civilians but undisciplined elements within the NRA soon tarnished a hard-won reputation for fairness.
Yet Museveni’ s otherwise good record in the overall resuscitation of Uganda has been marred by heavy handed treatment, especially in recent years, especially of political opponents like his one time ally Col Kizza Besigye who had to endured a horrendous ordeal behind bars on trumped up charges of treason. International observers have returned rather negative verdicts on the presidential elections of 2006 and 2011 that Museveni is said to have won. The Nation article does seem to indicate that Museveni is perhaps anticipating trouble in Uganda that could force western countries to be even harder on him.
Museveni and Gaddafi are no doubt quite different but they are remarkably similar in some ways. First, both of them came to power through the barrel of the gun. Second, Gaddafi aggrandized Libya almost into a family estate. His sons controlled almost everything. Saif al-Islam was in the political and economic sectors. Saadi ran the Libyan Football Federation, Al-Muatassim is an intelligence adviser to his father, Khamis leads the elite Khamis brigade that has spearheaded the counterattack against the insurrection, and Abdullah Senussi [married to the sister of Gaddafi's wife] is an intelligence chief.
Museveni has definitely not gone to those lengths, but a similar tendency for personal rule has seen members of his family occupying very influential public positions in Uganda. The exploits of his wife Janet Kataaha Museveni are well known.
Museveni’ s son Muhoozi Kainerugaba is a lieutenant colonel in the Ugandan army and commander of the special forces group known as the “Presidential Guard Brigade” responsible for providing security to Museveni himself, Uganda’s constitutional monarchs, and oil installations.
Museveni’s brother, General Salim Saleh, has been his adviser on military matters, and is a former minister for defence and microfinance. Before that, he was a high-ranking military official in the armed forces. He has featured in controversies regarding corruption, including being implicated by the UN Security Council for plundering natural resources in the DRC.
While Gaddafi has turned Libya into a virtual monarchy by ruling for 41 years, Museveni has been in power now for 25 years, even much longer than Daniel Arap Moi. He even had the Uganda Constitution changed to remove term limits.
Museveni As Ultimate Beneficiary Of Tanzanian And Rwandese Interventions In Uganda: It is like Saul becoming Paul on way to Damascus when Museveni says “I am totally allergic to foreign, political, and military involvement in sovereign countries, especially the African countries”. It is good when one sees the light, and one would agree with Museveni if we are against rather unilateral and misguided interventions like the George W. Bush and Tony Blair led one of 2003 in Iraq. Just like Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and threat to Iraqis and neighbours alike, but the invasion was very ill advised.
However, when it comes to foreign political and military involvement in Africa, Museveni seems second only to Gaddafi. First, Museveni claims to be allergic to foreign intervention and chastises Gaddafi, correctly in this instance, for backing Idi Amin in
1972 and 1979 but Museveni himself was the ultimate beneficiary of the Tanzania led invasion of 1979 that overthrew the self-proclaimed field marshal. Was the Tanzania intervention then not justified? Would Museveni have then urged Mwalimu Nyerere to institute dialogue with Idi-Amin?
Foreign help or even intervention was instrumental in many ways in getting Museveni to where he is today. In Uganda, there were significant numbers of ethnic Rwandan Tutsi immigrants who comprised a significant numbers of the Museveni led NRA.
Museveni and The Rwandan Patriotic Front: Having profited immensely from Rwandese assistance, actually a foreign intervention in Ugandan affairs, and once he had solidified his hold on central power, Museveni himself embarked on foreign intervention by lending support to their cause.
Unsuccessful attacks were launched by the RPF against the then tyrannical Rwandan government of Juvenal Habyarimana in the early 1990s from bases in southwest Uganda. It was not until the Rwandan genocide of 1994 that the RPF took power and its head, Paul Kagame [a former soldier in Museveni's army], became president.
The Rwandan Genocide Of 1994: One of things that still very much haunts the world, and in particular Kofi Annan who was then Deputy UN Secretary-General, is the failure to intercede in Rwanda in 1994. In his article he speaks about “the intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda as action by independent minded African leaders”. This is why the “no-foreign intervention and interference ” mantra that Museveni is mouthing, and which should belong to the defunct OAU rather than a forward looking AU, seems so out of place.
Dialogue has a place. But how do you dialogue with genocidaires or a delusional leader like Gaddafi who is bent on continuing to massacre his own people? How in the face of all this history can Museveni then dare to say that “when rioters are, however attacking Police stations and Army barracks with the aim of taking power, then they are no longer demonstrators; they are insurrectionists. A responsible government will have to use reasonable force to neutralize them”.
Is he implying that Gaddafi has justification for his actions? Is he implying that the rump of Gaddafi’ s regime is at this time a responsible government or even that it is using reasonable force when it attacks civilians with fighter jets and helicopter gunships? Museveni’s pandering to the police and army is understandable if one looks at tendencies of the continued militarization of the Uganda state 25 years after the NRM came to power.
The First Ugandan And Rwandese Intervention In The Congo: Following the Rwandan Genocide, the new Rwandan government felt threatened by the presence across the Rwandan border in Congo of former Rwandan soldiers and members of the previous regime. These soldiers were backed by the tyrannical regime of Mobutu Sese Seko, so Rwanda, with the aid of Museveni, and Laurent Kabila’ s rebels overthrew him to take power in Congo in the “First Congo War”.
In his article Museveni extols the overthrow of Mobutu as an action by “independent minded leaders”. Here was perhaps a positive foreign intervention on the part of Museveni.
His coalition pointedly ignored, and perhaps rightly so, the ultimately ill-fated efforts to dialogue with Mobutu under the Chairmanship of the then Kenyan president Daniel arap Moi. This is the same Museveni now calling for dialogue in Libya and for Libyans to be left to sort out their own problems by themselves. Why did he then not agree with Moi that the Rwandese and Congolese should be left alone to sort out their own problems through dialogue?
Uganda, Rwanda, And The Second Congo War: If Museveni has really become allergic to foreign intervention, and especially of the likes of the ill advised “Second Congo War” then he may be justified. In August 1998, Rwanda and Uganda undertook to invade Congo again. Museveni and a few close military advisers alone made the decision to send the Ugandan army into Congo. The Ugandan parliament and civilian advisers were not consulted over the matter, as is required by the 1995 constitution but Museveni apparently persuaded an initially reluctant army high command to go along with the venture.
Uganda burnt its fingers in that venture, when in December 2005, the International Court of Justice ruled that Uganda must pay compensation to the DRC for human rights violations during the Second Congo War. Ironically this is the result of the deeds of man who in his article has gone out on a limb to decry what he calls external meddling. So perhaps he now literally knows the cost of foreign interventions, especially unilateral ones.
Uganda and the AmiSom intervention: Museveni appears to be extremely short sighted. If he is so opposed to foreign intervention in Africa, then why can’t he withdraw Ugandan forces which actually provide the bulk of the African Union Mission in Somalia [AmiSom]?
This initiative is not too markedly different from the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 approving intervention in Libya. AMISOM is an active, regional peacekeeping mission operated by the African Union with the approval of the UN Security Council.
Museveni should stop his hypocrisy. Why have we not heard him saying that the Somalis should be let alone to solve their own problems or even that the transitional government should dialogue with Al-Shabaab who, by the way, is suspected of being behind the Kampala bombing in July 2010?
France, UK and US Strategic and other interests in the Libyan intervention: Of course there are things about the Libyan intervention that we cannot close our eyes to. Even in the US and UK there seems to be substantive opposition to the move. In the US that is more understandably so because of Afghanistan and Iraq, among other issues.
No doubt strategic European interests are also very much at the forefront here. “What Sarkozy saw was that Gaddafi has leverage that could make him horribly troublesome for everyone – energy, immigration, terrorism,” one commentator said. “And these would be directed at the Europeans, not the Americans.”
On the distinction between self-interest and selfisness: But do all these European and US strategic and even personal interests denigrate the humanitarian argument for the intervention? The answer is a definite no. As a matter of fact since human beings are perhaps always inclined to act in self-interest they are likely to better accomplish a task in which they have self-interest. This is important because self-interest is not the same thing as and must never be confused with selfishness.
Gaddafi is acting selfishly but the same does not necessarily seem to apply to Sarkozy, David Cameron, or even Obama. Someone who is acting selfishly often ignores not only other people’ s interests but even their own welfare for in the course of that they fail to even cognize what their own best interests are, which does not easily happen when one is acting in self-interest.
The case of Bahrain and other Arab states: Museveni may be on firmer ground when he accuses western countries of double standards in regard to Bahrain where the ruling Al-Khalifa family has used the military, backed by forces from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
The atrocities being committed by these forces are different from Libyan only in terms of degree. Yet there is a deafening silence from the West here, one can actually hear a pin drop.
One must admire the courage of Arabs from Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain who are defying immense odds in challenging autocratic regimes that have for years had massive backing from western countries. It is very hypocritical for western countries at this eleventh hour to want to cast themselves as champions of democracy in the Arab world and in the Middle East. The US voices support for pro-democracy forces in Iran yet it says completely nothing about Saudi Arabia, the very country that gave us Al-Qaeda and almost all of the attackers of the September 11th 2001.
However, those rebelling against the tyrants should not shy away from accepting any western help that may come their way”.
I believe that Courtenay has set out the options fairly and reasonably and like him I support Option 3 “Accept the The invitation of the Libyan government to have credible and independent international bodies enter Libya and report on any past or present attacks on civilians or atrocities committed by the Libyan government and a cease fire be simultaneously implemented to avoid more loss of human life.” This could be amplified to include (i) investigations into alleged atrocities committed by the rebel forces against Black Africans and other presumed supporters of the Libyan government in rebel-held territory and (b) support for the proposals by the AU and others including Brazil for a mediated/negotiated solution to the conflict. These proposals, which were positively received by the Libyan government, have been summarily dismissed by the Western countries and rejected by the rebel organisations.
It seems to me that the Western actions in providing military support and other forms of encouragement to the rebels (sending of military ‘advisers’, provision of non-lethal aid, talk of ‘EU boots on the ground’ etc.) actually have the effect of prolonging the conflict and causing unnecessary loss of life by encouraging the rebels to hold out in the hope/expectation that the Western nations will eventually deepen their involvement into an all-out military assault to overthrow the Libyan government. This is a dangerous and cynical game since it has the effect of making the lives of the Libyan people from both sides of the conflict pawns in a larger game in which the hoped-for prized is a govenment in Libya that is compliant with Western interests. It has nothing to do with humanitarianism and protecting civilian lives. And as Cary Fraser points out in his analysis, the assumpton that war can effectively trump diplomacy, that underlies the U.S. ( and by extension the NATO) action has been disproven time and time again by history.
CARICOM countries are affected by all this for reasons of principle and precedence as well as of economics. As has already been pointed out, extra-legal action by powerful nations against weaker nations on questionable grounds threatens the independence and security of all. Furhermore several O.E.C.S. countries have received Libyan investments or commitments of financial aid; whichare now in jeopardy because of the uncertainty over the outcome of the conflict and the future of the Libyan government. The governments concerned are also under pressure to explain their position on Libya from some Opposition polticians who appear to have bought uncritically into the Western narrative (see “Libyan investments under threat” ).
In these circumstances my view is that CARICOM’s interests are best served by adopting a common position along the lines of Courtenay’s Option 3 as I have amplified it, and by aligning its diplomatic efforts with those of the AU and those Latin American nations which seek a cease-fire, independent verification of the claims on both sides and a mediated/negotiated resolution of the conflict.
Norman
REPLY TO KALA ( ALWAYS A PLEASURE)
Kala,
My position is that I endorse Norman”™s expansion of the option 3 I had proposed.
I am trying to understand why ( from your perspective) the proposal I made would not comport with finding the best solution to the question you posed:-
” Dialogue has a place. But how do you dialogue with genocidaires or a delusional leader like Gaddafi who is bent on continuing to massacre his own people?”
Option 3 answers your question and does so with no bloodshed. The continued bombardment of Tripoli in particular and Libya in general by the Western powers will only wreak havoc, death and destruction on Libya and the Libyan people. How does a Western instigated and funded civil war solve anything?
The odd position that the West has placed itself in is that it is in effect advancing a pre-massacre destabilisation campaign, based on the assumptions as follows:-
i) That it is legally empowered to go beyond the bounds of Resolution 1973 for some professed ” humanitarian” reason of bombing the Libyans in the best interest of the Libyan people.
ii) That Western actions this time round, can somehow be validated as genuine and warranted, despite its quite bloody history of illegalities globally. If the CIA toppling of Mossadeque in Iran and the debacle of presently occupied Iraq are not to serve as adequate indicators of true intent as to regime change and the control of oil interests, are we ( supposedly as intelligent people) somehow then to accept with an ahistorical analysis the distinctiveness of this Western led military campaign, distinguishing itself from all the others ““ then conclude that the West has finally been converted from being self-serving invaders to being the blessed saviours bringing ” humanitarian” and ” democratic” salvation to the Libyan people?
iii) We have people en mass ( unarmed) coming out in Egypt – but which government ““ where in the world would the established government not itself take up arms against armed persons in the streets seeking to overthrow the government ““ Kenya? Uganda? America? France? Britain? Jamaica? ““ where? – and ““ where are the youtube videos of the Libyan massacres, the dead bodies, the shooting of ” unarmed” ( my emphasis) civilians by the Libyan army?
Reliance on history as a useful tutor and mentor for the interpretation of political motives and actions is my approach. So, with that in mind I turn to what you have said to try and glean your position:-
” No doubt strategic European interests are also very much at the forefront here. ” What Sarkozy saw was that Gaddafi has leverage that could make him horribly troublesome for everyone – energy, immigration, terrorism,” one commentator said. ” And these would be directed at the Europeans, not the Americans.”
So ““ how do you rationalise that Ghadaffi had made his peace with the West and he was already within the ” Western compound” so to speak, at the time that his country was attacked:-
- EU Commissioner Prodi had embraced Ghadaffi
- And ““ the entire EU had wined and dined Ghadaffi as reported by the BBC:-
” The Libyan leader’s crack team of female bodyguards in striking blue uniforms accompanied his convoy into Brussels, as he made his way to talks and a lunch date with EU dignitaries.”
- Tony Blair had Embraced Ghadaffi
- Sarkozy had accepted Libyan money and won an election and embraced Ghadaffi
- In March 2010, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, Mr. Jeffrey D. Feltman visited Tripoli and actually aplogised for statements made by a spokesperson for the State Department.
