The rise and fall of Colonel Muamar Gadaffi
The rise and fall of Colonel Muamar Gadaffi
shame NATO
Malyamungu
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 5, 2009
- 363
- 12
Yes nimekusoma ila pia nina swali ambalo pengine litatoka nje ya hili somo ingawa linahusu hivi vita.
Hapo Tripoli vita vilianza Ghadafi akiwa analaumiwa kwa kuyapiga mabomu na kuuwa wanachi wake. Je kule Yemen mbona yule rais anaendelea tena sana na mambo ni laivu mpaka vyumbani mwa hawa NATO na USA UK Australia na wengine? Mbona wamkemea huyu jamaa (Yemen president ) kwa shingo upande hata manowari moja haijatangazwa kuwa imeshafika tayari kwa kuipiga Yemen kama ilivyokuwa kwa Ghadafi????
Basi president wa Yemen atakuwa yeye anawauwa NGURUWE WALA MIHOGO basi. Ukweli jamani sijaelwa BALI NIMELEWA POMBE ZA NATO. ajuae anijuve jamani.
Any answer will be appriciated.
Mugabe labels Nato a 'terrorist group' over Libya
Nato is a terrorist organisation - akin to al-Qaeda - because of its bombing campaign in Libya, Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has said.
Mr Mugabe said Nato was bombing innocent civilians.
"They seek to kill Gaddafi," he said. "They have in fact deliberately killed some of his children. Now when they do that deliberately, it is exactly what the Taliban and al-Qaeda do - what is the difference in terms of what they [Nato] are doing?
"That's why I say Nato is now a terrorist organisation as well," he added, to cheers from the crowd.
BBC News - Mugabe labels Nato a 'terrorist group' over Libya
Nato is a terrorist organisation - akin to al-Qaeda - because of its bombing campaign in Libya, Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has said.
Mr Mugabe said Nato was bombing innocent civilians.
"They seek to kill Gaddafi," he said. "They have in fact deliberately killed some of his children. Now when they do that deliberately, it is exactly what the Taliban and al-Qaeda do - what is the difference in terms of what they [Nato] are doing?
"That's why I say Nato is now a terrorist organisation as well," he added, to cheers from the crowd.
BBC News - Mugabe labels Nato a 'terrorist group' over Libya
FairPlayer
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 27, 2006
- 4,145
- 723
Why the West wants the fall of Gaddafi.
Note: US President Obama has frozen $30 Billion of Libyan funds earmarked for African Projects. The Obama Administration is giving $25 million to the rebels for a Regime Change agenda in Libya, which US and EU have vowed to accomplish. France, UK and Italy have sent military experts to strengthen the rebels. Obama had approved a covert CIA action before the bombing of Libya began in mid March.
16th April 2011
Analysis by Jean-Paul Pougala Africans should think about the real reasons why western countries are waging war on Libya, writes Jean-Paul Pougala, in an analysis that traces the countrys role in shaping the African Union and the development of the continent.
It was Gaddafis 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.
It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.
An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldnt finance such a project? But the problem remained how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their masters exploitation ask the masters help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western benefactors with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million and thats how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.
China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.
This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafis Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.
AFRICAN MONETARY FUND, AFRICAN CENTRAL BANK, AFRICAN INVESTMENT BANK
The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.
The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only US$25 billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatisation like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations.
It is increasingly obvious that after Libya, the western coalition will go after Algeria, because apart from its huge energy resources, the country has cash reserves of around a 150 billion. This is what lures the countries that are bombing Libya and they all have one thing in common they are practically bankrupt. The USA alone, has a staggering debt of $US14,000 billion, France, Great Britain and Italy each have a US$2,000 billion public deficit compared to less than US$400 billion in public debt for 46 African countries combined.
Inciting spurious wars in Africa in the hope that this will revitalise their economies which are sinking ever more into the doldrums will ultimately hasten the western decline which actually began in 1884 during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the American economist Adam Smith predicted in 1865 when he publicly backed Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery, the economy of any country which relies on the slavery of blacks is destined to descend into hell the day those countries awaken.
