Muammar
Gaddafi is gone. He is not just history; he is biology and chemistry. The longest ruling non-royal in the history of modern world
was dragged out of the drain pipe in which he was hiding (after the convoy in
which he was travelling was bombed by
the NATO forces) by the rebel forces which pursued his convoy out of
Sirte, Gaddafi’s home town where he was holing out for the past few weeks. The former
dictator who was crowned in 2008 as the king of kings was then murdered with a
bullet in his head; he was also shot in the chest and abdomen. His body was
then dragged through the streets by the forces which are calling themselves
liberators of Libiya and promising a new dawn, and which are supported by a
number of European nations, notably France and Britain.
The
Russians are not happy about this. They have believed for a while that they
were duped by the mendacious European nations into not vetoing the action in
Libya. They also believe that NATO forces clearly exceeded the UN mandate which
was to ensure that civilians be protected. The Russian spokesman has formally
accused the NATO forces of acting illegally when they bombed the convoy
travelling out of Sirte as no civilians were demonstrably at risk of harm.
The Russians have a point (which they perhaps feel they need to make as countries like Britain have availed themselves of the opportunities in recent times to teach the Russians lessons in morality). Needless to
say, though, that these concerns will not be answered by the European nations. Which
will be par for the course seeing as one of the European countries meddling
into Libyan strife, Britain, even before the UN mandate,
tried to smuggle weapons, false passports and currency into that
country. (When the ‘mission’ was intercepted, the ridiculous William Hague had
the gall to make the ridiculous claim that it was a diplomatic mission.)
On the day
of what was essentially an extra-judicial killing of Gaddafi by the ‘liberation
forces’ which some of the European countries (e.g. France) hastened to declare
as the legitimate government even as the civil war was raging in that country,
I watched on Question Time smirking politicians across parties lining up to
make trumphalist jingoistic noises (‘A bad man has come to a bad end and we
are proud of our role in his downfall’ etc.)
The same
day came the spectacularly distasteful advice from the British
Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, to the British firms that they pack their
suitcases and head for Libya to secure contracts. These guys really have no
shame or decency. Every time they open their gobs it is to say vile things which offend senses and intelligence.
The
idiots in the previous Labour government fondly thought that Britain would
secure contracts to rebuild Iraq after she had played a major role in
destroying that country. Leaving aside the questionable morale of this, that
did not even happen. The contracts were grabbed by the Americans and Chinese
(and the brave Americans who had no stomach for sending their civilians into
what had become an extremely dangerous region, subcontracted Indians in Iraq as
also in Afghanistan.)
If what is
reported in British media has any truth in it, the death of Gaddafi is
generally met with great fanfare and joy and happiness in Libya.
As you watched barely adolescent boys roaming on the streets of Tripoli in frenzy,
totting AK 47 and firing into the skies
as if they were bursting crackers, you wondered whether this was the same city
which, in a different era and different times, was renowned for its libraries and books. It is noted
that the Libyan king in the 13th century, when he defeated Christian
hordes, demanded books rather than material wealth from the defeated nations.
It is all very
sad: a country that once was a beacon
of civilization has sunk to a level where a dead ruler’s body is dragged
through the streets and his death is celebrated in a manner that would make any
civilized person hang his head in shame.
If we look
at the more recent history, Libya was a part of the mighty Ottoman empire up to
the nineteenth century, despite its periodic attempts to be free of its fetters. In the
second half of the 19th century, the rapacious Europeans, in
particular Italy and France (in case of Libya), looking to loot the region and
fleece it off its wealth, did what other European nations (like Britain and
Holland) had done in other parts of the world. With scant regard for the
opinions and wishes of the people the European powers divided the region amongst themselves by
signing treaties (as if that made it alright). Italy controlled Tripoli and
Cyrenaica. The rest of the region was divided amongst other European vultures
like Britain and France. In the 1910s there was even a minor war between Italy and
the declining Ottoman Empire (Turkey) over this region. Interestingly, if one reads some of the accounts of
that war, one finds out that the war that had begun between Italy and Turkey,
ended with Italians fighting and killing Tripolians.