So, again, because all of this is so very recent ““ surely I can”™t group these events as true history ““ can I? Just as well for the present position adopted by the very same players seems to me somewhat affected by an acute case of amnesia ““ or ““ maybe it”™s the oil that went to their head. Ah! ““ yes ““ that must be it ““ the oil went to their heads.
Then you say:-
” Gaddafi is acting selfishly but the same does not necessarily seem to apply to Sarkozy, David Cameron, or even Obama. Someone who is acting selfishly often ignores not only other people”™ s interests but even their own welfare for in the course of that they fail to even cognize what their own best interests are, which does not easily happen when one is acting in self-interest.”
And relative to that observation, I must retract, because I was wrong in saying ” the oil went to their heads” ““ it will be going into their barrels for sale all across Europe. So ““ I stand corrected.
Kala ““ it is generally my nature to be respectful. This is deeply ingrained in me because in addressing trial judges, and moreso appeal court judges I must be mindful about how my words affect them, and how I argue my case to make my points and influence at the same time if I want to do the best. I shall therefore revert to my normal form.
Sarkozy, David Cameron, or even Obama are all acting out of the self-interest of their respective countries and in the best interest of the Western oil companies that will be controlling and profiting from the oil sales once they get Ghadaffi out the way and put a puppet regime in place. Can”™t you see the moves right before your very eyes Kala?
You say in effect that Ghadaffi is buying influence with Libyan oil money, so tell me:-
- Does USAID money not buy influence with US aid?
- Does the IMF money not actually influence the direction that countries go with considerations for US markets and “˜ buy”™ economic direction with the promise of better to come?
- Does the World Bank not buy influence with money ““ just read ” Confessions of an economic hitman” by John Perkins ““ then you decide.
- Does French or British aid money not serve a political purpose when it is given to buy influence?
Ah! but when we get to Libya and its use of its resources to influence ““ there is something unique there when it comes to how states act in their own interests? If the Africans got some benefits out of Libyan aid money ““ so what ““ does that not assist them more than it harms?
You are evidently focused on a rationale for regime change. Help me on this – Saudi Arabia. Can you cite a more barbaric, despotic, backward, gender discriminatory, dictatorial and rapacious regime in the Middle East? They still engage in female genital mutilation, the chopping off of hands and heads as a form of judicial punishment. Can you help me and guide me as to why the US is not active in ensuring that the House of Saud is quickly toppled? Ah! It must be oil. Can you now help me as to why there is this great urgency, by stark contrast with Saudi Arabia, to topple a man who has brought more benefits to his country, by reference to the CIA factbook and credible data available from Western sources, than any other country in the Arabian or African world? What is your argument to validate the embracing of Saudia by the US and the West while bombing Libya? Ah! Maybe it”™s the oil and who controls it.
” Lionise” is not a nice word in our debate ““ just got to the statistics and data and place the debate there.
Maybe Kala ““ you are able to explain the volte-face of the US and by the Europeans, but not in the terms you have argued. I am suggesting to you that indeed they have acted in self-interest and the hope is that they can quickly oust Ghadaffi and have control of the Libyan oil with the likes of BP playing a central role.
Surely Kala ““ you can see this ““ can”™t you?
P.S. I remain appreciative for the education you gave me on the internal East African politics.
All said and done ““ you sound like a genuine and passionate person who truly believes what you
write ““ save and except there are other views – and I respect yours.
Hi Norman/Courtenay,
It looks like we are having a resolution to our own conflict here – and we can all agree that it has been a spirited debate. I would also be inclined to agree with your summation above and the ideas in Courtenay’s Option 3. Can you use your undoubted intellectual gravitas within the Caricom foreign policy network to find out what they are up to?
I could not resist – finally – asking if you could share the following blog by a Nigerian IR academic at Princeton who focusses on precisely the issues I’m concerned with regarding the motives behind Gadaffi’s Dollar diplomacy approach to Sub-Saharan Africa.
The maaking of informed decisions on issues/conflicts such as this – given as you and Courtenay pointed out its direct and indirect impact on our small states in the region is predicated on having as much of the facts at our command as possible – from all sides. It is then and only then – when these different views are analysed and digested – no matter how diametrically opposed – that more rational, nuanced, informed and feasible solutions can be found.
This blog – though discussing Farrakhan and Gadaffi – sums up the concerns I (and many others) have and – in the context of the discussions we have had – balances deep concerns and strong views about the plight of developing nations, power politics and international law that Courtenay and yourself have so eloquently argued, WITH the politico/historical context of recent Libyan overtures towards Black Africa – not quite so eloquently – but I hope reasonably convincingly – by myself and the African bloggers I highlighted. Thanks again for your space on this blog!
Kala
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Why Louis Farrakhan is Wrong on Muammar Gaddafi: Between Self-interest and Human Dignity
By Wilson Idahosa Aiwuyor
Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, a black nationalism Islamic sect, has spoken in defense of Libya’s leader Muammar Gaddafi, insisting that the brutal dictator remains his good friend from whom he cannot distance himself. Farrakhan defended this position at the 6th annual Veterans of the Mississippi Civil Rights Conference on Friday. He had earlier declared last Sunday in Chicago that there is no “one ruler that has the 100 love of his people…. You can’t find one.” The controversial religious leader showered encomiums on Gaddafi for being a strong parent of post-colonial Libya.
At a time when Gaddafi’s atrocities in Africa and around the world have come to a head with his butchering of his own people who were protesting his 42 years old repressive regime, the last thing that anyone with sound judgment would do is defend him. Gaddafi employed mercenaries from outside the Libya to unleash terror on peaceful protesters. After deploying his military to kill these protesters, some of his military officers defected. Gaddafi promised to “fight until last drop of blood is spilled.” He threatened to go “from house to house, closet to closet” to kill the demonstrators whom he referred to as “rats” and “germs.” These threats were not to be taken lightly given Gaddafi’s track record of sponsoring terrorism and aiding conflicts.
In 2001, Gaddafi admitted to have sponsored the bombing of the Pan Am 103 flight that had exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland in 1988, killing 270 people on board, including 35 Syracuse University students returning from a semester abroad. As an Alumnus of Syracuse University and former Remembrance Scholar – in honor of the memories of the university’s victims of Gaddafi’s terrorism – I feel a deep connection to the transnational impacts of Gaddafi’s crimes. And as an African, I am deeply appalled that anyone would positively connect Gaddafi with civil rights, anti-colonialism or liberation at this moment.
Both the organizers of the Mississippi Civil Rights Conference and Louis Farrakhan must be repudiated for such an attempt to diminish the essence of civil rights, trivialize the historic struggle in the Pan African world, and ridicule the fight for human dignity in general.
Over the years, the rabid hatred that the Gaddafi regime has displayed towards black people is as bad as that which Farrakhan claims to be opposed to. In 2000, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) condemned the Gaddafi regime over its practices of racial discrimination against dark-skinned migrants and refugees. This was after the targeted street killings of migrant workers from Ghana, Cameroon, Sudan, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad and Nigeria as a result of incitement from government officials who had blamed these immigrants for rising crime, disease and drug trafficking.
In 2004 the UN accused the Gaddafi regime of violating Article 6 of the 1969 International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), following the regime’s failure to implement mechanisms to safeguard people from racial acts that undermine human rights.
In what looks like an attempt to exploit the xenophobia against immigrants and black Africans in parts of Europe, in 2010 Gaddafi made some of the most backward and racist remarks about black people during his visit to Rome. He proposed that the European Union paid him $6.3 billion so that he could prevent what he called a “black Europe” by blocking illegal immigrants from crossing over from north Africa into Europe. Gaddafi said, “Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European and even black as there are millions who want to come in.” Gaddafi disdainfully referred to the immigrants as “ignorant and starving Africans.” He stated that their migration to Europe caused a situation where “We don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.”
Following Gaddafi’s speech, a member of the Italian parliament accused him of detaining thousands of African migrants in a “concentration camp” in the desert. Leaders who genuinely care about human dignity and human rights ought to be questioning Gaddafi about this detention camp instead of defending his atrocities.
There is hardly any living African dictator who has contributed more to the destabilization of Africa than Muammar Gaddafi. He supported and armed brutal dictators, including Liberia’s former war lord Charles Taylor and Sierra Leone’s Foday Sankoh. His destabilizing influence has also been felt in Burkina Faso,Chad, Central Africa Republic, Niger, and in East Africa – where he aided murderous despot Idi Amin of Uganda to invade Tanzania in the 1970s.
The threats made by Gaddafi prior too the intervention of coalition forces were could have led to massacre of genocidal proportions. The United Nations responded with the imposition of a no-fly zone to protect Libyan citizens. Some people have opposed the extent of the bombing of Gaddafi’s military by the UN mandated coalition forces enforcing the no-fly zone. However, many of these people opposed to the coalition bombing have clearly distanced themselves from the brutality of the Gaddafi regime. But It seems Farrakhan would go any length to defend the butcher of the Maghreb for self-serving purposes.
According to a New York Times report published in August 1996, Gaddafi made a gift offer of $1 billion to Louis Farrakhan. The United States Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury Department denied Farrakhan permission to receive the money from the Gaddafi government that was then labelled a state sponsor of terror.
Added to the $1 billion was another $250,000 honorarium for an award conferred on Farrakhan by Gaddafi.
It was this same Farrakhan who in the 1990s defended General Sani Abacha of Nigeria, one of the crudest and most cruel dictators and kleptocrats that has ever ruled Nigeria. Farrakhan likened Abacha to Moses, just as he is today elevating Gaddafi to a position of some form of post-colonial messianic patriarch.
The voice of Desmond Tutu of South Africa overwhelms the confusion and cacophony of Farrakhan’s selfish and reckless rhetoric. Tutu condemned Gaddafi’s atrocities, asserting that such leaders be held accountable. Archbishop Tutu is a human rights veteran who fought against apartheid in South Africa. Tutu made these comforting remarks: “The scenes of brutality being meted out with sophisticated weaponry by Libyan security forces against their own civilian population make God weep. With every blow they strike, each human rights abuse they perpetrate, they bring shame on Africa.” If Gaddafi were a responsible leader, says Tutu, “there would be no need for United Nations sanctioned military interventions in Libya. Instead, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has for more than 40 years honed his skills in the art of resource management to win friends and influence people.”
No doubt, Farrakhan is one of those friends who Gaddafi has sought to win over with Libya’s oils money and ridiculous resource management skills. It seems to me that that is why this religious leader would defend Gaddafi regardless of the dictator’s numerous atrocities and crimes against Libyans, Africans, and humanity in general.
……………………………..
Wilson Idahosa Aiwuyor is a researcher. A graduate of International Relations from the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, he is also a Public Policy and International Affairs (PPIA) Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University. He could be reached at aiwudaho@gmail.com.
Kala,
May I add that you are quite an able and informed person, as you have demonstrated in our exchanges.
However, given Norman”™s accomplishments and talents, I remain quite sure that when you do this:-
- Norman
- Courtenay
- Farrakhan .
all lumped together ““ the very nuances you spoke of has done disservice to Norman”™s and Farrakhan”™s undoubted ” intellectual gravitas” as I stand in my own humble small corner ( smile). My real point is that it is not as simple as lumping all three together. There is indeed a point of agreement on the fact that the West is yet again launching another ” oil war”. However, if you read carefully, the perspectives and lines of argument that led each of the above to the conclusions that we have come to, most definitely ““ independently have come to – then it would be a disservice to Norman and Farrakhan to include my line of reasoning so neatly and smoothly as integrated into their conclusions. We do have different skill sets, and the quite telling point is that each wanting ” betterment” has arrived at the same point of conclusion while walking along different paths. Norman with his political/economic perspective; Farrakhan with his passion and concern for the welfare of the Blacks in and out of Africa; and ““ little me with my study of and interest in the law.
Actually, when you turn to the academic”™s point:-
” It was this same Farrakhan who in the 1990s defended General Sani Abacha of Nigeria”¦”
I agree with Mr. Wilson Idahosa Aiwuyor on that point”“ and ““ by extension with you on that aspect, since you are adopting Aiwuyor”™s perspective to support your line of reasoning. By further extension, on the aspect of Farrakhan”™s support of Abacha ““ I did not and do not support the like of Abacha. Now ““ do you get the point that people have their own views and lines of reasoning, and while there might be congruence on a point there is no necessary extension to agreement on all aspects of the elements within an issue of debate. ” Nuanced” is the word you used ““ I like it ““ I am trying to be.
The bigger issue is that the West”™s hands past and present are dripping in blood, so the man looking in the mirror professing to see a handsome human rights image, might just reflect again and consider if you might, the colonial period, the invasions and destabilisations from Iran onwards into Latin America and now back into the Middle East with Iraq and onwards to the reconquest of Africa with the Congo still suffering in the background. The visage is less than attractive ““ I do not like the man I see coming at Africa ( and I do not mean Ghadaffi).
But, defend we do, reason we must, and differ graciously ( with attendant nuances),we can.
My pleasure Kala.
In proposing, in the early 1960s, that the post of UN Secretary-General be replaced by three individuals (a Troika) – comprising a representative from the West, one from the Communist bloc, and one from the Non-Aligned group of countries, Khruschev declared that there may be “neutral” states but there are no “neutral” individuals, I contend that there may be “altruistic” individuals but there are no “altruistic” states. All states essentially pursue their own interests, while claiming or implying that their actions are purely “altruistic”.
I therefore consider the constant emphasis that is placed, in so many internet comments I have read on the Libyan situation, re the self-interested motives of the North Atlantic powers in intervening militarily in Libya, to be utterly sterile. It does nothing at all to increase our understanding of an extremely complex issue. Moreover, those who harp on the ulterior motives of the Western powers weaken their case by emphasizing all the “good” things that Kaddaffi has done for Africa, while failing to mention, or even envisage the possibility, that ulterior motives lie or might lie behind such “benevolent” assistance. Take, for example, Kadaffi’s unstinting efforts to establish a United States of Africa, which is almost always cited by those who oppose the military intervention in Libya, as a genuine desire on his part to bring about African unity. It is anything but. Kaddaffi is a megalomaniac who fancies himself as the natural leader of a united Africa.