REGIONAL UNITY AS AN OBSTABLE TO THE CREATION OF A UNITED STATES OF AFRICA
To destabilise and destroy the African union which was veering dangerously (for the West) towards a United States of Africa under the guiding hand of Gaddafi, the European Union first tried, unsuccessfully, to create the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM). North Africa somehow had to be cut off from the rest of Africa, using the old tired racist clichés of the 18th and 19th centuries, which claimed that Africans of Arab origin were more evolved and civilised than the rest of the continent. This failed because Gaddafi refused to buy into it. He soon understood what game was being played when only a handful of African countries were invited to join the Mediterranean grouping without informing the African Union but inviting all 27 members of the European Union.
Without the driving force behind the African Federation, the UPM failed even before it began, still-born with Sarkozy as president and Mubarak as vice president. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe is now attempting to re-launch the idea, banking no doubt on the fall of Gaddafi. What African leaders fail to understand is that as long as the European Union continues to finance the African Union, the status quo will remain, because no real independence. This is why the European Union has encouraged and financed regional groupings in Africa.
It is obvious that the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS), which has an embassy in Brussels and depends for the bulk of its funding on the European Union, is a vociferous opponent to the African federation. Thats why Lincoln fought in the US war of secession because the moment a group of countries come together in a regional political organisation, it weakens the main group. That is what Europe wanted and the Africans have never understood the game plan, creating a plethora of regional groupings, COMESA, UDEAC, SADC, and the Great Maghreb which never saw the light of day thanks to Gaddafi who understood what was happening.
GADDAFI, THE AFRICAN WHO CLEANSED THE CONTINENT FROM THE HUMILIATION OF APARTHEID
For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldnt have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.
Mandela didnt mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an unwelcome one No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do. He added Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.
Indeed, the West still considered the South African racists to be their brothers who needed to be protected. Thats why the members of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were considered to be dangerous terrorists. It was only on 2 July 2008, that the US Congress finally voted a law to remove the name of Nelson Mandela and his ANC comrades from their black list, not because they realised how stupid that list was but because they wanted to mark Mandelas 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past support for Mandelas enemies and really sincere when they name streets and places after him, how can they continue to wage war against someone who helped Mandela and his people to be victorious, Gaddafi?
ARE THOSE WHO WANT TO EXPORT DEMOCRACY THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS?
And what if Gaddafis Libya were more democratic than the USA, France, Britain and other countries waging war to export democracy to Libya? On 19 March 2003, President George Bush began bombing Iraq under the pretext of bringing democracy. On 19 March 2011, exactly eight years later to the day, it was the French presidents turn to rain down bombs over Libya, once again claiming it was to bring democracy. Nobel peace prize-winner and US President Obama says unleashing cruise missiles from submarines is to oust the dictator and introduce democracy.
The question that anyone with even minimum intelligence cannot help asking is the following: Are countries like France, England, the USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland who defend their right to bomb Libya on the strength of their self proclaimed democratic status really democratic? If yes, are they more democratic than Gaddafis Libya? The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason that democracy doesnt exist. This isnt a personal opinion, but a quote from someone whose native town Geneva, hosts the bulk of UN institutions. The quote is from Jean Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 and who writes in chapter four of the third book of the famous Social Contract that there never was a true democracy and there never will be.
Rousseau sets out the following four conditions for a country to be labeled a democracy and according to these Gaddafis Libya is far more democratic than the USA, France and the others claiming to export democracy:
1. The State: The bigger a country, the less democratic it can be. According to Rousseau, the state has to be extremely small so that people can come together and know each other. Before asking people to vote, one must ensure that everybody knows everyone else, otherwise voting will be an act without any democratic basis, a simulacrum of democracy to elect a dictator.
The Libyan state is based on a system of tribal allegiances, which by definition group people together in small entities. The democratic spirit is much more present in a tribe, a village than in a big country, simply because people know each other, share a common life rhythm which involves a kind of self-regulation or even self-censorship in that the reactions and counter reactions of other members impacts on the group.