During the
First World War, which was essentially a European war, different parts of what
a few decades later would become Libya fought against each other, not because
they had any animus amongst themselves but because the European nations
controlling the regions were fighting against each other.
There is no
dearth of jingoistic British ‘historical books’ giving accounts of the war
between General Rommel and the British 8th division during the
second world war. Suffice it to say that, like the First World War, this was
essentially a European conflict in which this part of Africa got involved only because
it was controlled by European powers. (The British forced tens of thousands of
Indians (who died needlessly) to fight in the Second World War even though the Indians had nothing to
do with the shenanigans in Europe; indeed they had come to hate the British rule so
much that they wanted the British to get out.)
When the
Second World War ended it was Britain who controlled Tripoli and Cyrenaica while the
French controlled Fezzan.
Eventually,
in 1951, Libya as we know it today came into existence. Landlocked on all sides
save one, Libya is an African country that also has links (religious) with
Arabia.
King Idris
became the ruler of the newly created country which was not on the radar of the
European countries or the newly emerging superpower, America.
That all
changed in 1959. Oil was discovered in Libya. Suddenly America developed an
interest in the region. America had already twisted arms of the Saudi King
(Mohammad Bin Ibd Saud) to sign a 60-year treaty (the battle ships sent by Roosevelt
to the Suez canal went a long way
towards the Saudi King swiftly making up his mind) wholly favourable to
America, and now similar tactics were used in Libya.
It may oversimplification, but the Western powers essentially took unfair advantage of these relatively less developed regions of the world, and exploited them. The
rulers of these countries had no agenda beyond accumulating personal wealth
and self-aggrandizement and were bought. In return the regions became legally and
officially open to the multinationals to dig for oil. This is what happened in
Libya.
This was
also a period marked by Arab nationalism. Gamal Abdel Nasser with his anti-American
Arab nationalism inspired many in the region. He became the idol for many in
the region. One of them was Muammar Gaddafi, who came to the conclusion that the
only way to stop the looting of his country by the Western Powers which King
Idris was allowing was to remove Idris from the power.
On 1 September
1969 Gaddafi engineered a bloodless coup and Idris was removed. Thus began the
regin of Gaddafi that would last for 42 years and end with bloodbath and
destruction of the country. Along the way Gaddafi, who wanted to stop the
wealth of his country being siphoned off, himself became corrupted by the
absolute power he came to yield over his vast country.
That
Gaddafi became a tyrant and began abusing human rights in his country is without a doubt. It is also beyond doubt that the Western powers became very concerned about it only after Gaddafi became
too big for his boots and started creating obstacles in Western multinationals' plans to dig oil from Libya and generate profits of billions of dollars. One wonders whether America would have been so concerned about Gaddafi’s abysmal human rights record if he had not (as if
on a whim and without any warning) nationalised the American companies in
Libya in the 1980s.
Until
Gaddafi was favouring the Western oil companies nobody cared what he did in
Libya. Gaddafi’s grandiloquent plans in the region (remember his quest to unite
Libya and Egypt in order to combine the oil-wealth of Libya and the population
and skills of Egypt?), his pan-Arab ambitions, and his economic alternatives to
the Capitalist and Communist systems (he turned Libya, officially, into the
Great Jamahiriyah, which meant State of the Masses; he expounded in his ‘Green
Book’ how formation of committees everywhere would supplant the need of any
form of government; and in his second volume dedicated to solving ‘economic
problems’ he envisaged a society that
banished the profit motive and made money redundant) made many wonder
whether the Libyan ruler’s connection with reality was becoming faulty.