In 1999, Kaddaffi officially proposed Sirte, the town of his birth, as the administrative capital of a “United States of Africa”. When he was elected to the rotating presidency of the African Union in 2009, Kaddaffi requested his fellow African heads of state to refer to him as “the King of kings of Africa”. When he failed in his bid to prolong his one-year presidency (which was opposed by a majority of his peers), in flagrant violation of AU rules, Quaddaffi stopped paying Libya’s annual contribution to the AU budget, as a sign of his displeasure at being thwarted in his ambition. In his interview on French national radio a couple of weeks ago, Jean Ping, the “permanent” AU president, mentioned the non-payment of Libya’s AU dues but, prudently, gave no explanation for it. Like the proverbial school playground bully, when he lost the game Kaddaffi picked up his marbles and left.
I am not going to get into arguments on international law. Like all law, international law is not an exact science. Jurists often give different interpretations to the the same legal text. When states interpret a legal text, they invariably do in their own national interests. Thus the British Foreign Minister (like the French foreign minister) insists that all his country’s actions, including the decision to send military advisers to train the insurgents in helping them ” organize the protection of the civilian population,” respect the terms of the UN Resolution 173. China, Russia, Turkey and Germany have interpreted the same UN Resolution very differently. They claim that the military actions go beyond the terms of the UN Resolution. Ditto with non-state actors, who consider the military actions to be illegal or illegal, depending on whether they oppose or support the intervention. It is like trench warfare, both sides have their feet firmly planted in the deep hole they have dug for themselves, firing off salvos at each other, in a futile conflict in which neither manages to chalk up an advantage over the other. Consequently, I consider that legalistic argument equally sterile, for it gets us nowhere.
What I do find particularly disturbing about the main arguments (ulterior motives, violation of the UN resolution) of those who oppose the military action is their apparent indifference to the fate of hundreds of thousands of people in Eastern Libya. I could not agree more that the people of the African Diaspora, including those in the Caribbean, should not merely be concerned, but deeply concerned about the illegal bombing of the Libyan people not, however, by NATO forces (which are targeting Ghadaffi’s forces, not the Libyan people) but those of Ghadaffi whose tanks, armoured carriers and artillery are bombarding the civilian population in Eastern Libya’s urban centres. If we are not deeply concerned about such illegal bombing, I would agree that our political understanding needs to be expanded.
Ghaddafi might well have the continent”™s and world”™s largest irrigation scheme, but does anyone seriously consider that that undoubted achievement has any resonance with the people of Benghazi and Misrata (including women, children, hospital patients and the medical personnel caring for them) whom his forces are systematically killing with indiscriminate long distance bombing and sniper fire?
If we need any help in expanding our understanding, in that particular respect, all we need to do is to listen (rather than close our ears to) the incessant, desperate pleas by Eastern Libyans for more, not less NATO bombardments. Why do they persist in doing such an ideologically stupid thing, despite all the powerful geopolitical arguments marshalled by the opponents of NATO intervention against such bombing? It is because they know their Ghadaffi. He promised on national TV to hunt down, to the last man, the “rats” (his very revealing term) who have rebelled, ungratefully, against his benevolent rule. Declaring that he would show no mercy, Ghadaffi promised that his forces would seek out the rebels in a house by house search. Quaddaffi’s security forces ruthlessy massacred 1,200 prisoners at Benghazi’s Abu Slim prison in 1996. The Benghazis have not forgotten, which is why they have sworn to fight to the last man to prevent Ghadaffi from capturing their city. Here is a gruesome Human Rights Watch report of the 1996 massacre: http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2006/06/28/libya13636_txt.htm
The Benghazi population openly proclaimed that it was the French airstrikes which had saved them, in gratitude for which they hoisted the French flag in a prominent place in the city. Facing imminent death, torture, or years of imprisonment, the Benghazis did not care a hoot about the imperialist background, or ulterior motives, of the NATO countries who are bombarding Quadaffi’s forces, nor, I am absolutely certain, would any Caricom citizen if placed in a similar, life-threatening situation. Would any of the authors of the numerous posted denunciations of NATO’s bombardments volunteer to go to Benghazi to advise Benghazi’s that they should oppose such imperialist military intervention, instead of welcoming it. In other words, would they put theirr money where their mouth is? I doubt it.
People are not expendable pawns on a chessboard, who can be sacrificed in the name of some geopolitical principle or other, in the context of a global, ideological game plan that has been formulated for an allegedly better “good”. I am essentially a humanist, which makes me place people’s lives, their physical security, and their well-being above, in George Orwell’s words, “all the smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls”.
Each and everyone of us should very carefully examine the morality of wishing for others what we would not wish for our own selves or our own families, if we had the misfortune to be placed in a similar situation. I am firmly convinced that that should be the litmus test we should apply to life-threatening situations in which other people(s) find themselves, when formulating our comments, giving our advice, proposing alternative solutions and, above all, expressing our criticism.
If we are going to discuss/analyze/understand global politics and the future for Africans inside and outside of Africa, we must take into consideration the horrors of the Trans-Saharan slave trade as well as those of the Atlantic Slave Trade. If we restrict ourselves solely to the horrors of the latter, our analysis would be seriously flawed. The Trans-Saharan Slave Trade is much older than the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade – by as much as seven centuries. It began in the 10th century, with Arab-owned Zanzibar becoming East Africa’s main slave-trading port transport slaves. By the 19th century, as many as 50,000 slaves transited Zanzibar every year. (Remembering East African slave raids) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6510675.stm
Elikia M”™bokolo, the distinguished African historian and sociologist, has described the Trans-Saharan Slave trade: “The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth). Then more than four centuries (from the end of the fifteenth to the nineteenth) “¦.The figures, even where hotly disputed, make your head spin. Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route”¦” caravan route, (“The impact of the slave trade on Africa”) http://mondediplo.com/1998/04/02africa
The Trans-African slave routes went from West Africa across the Sahara to Morocco and Tunisia; those from Chad went to Libya; and those from from East Africa went down the Nile to Egypt. Thus, for several centuries, Libya was a major destination of African slaves. Moreover, in recruiting black mecenaries to help him subdue the insurgents, as he has done, Gadaffi is following a long Arab slave-trader tradition. “The Moroccan Sultan Moulay Ismail “the Bloodthirsty” (1672-1727) raised a corps of 150,000 black slaves, called his Black Guard, who coerced the country into submission.”
http://www.black-history-month-speakers.org/Slavery.html
A knowledge of that historical background is absolutely essential if we are to appreciate/comprehend the murderous fury with which the insurgent people of Eastern Libya have hunted down all black Africans in the area they control. They are reacting to a traumatic ancestral experience of being repeatedly terrorised by black African soldier/slaves, on the orders of Arab leaders. Those internet commentators who, quite understandably, have condemned the Eastern Libyan people’s actions in that respect have done so, I rather suspect, without having a proper understanding of the situation. Consequently, their analysis cannot help but be seriously flawed.
Although Arab slavery of Africans has been described as being more “humane” than that practised by Whites in the Americas, Arab slavery and the Trans-Saharan slave trade have left indelible traces in the collective memory of black Africans – traces that still greatly influence the attitudes and actions of both communities. Because north African countries did not have a plantation economy, African slaves tended to be house servants rather than field labourers. “Lucky” female slaves were placed in harems; “unlucky” female slaves were forced into prostitution. “Lucky” male slaves served as enslaved soldiers; “unlucky” male slaves were castrated and became eunuchs put to guard harems. However, the trek through the scorching desert in chains, for a thousand or more miles, was no less cruel and inhumane for African slaves than what their fellow Africans had to endure during the justly infamous “Middle Passage”.
Any serious analysis of American domestic politics or indeed, of any major domestic American issue, which does not factor in the question of race and the indelible legacy of slavery, must necessarily be flawed. The same goes for any discussion of North African-Subsaharan relations. As in America, that slave history has left Arabs with a profound sense of racial superiority and deep feelings of contempt towards Africans. It has left a profound sense of resentment among black Africans and deep feelings of mistrust.
I have spent ten years in Africa, more than a half of them as a diplomat. Since then, I have maintained contact with African diplomatic and intellectual circles. I can vouch for both the African mistrust of Arabs as well as the fact that Gadaffi is considered a buffoon, albeit a dangerous one. I had a personal, vicarious experience of the Arab racial contempt of black Africans and, of the immense resentment that such contempt provokes in Africans.
I visited Algeria for the first time, in 1974, in the course of my diplomatic duties. Our High Commission in Lagos was accredited to Algeria and I was the Algerian “desk officer”. The newly-appointed Nigerian ambassador in Algiers, whom I had met in Lagos, invited me to diner at his home one evening. There were no other guests. The ambassador spent all evening talking about the intense racial animosity he exprienced in Algiers. He was really traumatised by his experience. He told me that his children were stoned by neighbourhood Algerian kids everyday, as they walked to their school in the upscale area in which they lived. Stoning, like shoe-throwing, is the ultimate form of contempt in Arab culture. Moreover, the stones were thrown to wound. His children wear terrified and refused to walk to school any more, though their school was quite close to the their home. The ambassador’s chauffeur had to ferry the children to school and back, every single day.
I have another, albeit indirect and implicit, experience of such Arab racial attitudes. I needed a car to get around Algiers and I was strongly encouraged by the Algerian Foreign Ministry, in a manner difficult for me to resist, to let them arrange a chauffeured car for me. I soon realized why. Whenever I went out to dinner at night, the chauffeur would ask me to remain in the car for a couple of minutes, after arriving at the restaurant. He would enter the restaurant, spend two or three minutes before returning to the car to let me know that it was alright fro me to enter. Although he did not say so explicitly, I gathered that he preceded me to make sure that the proprietor was informed that I was under the protection of the foreign ministry.
I knew that Algeria must have a Black population but, in my first two or three visits to Algiers, I saw only one Black man. He was a soldier in uniform. I wondered where Algeria was hiding its Black population. When I mentioned it to the Senegalese ambasador in Algiers, who was an old friend of mine, he told me that the Algerian government kept the country’s black population deep down the Sahara. They were not allowed out. Deciding to see for myself, I took a plane trip to visit Ghardaïa, an Algerian oasis town of some 100,000 people, situated in the heart of the Sahara about 400 miles from Algiers. It seemed that most of Ghardaïa’s population was black. I realized that I had found one of Algeria’s “Bantustans”.
AU diplomats were seriously embarrassed at having to elect Gaddaffi to the rotating AU presidency, because it was Libya’s turn. Moreover, both the fact that Libya was, for several centuries, a major slave destination and Ghadaffi is pursuing the old Arab slave tradition of using African soldiers to terrorize his own people would, undoubtedly, greatly embarrass the AU (and its member states) which was persuaded or cajoled into initially adopting a resolution condemning the attempts then being made to impose a no-fly zone in Libya. I saw and heard the African Union President, Jean Ping, when he was interviewed a couple of weeks ago on BBC television and French national radio, respectively, on the situation in Libya and AU’s position on the issue. I happen to know Jean Ping whom I met when he worked at Unesco in the late 1970s. I liaised closely with him during the three year period I was charged with implementing Unesco’s anti-apartheid programme for the UN International Year Against Apartheid. He was the assistant to the senior director to whom I reported. I couldn’t help noticing his embarrassment when he was pointedly questioned about the implicit support the AU resolution had given to Kaddaffi.
We should, indeed, come to the point where we can see that not all Arabs or Whites are the Black people”™s enemies but we would be naïve to swallow hook, line and sinker, what Ghadaffi’s propaganda machine churns out about his allegedly altruistic actions in black Africa and all the good he has done for African peoples. Unfortunately, without a single exception, all the posted comments I have seen that underline the great assistance that Khadaffi has given to black Africa, have done exactly that. If a diaspora black were to give unqualified praise to all the “good” things that white America has allegedly done for black America, he/she would be pilloried so mercilessly by other diaspora blacks that the person in question would have to drop out of circulation. Consequently, I would advise members of the Black diaspora who are tempted to do so, to carefully onsider what Africans might think of diaspora claims concerning Gadaffi’s alleged benevolence, before making such uncritical statements.
Gadaffi did provide much aid to Black Africa but, unlike that provided by SIDA (Sweden’s development agency) Gadaffi’s assistance did not benefit grassroots Africans. It was largely given for prestige projects, like Mosques, and other highly visible projects. Most of the aid came in the form of investment, including the LAICO (Libyan African Investment Company) luxury hotels that dot many African capitals, and the OilLibya petrol stations that are found in many major African cities. Such investments, which create very few jobs, do not help poor Africans emerge form their poverty.
Ghadaffi did, indeed, provide financial support, military training and other forms of tangible assistance to the Southern African liberation struggles but such assistance was dwarfed by the enormous financial support, military training and other forms of tangible assistance he has given over the years to numerous African rebel movements, in his persistent to overthrow established governments in Black Africa, whose political leaders resisted his attempts to reduce them to the status of client states. Ghadaffi, has reportedly, provided arms and financial assistance to such unsavoury political characters (warlords) as, Liberia’s former President Charles Taylor, former Sierra Leone’s rebel leader Foday Sankoh, and current Chad President Idriss Deby, also a former rebel leader.
Arguably, Kaddaffi was responsible for wreaking as much mayhem, sponsoring as much terrorism, creating as many armed conflicts, and destabilizing as many African governments as all the the imperialist powers, combined, did in Africa in the decades
Following independence. Let’s have a closer look at some of the “assistance” Kaddaffi gave to Black Africa.
In late 1980, 7000 Libyan troops with 100 tanks invaded Chad in order to support Chadian General Kamoue, who had rebelled against his own government, led by Hissen Habré. For more than a week, Libyan fighters bombarded N’Djamena, Chad’s capital, causing heavy damage and casualties, until the Chadian government forces were crushed. Habré fled to neighbouring Cameroon. Gadaffi invaded Chad a second time, In 1983, to support another rebel leader.
“Qaddafi has entrenched himself as a dominant political force across the continent. Many an aspiring politician has sought his support; many a rebel movement has turned to him for weapons and training. African heads of state have gone to great pains to maintain good relations with the colonel knowing that to do otherwise might mean Qaddafi’s next protégé rebel movement could crop up in their country. Which is why, even as the rest of the world has written off Qaddafi as a maniacal loon, the Libyan leader still has friends in Africa.”
“From the very first years of his regime, he became a master at supporting up-and-coming rebels, only to abandon them in favor of newer, better-armed or more loyal allies. Oil revenues buoyed his ability to support break away rebel factions the continent over; countless such insurrectionists and want-to-be leaders approached him for cash. But he was by no means a trustworthy ally; Qaddafi shifted his support from one rebellion to another. He would fund leaders to only to later encourage their assassination, as he did with Burkina Faso’s Thomas Sankara. He invaded Chad, a country with which Libya now has solid diplomatic relations. Every alliance he has made, he has shattered — and then re-built again.” (“How Qaddafi Bought Friends And Influenced Enemies”)
http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/showthread.php?t=25115
I daresay that not a single member of the black diaspora has been unmoved by the desperate plight of the people of Darfour, subjected as they have been for several years to massacres committed by the agents of the Sudanese government – the Janjaweed. How many of us Diaspora blacks are aware that the janjaweed were trained (and probably armed) by Gadaffi?