From this perspective, it would appear that Libya fits Rousseaus conditions better than the USA, France and Great Britain, all highly urbanised societies where most neighbors dont even say hello to each other and therefore dont know each other even if they have lived side by side for twenty years. These countries leapfrogged leaped into the next stage the vote which has been cleverly sanctified to obfuscate the fact that voting on the future of the country is useless if the voter doesnt know the other citizens. This has been pushed to ridiculous limits with voting rights being given to people living abroad. Communicating with and amongst each other is a precondition for any democratic debate before an election.
2. Simplicity in customs and behavioral patterns are also essential if one is to avoid spending the bulk of the time debating legal and judicial procedures in order to deal with the multitude of conflicts of interest inevitable in a large and complex society. Western countries define themselves as civilised nations with a more complex social structure whereas Libya is described as a primitive country with a simple set of customs. This aspect too indicates that Libya responds better to Rousseaus democratic criteria than all those trying to give lessons in democracy. Conflicts in complex societies are most often won by those with more power, which is why the rich manage to avoid prison because they can afford to hire top lawyers and instead arrange for state repression to be directed against someone one who stole a banana in a supermarket rather than a financial criminal who ruined a bank. In the city of New York for example where 75 per cent of the population is white, 80 per cent of management posts are occupied by whites who make up only 20 per cent of incarcerated people.
3. Equality in status and wealth: A look at the Forbes 2010 list shows who the richest people in each of the countries currently bombing Libya are and the difference between them and those who earn the lowest salaries in those nations; a similar exercise on Libya will reveal that in terms of wealth distribution, Libya has much more to teach than those fighting it now, and not the contrary. So here too, using Rousseaus criteria, Libya is more democratic than the nations pompously pretending to bring democracy. In the USA, 5 per cent of the population owns 60 per cent of the national wealth, making it the most unequal and unbalanced society in the world.
4. No luxuries: According to Rousseau there cant be any luxury if there is to be democracy. Luxury, he says, makes wealth a necessity which then becomes a virtue in itself, it, and not the welfare of the people becomes the goal to be reached at all cost, Luxury corrupts both the rich and the poor, the one through possession and the other through envy; it makes the nation soft and prey to vanity; it distances people from the State and enslaves them, making them a slave to opinion.
Is there more luxury in France than in Libya? The reports on employees committing suicide because of stressful working conditions even in public or semi-public companies, all in the name of maximising profit for a minority and keeping them in luxury, happen in the West, not in Libya.
The American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote in 1956 that American democracy was a dictatorship of the elite. According to Mills, the USA is not a democracy because it is money that talks during elections and not the people. The results of each election are the expression of the voice of money and not the voice of the people. After Bush senior and Bush junior, they are already talking about a younger Bush for the 2012 Republican primaries. Moreover, as Max Weber pointed out, since political power is dependent on the bureaucracy, the US has 43 million bureaucrats and military personnel who effectively rule the country but without being elected and are not accountable to the people for their actions. One person (a rich one) is elected, but the real power lies with the caste of the wealthy who then get nominated to be ambassadors, generals, etc.
How many people in these self-proclaimed democracies know that Perus constitution prohibits an outgoing president from seeking a second consecutive mandate? How many know that in Guatemala, not only can an outgoing president not seek re-election to the same post, no one from that persons family can aspire to the top job either? Or that Rwanda is the only country in the world that has 56 per cent female parliamentarians? How many people know that in the 2007 CIA index, four of the worlds best-governed countries are African? That the top prize goes to Equatorial Guinea whose public debt represents only 1.14 per cent of GDP?
Rousseau maintains that civil wars, revolts and rebellions are the ingredients of the beginning of democracy. Because democracy is not an end, but a permanent process of the reaffirmation of the natural rights of human beings which in countries all over the world (without exception) are trampled upon by a handful of men and women who have hijacked the power of the people to perpetuate their supremacy. There are here and there groups of people who have usurped the term democracy instead of it being an ideal towards which one strives it has become a label to be appropriated or a slogan which is used by people who can shout louder than others. If a country is calm, like France or the USA, that is to say without any rebellions, it only means, from Rousseaus perspective, that the dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to pre-empt any revolt.
It wouldnt be a bad thing if the Libyans revolted. What is bad is to affirm that people stoically accept a system that represses them all over the world without reacting. And Rousseau concludes: Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium translation If gods were people, they would govern themselves democratically. Such a perfect government is not applicable to human beings. To claim that one is killing Libyans for their own good is a hoax.