It was
never going to work. Gaddafi’s pan-Arab ambitions were frustrated; Egypt which
was an ally became a vicious enemy that fought a border war. Gaddafi now turned
to more and more propaganda and openly started supporting what he described as ‘revolutionary
outfits’ and the West described as terrorist organizations. He became America’s
public enemy number one when he rejected American sponsored peace process in the
region.
It was
around this time that Ronald Reagan, a second rate actor of B grade Hollywood
movies, who had become America’s president (and was probably showing early
signs of senility) described Gaddafi as ‘the mad dog of Africa’ (very classy).
From this point onwards an image of Gaddafi as an unhinged, slightly buffoonish, but nevertheless sinister, villain took roots in the psych of many in the West (reinforced by images of Gaddafi's near-zombified face).
I heard the (equally buffoonish) BBC presenter John Simpson (who has the knack making
himself the hero, somehow, of any conflict he is covering) on BBC Radio 4. Simpson who interviewed
Gaddafi on many occasions said that in his view Gaddafi was
totally barking. He (Gaddafi) was apparently on so many pills towards the end (according to Simpson) that it took him half an hour to take them all. (This seems
like a typical Simpson exaggeration.) I read in the Guardian that a ‘soldier’ of
the rebel forces which captured Gaddafi and killed him said that in his last
moments Gaddafi was ‘blabbering like an idiot.’ Apparently Gaddafi was
repeatedly saying, ‘What is going on? Where am I? What have I done?’ The ‘soldier’
said they could not believe this was the same man who had ruled Libya for 42
years.
It is also true that towards the end Gaddafi's public utterances became increasingly erratic, and it was difficult to make up one's mind whether he was being sarcastic or just incoherent. In his 2009
speech to the United Nations, Gaddafi accused the UN for failing to prevent a
total of 65 wars; he demanded that Security Council had too much power and
should be abolished (some sense in that; why are countries like France and
Britain still permanent members of the security council? It does not reflect
the changing power equation in the world);
and also demanded that European powers pay their former colonies 7.7 trillion
dollars in compensation or else face mass
immigration.
Gaddafi is frequently accused in the West of sponsoring
terrorist acts (e.g. Lockerby bombing). According to WikiPedia, as early as
1969 British Special Air Force was planning to assassinate Gaddafi in an
operation dubbed ‘Hilton Assignment’, but the plan was called off at the last
minute because United States (Britain was America’s lackey even then) pulled
the plug, deciding that Gaddafi was ant-Communist and therefore acceptable.
The dement Reagan famously bombed Gaddafi’s compound in 1986 in the
full knowledge that several civilians would be killed along with Gaddafi (Gaddafi survived, having left the compound shortly before the bombing, after being tipped, but his adopted daughter was killed.). A
renegade British Intelligence officer (who was hounded out of Britain) claimed that MI6 had assigned hundreds of
thousands of pounds in the 1990s to assassinate Gaddafi. All these assassination
plots were hatched in countries which claim to be civilised and democratic. The
secret services and air forces and armies are ultimately accountable to
politicians. If Gaddafi was a terrorist for the activities of individuals in
Libyan intelligence (as in Lockerby bombing) what do these failed assassination
attempts on Gaddafi make the Western politicians who must have known about (and
in all probabilities authorized) them? Murderers? Terrorists?
The irony
of course is that Gaddafi (like Saddam Hussain in Iraq) was also hated by Islamic
extremists as well and a few of the attempts on his life were carried out by
Islamic extremist organizations.
Ultimately
it comes down to oil. If Libya did not have oil nobody would have cared what went on in that country. (Do any of the countries, always eager to invade oil-rich nations care about what is going on in Burma or Zimbabwe?)
Libya alone is pouring millions of barrels of oil every day into the world; the oil is of such
quality that not a great of expenditure is needed to purify it. If Gaddafi had
been content in remaining the poodle of the Western powers and allowed the
Western multinationals to dig oil and make profits worth billions of dollars, no
one would have cared what he got up to in his desert country.
It is the
curse of oil.