“In the 1980s, Colonel Gaddafi dreamed of an “˜Arab belt”™ across Sahelian Africa. The keystone was to gain control of Chad, starting with the Aouzou strip in the north of the country. He mounted a succession of military adventures in Chad, and from 1987 to 1989, Chadian factions backed by Libya used Darfur as a rear base, provisioning themselves freely from the crops and cattle of local villagers. On at least one occasion they provoked a joint Chadian-French armed incursion into pursuing them. Many of the guns in Darfur came from those factions. Gaddafi”™s formula for war was expansive: he collected discontented Sahelian Arabs and Tuaregs, armed them, and formed them into an Islamic Legion that served as the spearhead of his offensives. Among the legionnaires were Arabs from western Sudan, many of them followers of the Mahdist Ansar sect, who had been forced into exile in 1970 by President Nimeiri. The Libyans were defeated by a nimble Chadian force at Ouadi Doum in 1988, and Gaddafi abandoned his irredentist dreams. He began dismantling the Islamic Legion, but its members, armed, trained and ““ most significant of all ““ possessed of a virulent Arab supremacism, did not vanish. The legacy of the Islamic Legion lives on in Darfur: Janjawiid leaders are among those said to have been trained in Libya.” (article by one of the two co-authors of “Darfur: A Short History of a Long War” http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n15/alex-de-waal/counter-insurgency-on-the-cheap
Here is another account of the mayhem Gadaffi caused in Darfour and neighbouring Chad
“During the 1980s the Umma Party government of Sadiq al-Mahdi and private sponsors (including General Swahr al-Dahab, a former President of Sudan) began arming Arab militias in South Darfur known as Murahalin. The object of the militias was to put pressure on the Bahr al-Ghazal heartland of the Dinkas (the leading tribe in the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Army), which lies directly south of Darfur. With the arms came a Khartoum-based ideology of Arab superiority. The Murahalin carried out their duties with enthusiasm. Looting, murder, abductions and all manner of atrocities were practiced, all without government responsibility, as the militias were not part of the regular army. The Murahalin would serve as the model for the Janjawid raiders of today.”
“Arms flooded Darfur as the region became a staging base for armed groups involved in the struggle to control Chad in the 1980s. In the 1970s and 1980s many Darfuri followers of the Umma Party were forced into exile in Libya, where they joined Muammar Qadhafi”™s Islamic Legion, a force of Arabs, Tuareg and West Africans. Many of these exiles absorbed heavy doses of the radical Arabist ideology propagated by Qadhafi at the time. Qadhafi proposed the creation of an ” Arab corridor” through North Africa, which implied the expulsion or extermination of the non-Arab tribes of central Darfur. Based in Libyan-occupied northern Chad, the Islamic Legion became an important conduit for the cross-border arms trade. Law enforcement vanished and in its absence even peaceful communities were forced to arm themselves.” (Terrorism and Violence in the Sudan: The Islamist Manipulation of Darfur)
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=506
We have all seen, and heard of, the atrocious massacres committed in the course of Sierra Leone’s ten-year civil war, which ended in 2001 after claiming120,000 lives. The rebels who had dragged the country into cvil war, and who were described by prosecutors as Taylor’s “surrogate army”, mutilated thousands of civilians by hacking off their limbs. The children were given the macabre choice of “long sleeves” or “short sleves” – that is to say, either having their limbs cut off from the shoulder or from the elbow. The civil war completely ruined the country. Liberia’s warlord, Charles Taylor, was the chief villain in that horror tale. There have been persistent rumours, for some time, that Gadaffi had financed Taylor’s campaign of terror in Sierra Leone. No less an authority on the subject than Taylor’s lawyer at the warlord’s International War crimes trial recently confirmed the accuracy of those rumours. He told the war crimes tribunal that the trial was a political conspiracy and Libya’s Moamer Kadhafi should have been in the dock instead.
The following excerpt comes from a published article quoting the statement Griffiths made at Taylor’s trial. He was surely speaking for Taylor, since the latter did not contradict his lawyer’s declaration:
Alleging “selective” prosecution, Griffiths Wednesday reminded the judges of their mandate to try those who bear the greatest responsibility for Sierra Leone’s brutal 10-year civil war. “Why is Colonel Moamer Kadhafi not in the dock? What about (Burkina Faso’s president) Blaise Compaore?”, for their alleged support for the RUF. Repeating Taylor’s claims that powerful countries were “out to get him”, Griffiths claimed Kadhafi was not indicted “because the then-government led by (Britain’s) Tony Blair was anxious to preserve economic interests” in Libya. (“Trial of Liberia’s Taylor politically motivated: lawyer”) http://www.starafrica.com/en/news/africa/article/charles-taylor-claims-trial-is-conspira-153032.html
Finally, here is the editor’s note on publishing a Wikileaks release:”How Compaoré and Khadafi wonder around the globe free and jolly while their alter ego Taylor (whose murderous folly they financed, trained, armed, and backed to the very end) sits in jail is a story for another article.” (SCANDAL IN THE HAGUE: DID THE U.S. VIOLATE WARLORD CHARLES TAYLOR”™S ” RIGHT” TO A FAIR TRIAL?
([WIKILEAKS / CABLEGATE]) http://radical8.com/2011/01/13/scandal-in-the-hague-did-the-u-s-violate-warlord-charles-taylors-right-to-a-fair-trial-wikileaks-cablegate/
Regarding the alleged “indifference of those who oppose Western military intervention to the plight of hundreds of thousands of residents in eastern Libya”, let me draw your attention to the earlier comments of Courtenay Barnett and myself :
Barmett: “3. The invitation of the Libyan government to have credible and independent international bodies enter Libya and report on any past or present attacks on civilians or atrocities committed by the Libyan government and a cease fire be simultaneously implemented to avoid more loss of human life.”…Option 3 is a credible step towards a cease fire in circumstances where either the truth of massacres will emerge ““ or ““ like the Iraq WMD ruse the truth in favour of the Libyan government will emerge.
Girvan: “I believe that Courtenay has set out the options fairly and reasonably and like him I support Option 3 ” Accept the The invitation of the Libyan government to have credible and independent international bodies enter Libya and report on any past or present attacks on civilians or atrocities committed by the Libyan government and a cease fire be simultaneously implemented to avoid more loss of human life.” This could be amplified to include (i) investigations into alleged atrocities committed by the rebel forces against Black Africans and other presumed supporters of the Libyan government in rebel-held territory and (b) support for the proposals by the AU and others including Brazil for a mediated/negotiated solution to the conflict. These proposals, which were positively received by the Libyan government, have been summarily dismissed by the Western countries and rejected by the rebel organisations.”
In what way is this indifference to the plight of Ghadaffi’s opponents?
I still maintain that is the route with the best chance of minimising future loss of life, establishing the truth of what has been going on inside Libya and safeguarding Libya’s future integrity and independence as a nation; than continuation of the present Western military intervention/bombardment of Libya.
Norman
May I amplify on what Norman has posted and elaborate with reason why I still maintain my suggested option 3 as the best way forward. I shall do so with pointed reason directed at Mr. Claxton and shall invite his reasoned response to an admittedly troublesome problem in North Africa.
Mr. Claxton states:-
” ” People are not expendable pawns on a chessboard, who can be sacrificed in the name of some geopolitical principle or other, in the context of a global, ideological game plan that has been formulated for an allegedly better ” good”. I am essentially a humanist, which makes me place people”™s lives, their physical security, and their well-being above, in George Orwell”™s words, ” all the smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls”.”
Well, humanitarian concerns might in the real world of global power politics might best be balanced on a utilitarian scale:-
1. Is it to be assumed that the greatest good for the greatest number of Libyans is to permit the arming of a section of the Libyan population ( coincidentally residing in a region of Libya where tribal disaffection runs high and King Idris”™ memory prevails while oil in abundance has access to a seaport) ““ or ““ is the greater good to be found in urgently taking steps to have a credible negotiated settlement in a genuine multilateral effort to avoid escalating civil war?
2. Is it to be assumed that the greatest good for the greatest number of Libyans is the ongoing bombardment via Tomahawk missiles ““ or ““ via the Libyan government trying to preserve Libyan sovereignty and independence while there is arming of a section of the Libyan population (coincidentally residing in a region of Libya where tribal disaffection runs high and King Idris”™ memory prevails while oil in abundance has access to a seaport) ““ or ““ is the greater good to be found in urgently taking steps to have a credible negotiated settlement in a genuine multilateral effort to avoid escalating civil war?
And:-
3. Is it to be assumed that the greatest good for the greatest number of Libyans is to be found within a proper and credible application of the principles of international law ““ or ““ is it to be assumed that by advancing illegality the greater good is served for the majority of the Libyan people and for the general mass of humanity by such illegality?
I referred before to an option 3, which genuinely and credibly I believe it the way forward. Now, marrying the points and questions at 1 to 3 above, on the utilitarian scale, I am asking Mr. Claxton to answer and tell us what is in the best interest of the Libyan people.
On a humanitarian measure, I reason that less loss of human life is better than more loss of life ““ and I do see the incursion by Western powers and rejection so far of the Libyan government”™s entreaties and request as serving more an ” oil war” agenda for regime change than, on the utilitarian scale for the greatest saving of human life ““ actually accomplishes the opposite ““ the greater loss of human life. So, since ” people are not expendable pawns” let us truly embrace that ideal, and also be reminded by some very telling and insightful observations made by Professor Noam Chomsky:-
” Support for democracy is the province of ideologists and propagandists. In the real world, elite dislike of democracy is the norm. The evidence is overwhelming that democracy is supported insofar as it contributes to social and economic objectives, a conclusion reluctantly conceded by the more serious scholarship.
Elite contempt for democracy was revealed dramatically in the reaction to the WikiLeaks exposures. Those that received most attention, with euphoric commentary, were cables reporting that Arabs support the US stand on Iran. The reference was to the ruling dictators. The attitudes of the public were unmentioned. The guiding principle was articulated clearly by Carnegie Endowment Middle East specialist Marwan Muasher, formerly a high official of the Jordanian government: “There is nothing wrong, everything is under control.” In short, if the dictators support us, what else could matter?
The Muasher doctrine is rational and venerable. To mention just one case that is highly relevant today, in internal discussion in 1958, president Eisenhower expressed concern about “the campaign of hatred” against us in the Arab world, not by governments, but by the people. The National Security Council (NSC) explained that there is a perception in the Arab world that the US supports dictatorships and blocks democracy and development so as to ensure control over the resources of the region. Furthermore, the perception is basically accurate, the NSC concluded, and that is what we should be doing, relying on the Muasher doctrine. Pentagon studies conducted after 9/11 confirmed that the same holds today.
It is normal for the victors to consign history to the trash can, and for victims to take it seriously. Perhaps a few brief observations on this important matter may be useful. Today is not the first occasion when Egypt and the US are facing similar problems, and moving in opposite directions. That was also true in the early nineteenth century.
Economic historians have argued that Egypt was well-placed to undertake rapid economic development at the same time that the US was. Both had rich agriculture, including cotton, the fuel of the early industrial revolution””though unlike Egypt, the US had to develop cotton production and a work force by conquest, extermination, and slavery, with consequences that are evident right now in the reservations for the survivors and the prisons that have rapidly expanded since the Reagan years to house the superfluous population left by deindustrialization.
One fundamental difference was that the US had gained independence and was therefore free to ignore the prescriptions of economic theory, delivered at the time by Adam Smith in terms rather like those preached to developing societies today. Smith urged the liberated colonies to produce primary products for export and to import superior British manufactures, and certainly not to attempt to monopolize crucial goods, particularly cotton. Any other path, Smith warned, “would retard instead of accelerating the further increase in the value of their annual produce, and would obstruct instead of promoting the progress of their country towards real wealth and greatness.”
Having gained their independence, the colonies were free to ignore his advice and to follow England’s course of independent state-guided development, with high tariffs to protect industry from British exports, first textiles, later steel and others, and to adopt numerous other devices to accelerate industrial development. The independent Republic also sought to gain a monopoly of cotton so as to “place all other nations at our feet,” particularly the British enemy, as the Jacksonian presidents announced when conquering Texas and half of Mexico.
For Egypt, a comparable course was barred by British power. Lord Palmerston declared that “no ideas of fairness [toward Egypt] ought to stand in the way of such great and paramount interests” of Britain as preserving its economic and political hegemony, expressing his “hate” for the “ignorant barbarian” Muhammed Ali who dared to seek an independent course, and deploying Britain’s fleet and financial power to terminate Egypt’s quest for independence and economic development.
After World War II, when the US displaced Britain as global hegemon, Washington adopted the same stand, making it clear that the US would provide no aid to Egypt unless it adhered to the standard rules for the weak””which the US continued to violate, imposing high tariffs to bar Egyptian cotton and causing a debilitating dollar shortage. The usual interpretation of market principles.
It is small wonder that the “campaign of hatred” against the US that concerned Eisenhower was based on the recognition that the US supports dictators and blocks democracy and development, as do its allies.”
And within that article this comment is made:-
” “¦it is only necessary to look at the studies of Arab opinion conducted by US polling agencies. Though barely reported, they are certainly known to planners. They reveal that by overwhelming majorities, Arabs regard the US and Israel as the major threats they face: the US is so regarded by 90% of Egyptians, in the region generally by over 75%. Some Arabs regard Iran as a threat: 10%. Opposition to US policy is so strong that a majority believes that security would be improved if Iran had nuclear weapons””in Egypt, 80%. Other figures are similar. If public opinion were to influence policy, the US not only would not control the region, but would be expelled from it, along with its allies, undermining fundamental principles of global dominance.”