WHAT LESSONS FOR AFRICA?
After 500 years of a profoundly unequal relationship with the West, it is clear that we dont have the same criteria of what is good and bad. We have deeply divergent interests. How can one not deplore the yes votes from three sub-Saharan countries (Nigeria, South Africa and Gabon) for resolution 1973 that inaugurated the latest form of colonisation baptised the protection of peoples, which legitimises the racist theories that have informed Europeans since the 18th century and according to which North Africa has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africa, that North Africa is more evolved, cultivated and civilised than the rest of Africa?
It is as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Algeria were not part of Africa, Even the United Nations seems to ignore the role of the African Union in the affairs of member states. The aim is to isolate sub Saharan African countries to better isolate and control them. Indeed, Algeria (US$16 billion) and Libya (US$10 billion ) together contribute 62 per cent of the US$42 billion which constitute the capital of the African Monetary Fund (AMF). The biggest and most populous country in sub Saharan Africa, Nigeria, followed by South Africa are far behind with only 3 billion dollars each.
It is disconcerting to say the least that for the first time in the history of the United Nations, war has been declared against a people without having explored the slightest possibility of a peaceful solution to the crisis. Does Africa really belong anymore to this organisation? Nigeria and South Africa are prepared to vote Yes to everything the West asks because they naively believe the vague promises of a permanent seat at the Security Council with similar veto rights. They both forget that France has no power to offer anything. If it did, Mitterand would have long done the needful for Helmut Kohls Germany.
A reform of the United Nations is not on the agenda. The only way to make a point is to use the Chinese method all 50 African nations should quit the United Nations and only return if their longstanding demand is finally met, a seat for the entire African federation or nothing. This non-violent method is the only weapon of justice available to the poor and weak that we are. We should simply quit the United Nations because this organisation, by its very structure and hierarchy, is at the service of the most powerful.
We should leave the United Nations to register our rejection of a worldview based on the annihilation of those who are weaker. They are free to continue as before but at least we will not be party to it and say we agree when we were never asked for our opinion. And even when we expressed our point of view, like we did on Saturday 19 March in Nouakchott, when we opposed the military action, our opinion was simply ignored and the bombs started falling on the African people.
Todays events are reminiscent of what happened with China in the past. Today, one recognises the Ouattara government, the rebel government in Libya, like one did at the end of the Second World War with China. The so-called international community chose Taiwan to be the sole representative of the Chinese people instead of Maos China. It took 26 years when on 25 October 1971, for the UN to pass resolution 2758 which all Africans should read to put an end to human folly. China was admitted and on its terms it refused to be a member if it didnt have a veto right. When the demand was met and the resolution tabled, it still took a year for the Chinese foreign minister to respond in writing to the UN Secretary General on 29 September 1972, a letter which didnt say yes or thank you but spelt out guarantees required for Chinas dignity to be respected.
What does Africa hope to achieve from the United Nations without playing hard ball? We saw how in Cote dIvoire a UN bureaucrat considers himself to be above the constitution of the country. We entered this organisation by agreeing to be slaves and to believe that we will be invited to dine at the same table and eat from plates we ourselves washed is not just credulous, it is stupid.
When the African Union endorsed Ouattaras victory and glossed over contrary reports from its own electoral observers simply to please our former masters, how can we expect to be respected? When South African president Zuma declares that Ouattara hasnt won the elections and then says the exact opposite during a trip to Paris, one is entitled to question the credibility of these leaders who claim to represent and speak on behalf of a billion Africans.
Africas strength and real freedom will only come if it can take properly thought out actions and assume the consequences. Dignity and respect come with a price tag. Are we prepared to pay it? Otherwise, our place is in the kitchen and in the toilets in order to make others comfortable.
Jean-Paul Pougala is a Cameroonian writer. Translated from the French by Sputnik Kilambi
Note: US President Obama has frozen $30 Billion of Libyan funds earmarked for African Projects. The Obama Administration is giving $25 million to the rebels for a Regime Change agenda in Libya, which US and EU have vowed to accomplish. France, UK and Italy have sent military experts to strengthen the rebels. Obama had approved a covert CIA action before the bombing of Libya began in mid March.