Article by Noam Chomsky entitled ” Is the world too big to fail? The contours of global order.”“ see Z Magazine for full text ( first published c. 21st or 22nd April, 2011)
Rights tend to come into operation when equals confront one another ““ equals of numerical and moral power ( e.g. Martin Luther King ““ or ““ military unequals seeing one side at great expense and loss of human life raising itself up in response to the disproportionate use of force ““ witness the Vietnam war). So speaking through the voice of power, indeed Mr. Claxton, the powerful in the world should be made to hear your impassioned plea for humanitarianism:-
” People are not expendable pawns on a chessboard,”¦”
So true Mr. Claxton, and with full reflection upon what you have written, myself a lawyer, this reflective thought springs to mind:-
” Men”™s indignation, it seems, is more excited by legal wrong than by violent wrong; the first looks like being cheated by an equal, the second like being compelled by a superior.”
Thucydides
With such indignation being directed from either side of the divide of opinions – over to you Mr. Claxton for your practical solution to the on-going war in Libya.
P.S. If my reply is not to read like a chapter in a book, I would have to decline (while not ignoring) to comment on broadly what I would term the ” race and slave issue aspects” of Mr. Claxton”™s comments. For may part, I have commented extensively on such questions and have been, and remain an advocate of reparations for the Atlantic African Slave Trade. This, however, for another place and another time.
The accusation of a want of humanitarian concern is a very strong one, so my focus has been on responding to that.
Webmaster’s note: View the Noam Chomsky comenntary quoted in ths comment at http://www.tomdispatch.com/dialogs/print/?id=175382
I do not know if this youtube video falls into the category of ” conspiracy theory” or whether the explanations proffered accord with reason and logical economic sense. In any event I place it for comment from professional economists and those with a background in finance for on-going discussion:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgdn0bNsMkQ&feature=player_embedded
Mervyn,
I’m not sure whether you are from the Caribbean or not but even if you’re not, your extremely cogent, detailed and well-argued points on Gadaffi goes to the heart of the point that I was trying to make and clearly comes fron your time spent there. The saddest thing I’ve found on returning to the Region is how little people – even educated people) know about African politics and society.
I’ll give readers an example: just recently regarding the Cote D’Ivoire civil strife, I made a comment on Facebook to a Guyanese politician friend about the fact that Alassane Ouattara had a good reputation as a capable and trustworthy politician when compared to Laurent Gbagbo. One Facebook ‘friend’ of my politician friend then asked me whether I knew Ouattara personally or had I gotten my news off CNN/BBC/FOX etc. In as modest a way that I could manage (easily in my case) I responded that we lived in Francophone West Africa (Dakar) for 3 yrs, and before that in Kampala, Uganda for 2 yrs. While in Dakar, I read (in French)the local newspapers and Jeune Afrique Intelligent (West African version of TIME and the Economist -but way better) every week which informed my knowledge of the place considerably. In Uganda I read the Monitor and the New Vision newspapers every day and mingled with politicians, journalists, editors and civil society types (we even got married in Gulu in an Acholi/Anglican wedding with a prominent Northern Ugandan Acholi MP as my husband’s best man!)
We also mingled in Dakar with a lot with Francophone Africans from the Region and the insights gleaned were invaluable. I informed my new Facebook ‘friends’ from Guyana about the concept ‘Ivoirite’ (pronounced E- VOIR – E- TEH), a policy created by Gbagbo and his Christian southerners while we were in Dakar in the early 2000s whose intention was to disenfranchise and expel the northern Muslims who make up half the population. This was NEWS to our diaspora friends as they had never heard about it before and these were well-educated, bright people from our Region. They all thanked me profusely for ‘educating’ and ‘enlightening’ them which surprised me a bit. One man even said that some of the details I shared – like the centuries old distrust/slaving relationship between Maghreb Arabs and Black Africans was totally new to him and he asked me to share more info/personal experiences.
I think that there is no substitute sometimes for actually living in a country/region – as opposed to passing through. I enjoyed reading of your experiences in Algeria – I didn’t even know that there was a town at the edge of the Algerian desert with a largely Black African population. I was well aware of the Tuaregs who we encountered in Mali and whose relations with Black Africans were also suspect as were the Mauritanian Arab Moors, many of whom lived in Dakar and were viewd with suspicion by the Black Senegalese. There were mutual expulsions from Nouakchott and Dakar in the 80s of Black and Arab immigrant populations and the simmering tensions continue to this day.
When you actually live somewhere you can immerse youself in the details and understand the complexities a bit more than if you never did, or if you were just passing through. A bit like those ubiquitous McKinsey and other international consultants who come to developing countries for a few days, talk to a few people in the capital and then write bad reports with bad recommendations that reflect little or no reality of the salient dilemmas facing that country – and they then wonder why their megabucks recommendations didnt make one jot of a difference.
I absolutely loved our stints in Africa – the culture, the society, the sheer beauty and the sad realities too of life (and politics) for ordinary Africans. Most of our educated diaspora in the Caribbean still give me a look that says ‘and how bad was it?’ when I mention our stint there which shows how far we have to go.
On a personal note I would say that you would make a fantastic lecturer in African Studies at one of the UWI campuses (or at least publish a book/memoir on your experiences of Africa)! I’m sure Norman and Courtenay would agree. The fact that you mentioned Thomas Sankara of Burkina and Hissen Habre of Chad is impressive enough – how many young Caribbean IR students currently at UWI know who these men are and can speak intelligently on West or Central or East Africa as if they had read the ample articles on the internet just out of interest (in mine and probably your day we were not as spoilt as students are today)?
I agree with you that there is a huge amount of ignorance about things African – politics, culture, society – among the educated in the Caribbean and North America as there is among Indo-Caribbeans about the same issues in the Sub-Continent.
Norman, I wonder (maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong) if there are courses on African history at UWI and whether the University should not be exploring having academic exchanges with African universities (including those from the Francophone areas). It would be a fantastic idea and would help to deepen our knowledge base in the Region especially if we want to forge deeper relations with the Continent.
Regards
Kala
IT MAY BE ABOUT GOLD AND THE DOLLAR, BUT IT DOESN”™T HAVE TO BE
Courtenay, I watched the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgdn0bNsMkQ&feature=player_embedded and I think the thesis presented by The Russian commentator is plausible, though I would say there is no “™smoking gun”™ proof. The US dollar has been under pressure for some time and it is the view of most informed analysts that its days as the world”™s premier reserve currency are numbered. For example, The United Nations High-Level Panel on the Global Financial Crisis had as one of its recommendations, replacement of the US dollar as the sole reserve currency with a plural system in which the SDR, a kind of international money issued by the IMF, plays a central role. For some time it was thought that the Euro had the best chance to replace it”“at one time it was reported that the OPEC countries had decided to price their oil in Euros”“but the Euro is having its own problems now and it seems unlikely it could play that role. The Chinese have been pushing for a move away from the dollar as the commentator in the video says, and recently it was reported that China and Brazil had decided to conduct their bilateral trade using each other”™s currency. All this is bad news for the dollar and hence for the US Government, who wants to keep its current role as long as possible since it allows it the unique privilege to finance its massive budget deficit and maintain its huge military establishment, especially overseas, by issuing government paper which the rest of the world is more or less forced to buy for want of an alternative. In effect, the rest of the world is financing the military arm of US imperialism.
Ending the reserve currency status of the US dollar, for example by adopting a gold-based system, would change this. The US would be forced to cut its budget deficit to what it could raise by borrowing based on the intrinsic strength of its economy; and it would only able to spend overseas what it could earn overseas, or borrow overseas, again, based on the intrinsic strength of its own economy. Given the size of the US fiscal and external payments deficits, there would have to be a huge ‘adjustment’ in the US economy similar in its magnitude and effects to the most draconian IMF programmes in the developing world. There would almost certainly be massive devaluation of the dollar; a steep fall in the standards of living of all Americans; and a major cut-back in the US military presence globally and generally, in its ability to sustain its imperial hegemony. That is why the stakes are so high for the U.S. as far as the dollar is concerned; and probably why the present system continues to be given life-support.
In the meantime, because of waning confidence in the dollar, speculators have been moving into “™safer”™ alternatives like gold, oil and other commodities. This is a major element fuelling the present boom in commodity prices, including food commodities. (“The scam behind oil, food prices” http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/2011415143212280315.html). The World Bank recently warned that these steep price increases have pushed 44 millions people worldwide below the poverty line since June of last year (World Bank warns of soaring food prices, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/174858.html). In effect, a lot of additional people are going to die from malnutrition due to the irrationality of the current world (capitalist) economic system, in which the prices of commodities that are essentials of human life are subject to wild fluctuations, for reasons that have nothing to do with underlying trends in supply and demand, let alone a genuine shortage of these essentials, but rather with speculation and the desire ““and possibility”“to make money by sitting before a bank of computers and manipulating a system that few people understand.
Ghaddafi”™s plan to push for a gold-based system could be one reason why the West is determined to get rid of him”“and that by now is pellucidly clear”“but in my view it is not necessary to invoke this as an explanation. A factor which in my opinion has not received sufficient attention”“some, but not enough”“is that China has huge investments in Libya and Ghaddafi recently offered Libyan energy resources to China, India, and Russia (I think either you or Horace might have mentioned that). Now, bear in mind that for some time now, elements in the US have been arguing about the likelihood of a war with China as a consequence of China’s rise to world economic supremacy, (the scenario usually involves a U.S-China confrontation over Taiwan, or a Chinese attack on the United States). Since there are substantial risks and costs off such a war”“and nothing is impossible, of course”“a less risky and costly alternative might be to fight one, or more, proxy wars against smaller nations in which the Chinese have major resource investments. In other words, the attack on Libya might really be an attack on China; and the determination”“now approaching an obsession”“to eliminate Ghaddafi is motivated by the promised prize of a Libyan government that they own (“Frank Schoenman, West owns Libyan opposition” http://www.presstv.ir/detail/172011.html). You will note that the biggest US hawk now on Libya is the no less than John McCain, who is calling for the US to recognise the Rebels as the legitimate government of Libya (France of course has already done so), and for the US to give them all military support save for troops on the ground (other people must fight and give their lives for us, of course, we will just wait to pick up the pieces, give fat contacts to our friends to rebuild the infrastructure that our bombers, cruise missiles and drones destroyed; and then our energy companies will grab the oil). I think everyone knows who John McCain is, where he is coming from and what he stands for.
People will ask, if this is so, why are the Chinese not making a bigger fuss about the Western action? Well, I think we have to understand how the Chinese look at things. First, they take the long view. They think in centuries, not months or years. They know that time is on their side. Even if they suffer a set-back in Libya, they are in no doubt as to who the long-term victor will be.
Second, the Chinese are very aware of the power of the Western media and of the American Right to frame events in their own interests. They have a long experience of this. The media have already framed the Libyan story as one in which a mad, brutal tyrant is murdering his own people; and the West is like the proverbial knight in shining armour come to rescue the Damsel in Distress”“in this case, innocent civilians fighting for democracy. This mantra has been repeated over and over again, and it has taken in a lot of people, and continues to do so, even though it should be clear by now to anyone who is following this matter closely that what the West is doing is encouraging and supporting an armed rebellion against the Libyan government, and thereby provoking more, rather than less, deaths; with the aim of effecting regime change”“”Ghaddafi must go” intones Obama, Clinton, Sarcozy, Cameron and Hague”“”because we say so. And are we not the rulers of the world?” The Chinese probably figure that there is nothing that some people on the American Right and media would like more than to re-frame the Libyan conflict as having been stoked by China”“a Chinese threat, so to speak, as this would provide a perfect pretext for initiating some kind of confrontation with China. This is what a strong Chinese line against the Western action could precipitate. The Chinese would not be so stupid as to do this when they know that time is on their side. They may also have come to the conclusion that Ghaddafi is an unreliable ally to place their bets on, as he has clearly made some serious mistakes in managing his situation, not least his reckless and hyperbolic statements at the beginning of the uprising, which played right into the hands of a media eager for sound bites that fit the narrative they were intent on presenting.
All of which is to argue that it may well be about gold, as the Russian commentator says, but in my view, it doesn”™t have to be, in order to explain, ” Why Libya, and not Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria?”
Norman
Makes sense. Thanks for the analysis – now let’s see what the “mad dogs of war” do next. Did someone say “Obama, Clinton, Sarcozy, Cameron and Hague” – or – is Ghadaffi the only mad man in the world?
GUESS WHERE THIS CAME FROM:-
” We, the International League of Peoples”™ Struggle, condemn in the strongest terms the imperialist war of aggression being launched by the United States of America, United Kingdom, France and their allies and puppets against Libya and the people of Libya.
This war of aggression is a gross violation of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Libya. It is being carried out under the pretext of saving the lives of Libyan civilians but in fact it is planned to kill and injure great numbers of Libyans and destroy not only the air defense capabilities but also the social infrastructure of Libya, as earlier demonstrated in the devastation of Iraq.
The objective of the imperialist powers headed by the US is to install a puppet regime of ultra-reactionary pro-imperialists masquerading as democrats but shamelessly flying the old flag of the defunct Kingdom of Libya and to tighten foreign monopoly capitalist control over the oil, gas and other natural resources of Libya and the Libyan people.
The bombardments by war planes, cruise missiles and naval artillery so far carried out against Libya by the Western imperialist powers are the beginning of a multi-phased scheme to destroy the economic, social and defense facilities of Libya, allow the Libyan puppets to receive weapons from abroad, exacerbate the conditions of civil war and ultimately throw wide open the door to the imperialists as in Iraq.
Unlike in the other mass uprisings in North Africa and Middle East where anti-imperialist, communist and other Left organizations are involved, ultra-reactionary politicians and military officers long cultivated by the Western powers through educational and military exchanges are overwhelmingly and openly in control of the anti-government actions in Libya.
We call on all member-organizations and allies of the ILPS throughout the world to initiate and participate in campaigns and activities to arouse, organize and mobilize the broad masses of the people against the imperialist powers headed by the US for launching the war of aggression and likewise against the Libyan puppets. ###”
WELL ““ THE ANSWER IS ““ THE PHILLIPINES:-
” ILPS CONDEMNS IMPERIALIST WAR OF AGGRESSION
BY THE US, UK AND FRANCE AGAINST LIBYA AND ITS PEOPLE
By Prof. Jose Maria Sison
Chairperson
International League of Peoples”™ Struggle
20 March 2011″
ISNN”™T IT GOOD TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE PERSONS ALL ACROSS THE GLOBE ““ WHO DO ACTUALLY GIVE A DIFFERENT MEANING AND INTERPRETATION TO THE WORD ” GLOBALISATION”?
THE GENERAL WELFARE OF HUMAN KIND SHOULD BE THE OBJECTIVE.
http://www.arkibongbayan.org/2011/2011-03March19-libya/libya.htm
I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THE EDUCATED ONES ON THE PLANET, THE TRULY HUMANE ONES, THE ONES WHO HAVE SOME COMPASSION ABOUT THEIR FELLOW BEINGS, THE WELFARE OF OTHERS AND THE EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF GLOBAL RESOURCES – HAVING SEEN – IRAN – GUATEMALA – CONGO – AFGHANISTAN – IRAQ – AND NOW LIBYA – SHOULD ASK A SIMPLE QUESTION:-
WHERE ACTUALLY IS THE LUNACY CENTERED IN THE WORLD?
IF YOU HAVE DOUBTS ON THE ISSUE -THEN LET THIS MOST ELOQUENT MAN ASSIST WITH AN ANSWER:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqKtk2T_IpQ
Er..Courtney, just checked with a Filipino friend of mine who has to walk around with 2 bodyguards (her colleagues) where she works because this group (part of the Communist Party of the Phillipines) wants to arrest her for what? – working in a private sector corporation. the NPA (militant wing) has been indicted on several counts of extortion and bombings. So you run the risk of alienating me from Option 3 if you start quoting these loonies to counter the Western right-wing loons themselves…
Cheers and Happy Easter to all!
Kala
I shall consider the responses to my comment in the order they appear. Beginning with the words “Regarding the alleged ” indifference of those who oppose Western military intervention to the plight of hundreds of thousands of residents in eastern Libya”, Norman cites the text of his (and Courtenay Barnett’s) option 3 and concludes with the following question: “In what way is this indifference to the plight of Ghadaffi”™s opponents?”
Here is the relevant comment I made, in its entirety: “What I do find particularly disturbing about the main arguments (ulterior motives, violation of the UN resolution) of those who oppose the military action is their apparent indifference to the fate of hundreds of thousands of people in Eastern Libya.” It is important to underline the fact that I said “apparent indifference”, not “indifference”. The latter term is a firm statement of opinion while the former is a deduction which, by definition, does not convey any suggestion of certainty. Why did I make that deduction? Because, in not one (I emphasize, not a single one) of the many articles/comments, by opponents of NATO’s bombing in Libya, which I have seen posted on the internet, is there any mention of or, reference, to the two or more million (an estimated figure I have seen) inhabitants of Eastern part of Libya which is under the insurgent rule.
Were the writers of those articles unaware of their existence or did they simply overlook it because they were too engrossed in the geopolitical arguments they were so busy putting forward? No one claiming to have followed what is happening in Libya can be ignorant of their existence because the people of Benghazi, Misrata and the other towns in Eastern Libya, are the centre piece of the drama that is playing out in Libya. UN Resolution 173 was urgently adopted in order to preempt Qadaffi’s forces from recapturing those towns. In an interview that Saif, Qadaffi’s son, gave to a Bulgarian TV reporter in the days preceding the adoption of that resolution, he declared that he was confident that Libyan forces would recapture Benghazi before the UN could get around to taking action, knowing the snail pace at which the UN works. France’s “precipitate” action in attacking Libyan government forces, equipped with tanks and heavy artillery, bombarding Benghazi and preparing to enter it the very next day, saved the population from the dire fate Qadaffi had in store for them.
Can any of those opponents of N ATO bombardment claim they did not know that Qadaffi had vowed, on national television, to hunt the insurgents down to the last man in a house to house search, as soon as his forces retook Benghazi and that he would show them no mercy? Could any of those opponents claim not to know that Qadaffi had called the insurgents “rats”. Rats are vermin. What does one do with vermin? Exterminate them.
I couldn’t possibly believe that the opponents of NATO bombing were were unaware of Qadaffi’s abominable human rights record and that he had killed and tortured thousands of people who had opposed him in the past. Consequently, I deduced that those opponents showed “apparent” indifference to the fate of hundreds of thousands of Eastern Libyans, by neither considering what future they might have under a vengeful Qadaffi or not even once mentioning them specifically.
We all know that what armchair observers, like us, say here will not have the slightest impact on events in Libya. But I have always felt that such inconsequentiality should not absolve us from an ethical obligation to make responsible suggestions, proposals etc. What do I mean by “responsible”? I mean not putting forward specific proposals without considering the possible or likely consequences of such proposals. I mean weighing the pros and cons, the advantages and advantages of such proposals; I mean placing ourselves in the shoes of the weaker of the two parties (Eastern Libyan rather than Libyan government shoes or Palestinian rather than Israel’s shoes, in the case of that conflict); I mean putting people (their lives, and their physical security) before – not above – the letter of the law or theoretical/ideological/geopolitical postulates.
I now come to the core of Norman’s central argument, as set out in the quoted paragraph below. Since Courtenay Barnett stated that it reflects his own views, my comment on Norman’s argument is directed to him also:
“Accept the The invitation of the Libyan government to have credible and independent international bodies enter Libya and report on any past or present attacks on civilians or atrocities committed by the Libyan government and a cease fire be simultaneously implemented to avoid more loss of human life. This could be amplified to include (i) investigations into alleged atrocities committed by the rebel forces against Black Africans and other presumed supporters of the Libyan government in rebel-held territory and (b) support for the proposals by the AU and others including Brazil for a mediated/negotiated solution to the conflict. These proposals, which were positively received by the Libyan government, have been summarily dismissed by the Western countries and rejected by the rebel organisations.”
That argument neither considers the time factor, namely that Qadaffi would have used the inevitable delay in implemensting it (it would have taken weeks not days to put in place) to complete his subjugation of the rebels. Once that was achieved, there would be no need for a mediated/negotiated solution to the conflict and the question of political reform would be completely off the agenda. The rebels rejected the Libyan government’s proposal for an immediate cease fire for four reasons.
(1) Qadaffi had declared, on two or three occasions during the conflict, that his forces were respecting a unilateral cease fire, but on each of those occasions it turned out that his forces were pursuing, even intensifying, their attacks on insurgent forces. It was a ploy to give Qadaffi more time to complete his subjugation of the insurgents. Nato was caught hopping in one of those faux cease fires, when it stopped its bombardment, only to discover that the government forces had used the respite, given it by the cessation of the bombardments, to retake lost ground.
No one is unaware of the adage “once bitten, twice shy”. I would ask all those who have lent their support to Qadaffi’s cease fire/independent investigation proposal if they would trust the word of an individual they know personally, who has broken his word to them on several occasions in the past. One of my standing, commonsense rules, when discussing the situation of other people who face a difficult choice, is to imagine myself in their shoes and ask myself what iI would do. I heartily recommend that simple commonsense rule to one and all.
(2) Qadaffi has adamantly refused to combine such a cease fire with a withdrawal of his forces, ensconced in occupied cities like Misrata or from areas adjacent to insurgent positions, to a safe distance away where they can no longer threaten the latter. They justifiably fear that Qadaffi’s forces would stealthily attack them, in the hope of swiftly recapturing insurgent-held areas, despite that fact that doing so would be a blatant violation of the cease fire. After all, faced with a fait accompli, what could the UN or NATO forces do? The insurgents are no fools, or rather they they can no longer be fooled by wily Qadaffi.
(3) The insurgents refuse to accept any cease-fire/negotiation/mediation plan which does not include the departure of Qadaffi. From long experience, they know Qadaffi would never cede one iota of his power, nor would he ever forgive those who have challenged him. To paraphrase French President Clemenceau who, when told that a particular person was indispensable, replied “the cemeteries are full of indispensable people”, Libyan cemeteries are full of people who challenged Qadaffi’s rule and who had their life brutally shortened, unexpectedly.
(4) The question of trust. For successful negotiations to take place between two contending parties, a certain level of trust must be established. Like the Palestinians in respect of Israel, the insurgents do not trust Qadaffi. Moreover, why does both Israel and Qadaffi, ask for negotians or the resumption of negotiations, while both the Palestinians and the Libyan innsurgents resolutely reject them? Because, the latter know that the playing field is not level; that they would be negotiating from a position of weakness; and that while such negotiations are tathe king place, Israel would continue to expand its illegal settlemnents in the West Bank, in one case, and that Qadaffi’s forces would stealthily advance on insurgent-held positions, in the other.
Since it is on the same issue, I shall consider here one of Courtenay Barnett’s suggestions: “Option 2 may invite some reforms with Ghaffafi continuing to hold power even if there is some delegation.” “Reform” is not a word in Qadaffi’s vocabulary, as the insurgents know to their cost. Qadaffi has proposed “reforms” in situations of difficulty in the past, but he has always reneged on his promises, as insurgent spokesmen have pointed out, on a number of occasions, citing specific examples of such broken promises. As a certain French politician, who is known for his realpolitik outlook, once said: “Political promises engage only those who believe them.”
Finally, to complete my observations on Norman’s comments, lets consider Qadaffi’s concept of government, the rule of law, and political dissent. In Libya, dissent is illegal under Law 75 of 1973 and political conversations with foreigners is a crime punishable by three years of prison. Read the following two paragraph-excerpt from an article published in the Middle East Quarterly:
“Despite Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi’s international rehabilitation, the Libyan leader remains resistant to reform and intolerant of dissent. His ultimate goal””preservation of power””remains unchanged”¦ Advocates of engagement and reconciliation with Qadhafi’s Libya often have little understanding of the nature of the ruler or the state that he has constructed. Qadhafi’s history belies his ambitions and should undercut the seriousness with which policymakers accept his word.”
“Qadhafi’s speeches reflected his ruthlessness. He warned anyone who tried to organize politically that they would face repression. “I could at any moment send them to the People’s Court “¦ and the People’s Court will issue a sentence of death based on this law, because execution is the fate of anyone who forms a political party,” Qadhafi said during a speech in Tripoli on November 9, 1974. He backed his threats with action. There were public hangings and mutilations of political opponents. His megalomania was unchecked. He claimed that his rule was a “third international theory,” an alternative to both communism and democracy. In practice, his theory devastated civil society and destroyed both separation of powers and constitutionalism.” (Mohamed Eljahmi”¨, Middle East Quarterly”¨, Winter 2006) http://www.meforum.org/878/libya-and-the-us-qadhafi-unrepentant If anyone who thinks that political reform is either conceivable or possible with someone like Qadaffi, who has “governed” Libya in the above manner for more than four decades, I leave him/her to his/her delusions.
Before I consider Courtenay Barnett’s response, I would like to state that I hold no brief whatsoever for the North Atlantic powers, either as a bloc or as individual states. I have lambasted the imperialist/ex-colonial powers, in several of my articles, for their racist attitudes and the many atrocious crimes they have committed in countries of the South. Have a look at one of those articles, posted three years ago: “Culture and North-South Narratives of Superiority/Inferiority (Part 1)” http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/12north-south-narratives-of-superiority-inferiority1.pdf
Re Courtenay Barnett’s comment “Well, humanitarian concerns might in the real world of global power politics might best be balanced on a utilitarian scale”, I should point out that I called myself a “humanist”, not a “humanitarian”. As in the case of the distinction I made re “apparent indifference” and “indifference”, I am not quibbling or engaging in semantics. There is a real difference between the two terms. The Oxford Dictionary’s primary definition for “humanitarian” is “A person who seeks to promote human welfare. Its primary definition for “humanist” is “an adherent of humanism”. The primary (rather out-dated, classical, 17th century definition for Humanism is: ” an outlook or system of thought concerned with human rather than divine or supernatural matters. However, it is the second definition that applies in the modern use of the term – the one I apply to my own outlook on life and my approach to social and human problems: “A belief or outlook emphasizing common human needs and seeking solely rational ways of solving human problems, and concerned with humankind as responsible and progressive intellectual human beliefs”.
Courtenay Barnett makes the following statement: “On a humanitarian measure, I reason that less loss of human life is better than more loss of life ““ and I do see the incursion by Western powers and rejection so far of the Libyan government”™s entreaties and request as serving more an ” oil war” agenda for regime change than, on the utilitarian scale for the greatest saving of human life ““ actually accomplishes the opposite ““ the greater loss of human life.”
I decline to deal with the “oil war” agenda ” point, which is a central pillar of the geopolitical argument all opponents of NATO bombardments make. I consider that I dealt with the ulterior motives point in the opening paragraph of my comment, in which I underlined that there are no altruistic states. Thus, to belabour the point that a particular state or a group of states are acting out of national interests gets us nowhere. But I shall examine “the greater loss of life” argument, a loss of life that is allegedly caused by NATO intervention. That particular argument should be considered together with the following statement Courtenay Barnett made in an earlier comment in this discussion: “it seems to me so far that NATO/US involvement has done a better job of killing civilians than Ghadaffi”™s forces allegedly has.”
Since he provided no source for that most astonishing statement, I wonder whether it is a guesstimate, a hunch, or merely an impression. That casualty issue is a potential gamechanger. If it can be established that, as Courtenay Barnett suggests, NATO intervention has caused more loss of life than Gadaffi’s forces it would remove all reasons for continued NATO intervention. If, on the other hand, it can be established that NATO intervention has actually saved civilian lives, as the insurgents and all reliable reports, including those of humanitarian organizations, believe, it would justify continued Nato intervention. Since he has repeated that particular game-changer argument of greater deaths caused by NATO intervention in Libya, Courtenay Barnett surely has an obligation to his readers to substantiate his allegation or withdaw it.
The collateral damage caused by NATO bombing on insurgent lives have been given a great deal of publicity. The numbers by no means amount to more than a fraction of global figures mentioned by a number of sources. Independent numbers of dead and injured in the conflict are still not available but on 2 March, the International Federation for Human Rights had estimated a death toll as high as 3,000, while a spokesman for the Libyan Human Rights League, which is a member of the FIDH, gave a much higher death toll estimate, saying the figure could be as high as 6,000. http://www.sify.com/news/at-least-3-000-dead-in-libya-rights-group-news-international-ldcxkhgggdh.html Misrata doctors declared yesterday that at least 400 people have been killed in the city during the siege, and more than 1,000 are presumed dead. In the context in which that statement was made, and from previous statements by hospital staff, virtually all of those deaths were caused by sniper fire and artillery bombardments by Gadaffi’s forces.
The Libyan government occasionally issues statements of deaths caused by NATO bombing in and around Tripoli, for which they have never provided any evidence.
Journalists based in Tripoli, including those from Aljazeera, have reported that their Libyan “minders” have repeatedly failed to substantiate the government’s accusations in that respect. They were once taken to a place where their “minders” pointed to several mounds of (closed) graves of alleged victims of NATO bombing. On the other hand, I have seen many Al Jazeera TV shots of insurgent civilian casualties caused by Gadaffi’s forces. I can receive Aljazeera where I am, and no one can claim that it represents imperialist interests.
To close my discussion on this point, I would ask readers to seriously question whether collateral deaths caused accidentally by NATO bombing, which the insurgent forces not only continue to welcome enthusiastically but also insistently demand that they be inceased, could possibly be greater in number than those caused by nearby Gadaffi forces (internal forces in the case of Misrata which they partially occupy), including rooftop snipers who deliberately target civilians. All it takes is a little commonsense .
I take note of Courtenay Barnett’s well-put point and the passages he quoted from Noam Chomsky, about U.S destruction of Egypt’s economic development in that country’s cotton production in order to protect its own. It is the same old point about countries always acting solely in their own national interests, which I consider unnecessary to belabour. I do not see the point of that argument in this discussion. But since it has been made, I should inform Courtenay Barnett that England did the same thing to India in the 19th century, whom it saw as a dangerous competitor for the English textile industry. I have discussed such great power destruction of the economies of countries in the South, in detail, in my posted article, “Culture, Trade and Globalization” http://www.normangirvan.info/8-culture-trade-and-globalization-by-mervyn-claxton-2/ Here is a relevant excerpt from John Stuart Mills’ History of India, which I cite in that article. It resembles Chomsky’s piece on Egypt and the U.S:
“The History of the trade of cotton cloths with India affords a singular explication of the inapplicability to all times and circumstances of that principle of free trade which advocates the unrestricted admission of a cheap article, in place of protecting by heavy duties a dearer one of home manufacture. It is also a melancholy instance of the wrong done to India by the country on which she had become dependent. It was stated in evidence [to the Select Committee] that the cotton and silk goods of India up to this period could be sold for a profit in the British market at a price from 50% to 60% lower than those fabricated in England. It consequently became necessary to protect the latter by duties of 70%-80%, on their value, or by positive prohibition. Had this not been the case, had not such prohibitory duties and decrees existed, the mills of Paisley and of Manchester would have been stopped in (sic) their outset, and could scarcely have been again set in motion, even by the powers of steam. They were created by the sacrifice of the Indian manufacture. Had India been independent, she would have retaliated; would have imposed preventive duties upon British goods, and would thus have preserved her own productive industry from annihilation. This act of self-defense was not permitted her; she was at the mercy of the stronger. British goods were forced upon her without paying duty; and the foreign manufacturer employed the arm of political injustice to keep down and ultimately strangle a competition with whom he could not have contended on equal terms.” (J. S. Mill, History of British India, Continuation and Notes by Wilson, pp.538-539, Vol.1, Chapter 8, 1845, 4th edition).
Courtenay Barnett argues: “Is it to be assumed that the greatest good for the greatest number of Libyans is the ongoing bombardment via Tomahawk missiles ““ or ““ via the Libyan government trying to preserve Libyan sovereignty and independence”¦Is it to be assumed that the greatest good for the greatest number of Libyans is to be found within a proper and credible application of the principles of international law ““ or ““ is it to be assumed that by advancing illegality the greater good is served for the majority of the Libyan people and for the general mass of humanity by such illegality?”
I suggest that he is begging the point by condemning military NATO intervention as being illegal, when there are differing legal interpretations of such action. Only the International Court of Justice can rule authoritatively on that issue, and it has not been seized with the problem. Re the question of principles of international law, those principles have evolved in the past decade or two to accommodate the principle of external intervention in the case of a serious violation of human rights by the government, as in this case. Would those who oppose NATO intervention in Libya have opposed a similar intervention in Rwanda in 1994, to save the lives of 600,000 Tutsi? I give short thrift to people who point to the West’s failure to intervene in Rwanda as an argument for either no intervention in Libya today or as “evidence” of their theory of re such intevervention being motivated by oil. Does failure on the part of the police to hunt down a thief yesterday justify the police not taking action to hunt down a thief today?
One cannot talk about preserving Libyan sovereignty and independence without referring to such an evolution. On the points raised by Courtnay Barnett re international law, here is an illuminating excerpt from the following relevant document: “Humanitarian Intervention: Getting Past the Reefs” (Shashi Tharoor & Sam Daws, World Policy Journal, Summer, 2001). http://www.una.org.uk/SamDaws/articles/HumanitarianIntervention.pdf
“To those for whom the greatest threat to the future of international order is the use of force in the absence of a Security Council mandate, one might ask… in the context of Rwanda: If, in those dark days and hours leading up to the genocide, a coalition of States had been prepared to act in defence of the Tutsi population, but did not receive prompt Council authorization, should such a coalition have stood aside and allowed the horror to unfold?”
“The Sovereignty Argument
Despite these suspicions, and the valid concern for efficacy, the imperative for some form of action in the face of clear human rights abuses will remain. In accepting this, one must squarely face the sovereignty argument. “National sovereignty” does not give the state unlimited freedom of action; the concept of sovereignty cannot be seen in isolation from other provisions of the U.N. charter, namely those that relate to “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all” (article 1, paragraph 3). Moreover, the development of international law in relation to human
rights and humanitarian law has mainly occurred since the adoption of the charter. ”
“The assertion of sovereignty has to take into account not only the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but the international human rights covenants of 1966, the establishment of international tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the adoption in 1998 of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court, all of which are me ant to exercise jurisdiction over matters that were traditionally within the competence of sovereign states. During the past century, the paradigm of sovereignty has shifted. It is no longer seen as designed to protect a sovereign but a people. Furthermore, there is a growing consensus supporting the moral claim that sovereignty is a contingent rather than an absolute value, whose observance relies upon a state upholding its responsibilities to protect the fundamental human rights and welfare of its citizens. There is a demonstrable difference in motive and result between intervention in support of this moral ground and the imperialisms of yore.”
Finally, re Courtenay Barnett’s challenge “over to you Mr. Claxton for your practical solution to the on-going war in Libya”, I wish to declare here that I have no ready-made solutions for the extremely complex situation in Libya. Civil conflicts almost never lend themselves to clear-cut solutions. They invariably require painful concessions and compromises from both sides, which is something that is always difficult to achieve, even in periods of peace (e.g. the Israel-Palestine conflict), but finding solutions become much more difficult, sometimes impossible, when both sides are engaged in armed hostilities. Consequently, in such cases when I see neat, clear-cut solutions proposed I tend to treat them with considerable scepticism.
By temperament, I prefer to adopt a pragmatic approach to such very complex societal problems, rather than a theoretical, ideological or legalistic one, which does not mean that I come down on the side of realpolitik. Oscar Wilde once said that an idealist is someone who knows the value of everything and the price of nothing while a realist knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. I would like to think that I am a mixture of the two – a pragmatic idealist, or a realistic idealist. I consider that conditions for an effective cease fire, followed by a mediated/negotiated peace, would not exist unless Qadaffi agrees to withdraw his forces from, or near, rebel positions, in such a maner that they no longer pose any threat to insurgent lives. Then Qadaffi should be persuaded to allow the establishement of an international buffer force, composed of Arab troops under the UN aegis. With such a force established, Qadaffi would realize that he cannot mount a stealth attack on insurgent forces. Mediation/negotiation could then commence.
Kala, I am afraid that I have taken up so much space in attempting to do justice to the issues raised by Norman and Courtenay Barnett that there is perhaps no space to do you comment justice. I justify that by the thought that your comment raised no issues which require counter arguments on my part. Firstly, I am a Caricom national and secondly, I fully agree with the point you made about Caribbeans’ relative lack of knowledge of Africa and, I think, about India. I have explored how such knowledge could increase our understanding of our own situation in Caricom and, also, provide us with useful lessons for solving our governance problems. In the following article, you will find two substantive discussions, in that respect, on African and Indian history, respectively.
“Resolving the Crisis of Governance in Caricom”
http://www.normangirvan.info/claxton-resolving-caricom-governance-crisis/
Given the warpath that the US is on in Libya – will the Syrians and Iranians now have to brace themselves for inevitable war instigated by the US.
What is to be made of this conference – http://www.youtube.com/user/iranncr ?
Kala,
There can be no doubt in any sane person”™s mind that the Western world and its staged wars upon pretext after pretext is not just lunatic ““ it is criminally insane. In response to your point:-
” the NPA (militant wing) has been indicted on several counts of extortion and bombings. So you run the risk of alienating me from Option 3 if you start quoting these loonies to counter the Western right-wing loons themselves”¦”
Their arguments can still have validity ““ all that they do may not.
As regards Mr. Claxton”™s comment:-
” Before I consider Courtenay Barnett”™s response, I would like to state that I hold no brief whatsoever for the North Atlantic powers, either as a bloc or as individual states. I have lambasted the imperialist/ex-colonial powers, in several of my articles, for their racist attitudes and the many atrocious crimes they have committed in countries of the South”
We are agreed on something ““ it is just the way we reach our conclusions and the way we reason that may confirm the divide.
Mr. Claxton quotes me:-
“¢ ” Re Courtenay Barnett”™s comment ” Well, humanitarian concerns might in the real world of global power politics might best be balanced on a utilitarian scale”, I should point out that I called myself a ” humanist”, not a ” humanitarian”. As in the case of the distinction I made re ” apparent indifference” and ” indifference”, I am not quibbling or engaging in semantics. There is a real difference between the two terms. The Oxford Dictionary”™s primary definition for ” humanitarian” is ” A person who seeks to promote human welfare. Its primary definition for ” humanist” is ” an adherent of humanism”. The primary (rather out-dated, classical, 17th century definition for Humanism is: “ an outlook or system of thought concerned with human rather than divine or supernatural matters. However, it is the second definition that applies in the modern use of the term – the one I apply to my own outlook on life and my approach to social and human problems: ” A belief or outlook emphasizing common human needs and seeking solely rational ways of solving human problems, and concerned with humankind as responsible and progressive intellectual human beliefs”.
Courtenay Barnett makes the following statement: ” On a humanitarian measure, I reason that less loss of human life is better than more loss of life ““ and I do see the incursion by Western powers and rejection so far of the Libyan government”™s entreaties and request as serving more an ” oil war” agenda for regime change than, on the utilitarian scale for the greatest saving of human life ““ actually accomplishes the opposite ““ the greater loss of human life.”
Precisely:-
” On a humanitarian measure, I reason that less loss of human life is better than more loss of life ““ and I do see the incursion by Western powers and rejection so far of the Libyan government”™s entreaties and request as serving more an ” oil war” agenda for regime change than, on the utilitarian scale for the greatest saving of human life ““ actually accomplishes the opposite ““ the greater loss of human life.”
Precisely:-
That”™s my point ““ and ““ incidentally ““ with respect ““ I believe that my point makes not just ” humanist” but ” humanitarian” sense.
- Why when the African Union takes precisely that position doesn”™t the Western world respond? Answer ““ as with the horrors unleashed on Iraq ““ it will pursue precisely the same end game in Libya ““ blood, gore, whatever it takes with oil domination and Middle East hegemony in mind.
And you correctly comment:-
” Since he provided no source for that most astonishing statement, I wonder whether it is a guesstimate, a hunch, or merely an impression. That casualty issue is a potential gamechanger.”
You are correct ““ over a hundred Tomahawk Missiles fired into Libya ( which I have in fact verified from official US sources and others ““ and it is officially accepted that same was done) ““ now on a common sense analysis:-
- Will the US government provide the accurate figure for their estimate of damage and the loss of Libyan life?; or
- Will the Libyan government, upon reading our exchanges, send accurate body counts ““ given the nature of war and the propaganda points from relative points of interest ““ to either under or overestimate ““ in the prevailing circumstances?
So, that quite helpful aid to human reasoning ““ ” common sense” ““ suggests that in the prevailing situation I should apply same.
My common sense ““ thus duly applied – leaves me with the impression that ” some” damage has been done. So, we might then semantically move forward in the estimate ( guesstimate) and reason that ” some” might in all the circumstances ( having due regard for the considerable amount of missiles of over 100 fired into Libya) amount to ” some considerable” damage and loss of human life ( Agency France press for verification – http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20110320-326485/At-least-110-Tomahawk-missiles-fired-at-LibyaUS). But then, lawyer that I am ““ who me to engage in mere ““ ” semantics”?
Kala and Mervyn ( don”™t mind if we get a little friendly at this point of intimate and intense debate ““ do you?) – I must concede to Kala ““ you evidently have a longer period of stay in Africa than I do ““ so – with only 4 visits to Africa in all my years ““ I can but only muster a mere 3 sensible options for the Libyan crisis, which I here repeat:-
Let me cut to the chase and offer you the 3 choices Kala and Meryvn:-
1. The West backs the rebels that they are funding and oust Ghadaffi and install a puppet regime that dances to their tune ““ with the promise as in Iraq that Democracy and propsertiy are being brought to Libya post-Ghadaffi; or
2. The Libyans be left to sort out their own differences, without foreign invervention ( i.e. the point here is that if it were that there is a huge united front against Gahdaffi, then he would have to go, because it would simply follow that since soldiers are also citizens and human, their feelings would constitute a significant part of the disaffected – if that were the true case – and the regime would be toppled) ; or
3. The invitation of the Libyan government to have credible and independent international bodies enter Libya and report on any past or present attacks on civilians or atrocities committed by the Libyan government and a cease fire be simultaneously implemented to avoid more loss of human life.
Nothing at all you have said or posted ““ delimits ““ alters ““ adds to ““ or significantly changes the options on the table in facing this crisis. If you have so done ““ I have yet to see same in anything you have posted.
But no peace, as you well appreciate, from our respective positions:-
- What NATO/US is doing is manifestly illegal in overstepping the boundaries of Resolution 1973 ““ but who cares about international law ““ especially when it is the Western powers in violation?
- Ghadaffi won”™t compromise so the rebels must be armed to fight on ( that is the Western rationale for pre-emptive attack) ““ and it is then to be said that this is a purely home grown insurgency? Along this line of logic ““ don”™t seek any pretext ““ why not just declare that it is ” known” what Syria and Iran will do ““ then drop 1000 Tomahawk missiles ““ equitably distributed on either nation? This is where this kind of illegality ultimately leads ““and then ““ the laws for some form of rational and legal global architecture falls servant to the interests of the oil companies and other interests of power ““ because no balanced and credible standard of law needs then to be applied to the politics of global exercise of state power. Is that what you want Kala and Mervyn?
- No country in the world would accept that the established government is to be attacked by rebels armed by overseas interests ( or ““ for that matter – even just taking up arms locally) ““ but Libya is to be the single global exception ““ because BP and like interests want to dominate and control Libyan oil ““ not dissimilar to the debacle in Iraq. If the African American population took up arms ( supplied by Cuba) and set out to attack downtown Washington in righteous anger at the years of discrimination and oppression ““ what would the American government do? Yes ““ as in Libya ““ just let that section of the citizenry do it?
- The entire Middle East and Arab nations do not have one(1) leader elected on the Western democratic model ““ while Bahrain, Yemen, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia suppress, mutilates as legal punishment, chops off hands and heads, discriminates against women and while Libya has the undeniable highest standards of social and economic provisions across the Arab and African nations and best statistics for the broad provisions of welfare to its population ““ it is not the most egregious dictatorships and human rights offenders who are primary choices for Tomahawk missiles – as logical targets for ” humanitarian attack” by reference to the pretext this time round being employed and invoked ““ so the illegal attack action for regime change is directed at Libya. Libya, albeit having figures that confirm that significant amounts of oil money has been ploughed into the country”™s development – that is the plus ““ but the minus to justify regime change by way of bombardment and CIA funded manipulation is not Saudi Arabia ““ not Bahrain ““ not the Emirates ““ Libya? There is absolutely no credibility in this attack on the Libyan state. Neither you nor Kala can honestly and credibly convince by the applicator of international law ““ or ““ by reference to the fact of the contribution on a relative scale to verifiable human, social and economic indicia that Libya is or can lawfully be target number one for regime change. You can”™t!
- In my post citing Professor Noam Chomsky ““ the Emperor”™s ” democratic” clothing was there exposed.
Over to you Kala and Mervyn.
My points stand as expressed.
Kala and Mervyn,
To sum it all up ““ you are reasoning along the lines that that Western propagandists are advancing to justify regime change in Libya for ” humanitarian” and/or ” democratic reasons. Thus, the argument runs that there is need for the protection of a section of the Libyan people ( who have taken up arms and are using the arms supplied to them by Western interests to try and overthrow their government). That is the position as I hear it coming from both of you.
My line of reasoning takes me down the path of sovereignty and independence for Libya.
As with Iraq, it is perfectly plain and clear that the ” oil war” and aggression unleashed there, will find a counterpart in the attack on Libya. There is absolutely no rational reason for me to believe in or trust for one moment ““ the professed intention of the potential invading forces. I think that this clip of a Libyan being interviewed just about sums it up:-
( checked youtube for the video ““ and it is now blocked)
The video showed an educated and reasoning person, a dentist who was clear that his country will be destroyed by the attacking foreign forces, and that the benefits that the country”™s resources and wealth would have conferred on the Libyan people will not be utilised the same way by a puppet Western controlled regime. Methinks he is right. Just as a historical aside, it seems to me that with illiteracy running at some 80% when King Idris was in power, the present day statistics for literacy, health care, and the general social welfare of the Libyan people as being number one in the entire Arabian sphere and on the African continent, then simply gets ignore ““ because the demonization process against Ghadaffi is the only objective that we can presently entertain as ” credible” accounts about the true position in Libya.
So, the Western interests arm fundamentalist elements to assist in the civil war unfolding to oust Ghadaffi. And, if the West is successful in its quest for Libyan regime change then after Ghadaffi is defeated the Mujahadin ( as a similar case of Western arms to defeat the Russians) equivalent in Libya then turn their Western supplied weapons on the occupying Western forces ““ and the war goes on ““ as in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Same logic ““ and watch it unfold. The attempt will then be made to establish permanent military bases in Libya, and the excuse will be given that a strong US presence is needed to bring stability to the very country that the US/NATO would by then have significantly destabilised and made hard to govern due to the willful widening of tribal divisions. Watch it unfold.
Mervyn ““ you asked me about some evidence about the effects of the bombing by NATO:-
Here ““ watch the video interview: – http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27951.htm
Taking all in the round, Mervyn and Kala ““ with the advancing aggression from the US/NATO forces what you are witnessing is ” humanitarian aggression” ( Orwell would have approved of this terminology). I think that my option 3 on a truly humanitarian, politically practical and utilitarian measure is not a bad idea.
Taking the legal position into account, we find that the French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe came to the UN after the former Minister was a few weeks before dismissed from his position for reason of having been a beneficiary of favours from a Libyan businessman. On 17th March, 2011 Resolution 1973 was adopted. The promoters of the Resolution were France( TOTAl oil giant being the biggest investor in Libya), the UK ( BP oil interests in Libya in co-operation with the Libya Investment Corporation) and the US ( global hegemon and oil hungry giant always around).There were 10 votes for, none against and 5 abstentions. Thus, we do have a legally passed UN Resolution. The first section of the Resolution calls for ” immediate cease-fire”. For my part, I believe that the AU position did afford a means of ensuring that this would be accomplished, but as we can see, the political mission of the US/NATO goes well beyond that intended Resolution objective – which if followed to the letter is perfectly consistent with the option 3 that I had posited. But ““ like history ““ international law is ” bunk” ““ I guess?
What really is at stake is the need for genuine respect for international law, where a country is enabled to maintain law and order within its territorial boundaries ““ and ““ if a genuine resolution from the United Nations is to be implemented, it is so done within the confines of the law duly respected. If this does not operate, then it is much like a neighbour in domestic law taking it on to himself not merely to assist a neighbour”™s wife who is being beaten, but he actually invades the neighbour”™s house on the humanitarian mission of protecting the beaten wife. Next, he lays claim to all the goods and property of his negihbour, because he has expelled the man from the house for reason of being an unworthy head of household. I am just a bit too generous with the analogy, for the original reason in the international law realm for Libya”™s no-fly zone derives from on-set from dubious political moves. There is a protective measure to assist the wife, who had a knife, a gun and a bazooka aimed at the husband, while the neighbour lobs a grenade into the husband”™s bedroom. A bit dramatic ““ but not too far off when you consider that the NATO forces actually bombed Ghadaffi”™s compounds ( no doubt hoping to kill him in his bedroom). Consider for a moment if anyone took similar action against the President of the US, the Prime Minister of the UK or the President of France ““ it would immediately be condemned as a ” terrorist” attempt on the life of the leader(s) of that/those nations. Yet, the bombing of Ghadaffi”™s residences? Some way to run the world and respect the rule of international law. But, in summary ““ no-fly zone is legal; invading, causing unrest, division and destruction and bombing with the intention of assassinating the head of the Libyan household to remove leadership is ““ clearly illegal.
Along the trajectory that this mission is going, there is going to be a lot of unrest for quite some time to come in Libya if the West has its way.
I am still waiting to hear your clear viable humanitarian alternative(s) Kala and Mervyn.
Over to you again.
P.S. Kala – your line of thinking is that my not being in Africa or living within the culture ““ I assume ““ disqualifies me from grasping the dynamics of global politics ““ or ““ realities within the Arabian or Arab ” worlds” ( so to speak)? I am assuming that you are of Indian ancestry and either you or your family lived in East Africa and then they became Caribbean citizens? Great ““ I welcome you as a fellow Caribbean person and a sister. Guess however that my ancestral distance from mother Africa does not bestow on me the right to be welcomed in reverse as a brother ““ or maybe my thoughts, reading and understanding may just about qualify me to make some sensible comments on an unfolding situation of concern in North Africa. Surely, you are not excluding me to that extent Kala ““ or ““ on that basis Kala?
Just teasing. Kind regards to you both for sharing your thought provoking ideas, opinions and views.
Mervyn,
Re: Some ” humanitarian mission” ““ it would be totally laughable ““ if were not all so tragic.
Can you answer this one:-
When it is the West arming the dictators, who stay in power using the arms purchased from the West ““ how does the West accomplish peace by arming an opposition to fight against the very arms it has already supplied in abundance to the one it now wants to assist in overthrowing?
I am deliberately taking the question in a circle ““ my reason being that I simply do not see an iota of credence in the humanitarian mission arguments coming from these arms venders and warmongers.
Put another way ““ consider what this British journalist wrote:-
” The United States was in the business of supplying weapons to Gaddafi up until the moment it got into the business of supplying weapons to his opponents. In 2009, Britain, France and other European states sold Libya over $470m-worth of weapons. Our wars tend to be fought against our own weapons, and yet we go on arming everyone. The United States can no more intervene in Yemen or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia than in Libya. We are arming those dictatorships. In fact, to win the support of Saudi Arabia for its “intervention” in Libya, the US gave its approval for Saudi Arabia to send troops into Bahrain to attack civilians, a policy that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly defended.
The “humanitarian intervention” in Libya, meanwhile, whatever civilians it may have begun by protecting, immediately killed other civilians with its bombs and immediately shifted from its defensive justification to attacking retreating troops and participating in a civil war. The United States has very likely used depleted uranium weapons in Libya, leading American journalist Dave Lindorff to remark:
“It would be a tragic irony if rebels in Libya, after calling for assistance from the US and other Nato countries, succeeded in overthrowing the country’s long-time tyrant Gaddafi, only to have their country contaminated by uranium dust ““ the fate already suffered by the peoples of Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo.”
Irony is one word for it. Another is hypocrisy. Clearly, the military power of the west is not driven by humanitarian concerns.”
David Swanson writing in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/21/libya-muammar-gaddafi
The West is creating a civil war disaster in Libya ““ and ““ it is not aiming at, nor is it supporting the primary objective of the UN Resolution 1973 of securing an immediate cease fire, and thereby saving lives as originally professed to be the mission”™s objective.
For reasons of brevity – here:-
I mentioned John Perkins above – and here he is most recently on the Libya issue and currency:-
John Perkins, from 1971 to 1981 he worked for the international consulting firm of Chas T. Main where he was a self-described “economic hit man.” He is the author of the new book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8171.htm http://www.johnperkins.org
- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27967.htm
An opinion piece titled Africa’s Star Wars published on the Al Jazeera website, written by Pepe Escobar, roving correpespondent for the Asia Times and author of Obama Does Globalisation, analyses the role of the US Africom and of Chinese investments in Africa as strategic factors in the Western bombing of Libya and its declared goal of regime change. Africom was the subject of Horace Campbell’s article and ‘the China factor’ was the subect of one of my previous comments. Escobar links the two. To quote him, “Beijing clearly sees that the Anglo-French-American bombing of Libya ““ apart from its myriad geopolitical implications ““ has risked billions of dollars in Chinese investments, not to mention forcing the (smooth) evacuation of more than 35,000 Chinese working across the country. And crucially, depending on the outcome ““ as in renegotiated energy contracts by a pliable, pro-Western government ““ it may also seriously jeopardise Chinese oil imports (3 per cent of total Chinese imports in 2010).”
Of course, humanitarianism has nothing to do with all ofthis. Escobar’s article is worth reading in full, and the concluding sentence is particularly telling.
Norman
Norman,
I have no reason to doubt Escobar’s thesis on the Libyan strategy as long-term US strategy to curtail China in Africa. However as with all theories,this does not mean that critical questions cannot be asked of China’s (and India’s) new roles in Africa and how much – on balance – do African people – stand to benefit, much like the way we analyse the impact of US/Western policies in developing countries.
As the summary of a new book (The Rise of China and India in Africa, Zed, 2010) notes ‘… in recent years, China and India have become the most important economic partners of Africa and their footprints are growing by leaps and bounds, transforming Africa’s international relations in a dramatic way. Although the overall impact of China and India’s engagement in Africa has been positive in the short-term, partly as a result of higher returns from commodity exports fuelled by excessive demands from both countries, little research exists on the actual impact of China and India’s growing involvement on Africa’s economic transformation…’ The need therefore exists to examine in detail the opportunities and challenges posed by the increasing presence of China and India in Africa, and asks whether there exists the critical interventions that African governments must undertake in order to negotiate with China and India from a stronger and more informed platform. Another interesting read is the following by a Senegalese investment banker who while generally positive , also points to the potential pitfalls.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/world/Sanou-Mbaye-China-misreads-the.6709596.jp
Your highlighting of the plight of the OECS states in their Libyan deals also has resonance in their relations with China and points to the importance of adopting a critical approach: acknowledging the positives while not negating/neglecting the concerns.
Kala
Since this will be my last post on this thread, I have summarised my salient points:-
1. Fig-leaf cover of the law to promote war.
This military exercise in Libya, under the fig-leaf cover of UN Resolution 1973 was and remains a pre-existing crawling peg war plan; and in truth is naked aggression unleashed against the government of Libya.
2. An attack on Libyan sovereignty
The brazen attack on the sovereignty of the Libyan state is evidenced by the following:-
i) An assumption that the US/NATO has a right to violate sovereignty on the pretext of somehow protecting the persons in Benghazi, with a professed entitlement that the US/NATO can arm rebel groups in support of attacks on the established government in Libya ““ while de facto asserting that the government must remain impotent and allow the attacks and division of the country to take place.
ii) A ” humanitarian mission” started by launching over a hundred high technology missiles into a country to kill people while professing to be saving lives?
iii) Commandeering the wealth in billions of a sovereign nation”™s bank assets while recognising a minority rebel group, setting out to export stolen oil, proclaiming that a rebel group is assisted in establishing its own central bank and simultaneously stirring up unrest in Libya by supplying arms, then rejecting peace talks as is the wish of the African Union.
These actions do not command any respect amongst decent and right-minded individual citizens throughout the world, nor by responsible nations in the international community. China and Russia, as permanent members of the Security Council are aware of the serious implications of further escalation of this Libyan war.
3. Credible global criticism of US/NATO actions
Intelligent, well informed and credible persons across the global can and have put to bed this ” humanitarian mission” pretext and casus belli foisted on the international community: http://rt.com/news/nato-ground-operation-libya/
4. Manifest imperialist war
This is a modern day imperialist war, and one of the most flagrant violations of the principles of sovereignty and the rule of international law that I have witnessed within the past decade. But, of course, there is the greater loss of life and the ruse of WMDs in Iraq, with now about a million dead to provide ” better” precedent.
5. Illegality of the assassination attempt on a national leader
By attempting to assassinate an established leader of a nation state, namely, Mommar Ghadaffi, there has been a further violation of the basic rules under the Hague Convention; Geneva Conventions and the established civilized principles under customary international law. Not even Article 53 of the Vienna Convention can sensibly permit the unleashing of war rationalised to be anticipatory self-defence. If so, all peace efforts can then readily be inverted into pre-emptive war making.
6. The United Nations was established to preserve and promote global peace ““ not war
We all need to remind ourselves that the purpose of the United Nations as stated at Article 1 of the its UN Charter is to “maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace.” One cannot achieve peace by escalating war!