16th April 2011
Analysis by Jean-Paul Pougala Africans should think about the real reasons why western countries are waging war on Libya, writes Jean-Paul Pougala, in an analysis that traces the countrys role in shaping the African Union and the development of the continent.
It was Gaddafis 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.
It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.
An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldnt finance such a project? But the problem remained how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their masters exploitation ask the masters help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western benefactors with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million and thats how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.
China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.
This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafis Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.
AFRICAN MONETARY FUND, AFRICAN CENTRAL BANK, AFRICAN INVESTMENT BANK
The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.
The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only US$25 billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatisation like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations.
It is increasingly obvious that after Libya, the western coalition will go after Algeria, because apart from its huge energy resources, the country has cash reserves of around a 150 billion. This is what lures the countries that are bombing Libya and they all have one thing in common they are practically bankrupt. The USA alone, has a staggering debt of $US14,000 billion, France, Great Britain and Italy each have a US$2,000 billion public deficit compared to less than US$400 billion in public debt for 46 African countries combined.
Inciting spurious wars in Africa in the hope that this will revitalise their economies which are sinking ever more into the doldrums will ultimately hasten the western decline which actually began in 1884 during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the American economist Adam Smith predicted in 1865 when he publicly backed Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery, the economy of any country which relies on the slavery of blacks is destined to descend into hell the day those countries awaken.
REGIONAL UNITY AS AN OBSTABLE TO THE CREATION OF A UNITED STATES OF AFRICA
To destabilise and destroy the African union which was veering dangerously (for the West) towards a United States of Africa under the guiding hand of Gaddafi, the European Union first tried, unsuccessfully, to create the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM). North Africa somehow had to be cut off from the rest of Africa, using the old tired racist clichés of the 18th and 19th centuries, which claimed that Africans of Arab origin were more evolved and civilised than the rest of the continent. This failed because Gaddafi refused to buy into it. He soon understood what game was being played when only a handful of African countries were invited to join the Mediterranean grouping without informing the African Union but inviting all 27 members of the European Union.
Without the driving force behind the African Federation, the UPM failed even before it began, still-born with Sarkozy as president and Mubarak as vice president. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe is now attempting to re-launch the idea, banking no doubt on the fall of Gaddafi. What African leaders fail to understand is that as long as the European Union continues to finance the African Union, the status quo will remain, because no real independence. This is why the European Union has encouraged and financed regional groupings in Africa.
It is obvious that the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS), which has an embassy in Brussels and depends for the bulk of its funding on the European Union, is a vociferous opponent to the African federation. Thats why Lincoln fought in the US war of secession because the moment a group of countries come together in a regional political organisation, it weakens the main group. That is what Europe wanted and the Africans have never understood the game plan, creating a plethora of regional groupings, COMESA, UDEAC, SADC, and the Great Maghreb which never saw the light of day thanks to Gaddafi who understood what was happening.
GADDAFI, THE AFRICAN WHO CLEANSED THE CONTINENT FROM THE HUMILIATION OF APARTHEID
For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldnt have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.
Mandela didnt mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an unwelcome one No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do. He added Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.
Indeed, the West still considered the South African racists to be their brothers who needed to be protected. Thats why the members of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were considered to be dangerous terrorists. It was only on 2 July 2008, that the US Congress finally voted a law to remove the name of Nelson Mandela and his ANC comrades from their black list, not because they realised how stupid that list was but because they wanted to mark Mandelas 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past support for Mandelas enemies and really sincere when they name streets and places after him, how can they continue to wage war against someone who helped Mandela and his people to be victorious, Gaddafi?
ARE THOSE WHO WANT TO EXPORT DEMOCRACY THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS?
And what if Gaddafis Libya were more democratic than the USA, France, Britain and other countries waging war to export democracy to Libya? On 19 March 2003, President George Bush began bombing Iraq under the pretext of bringing democracy. On 19 March 2011, exactly eight years later to the day, it was the French presidents turn to rain down bombs over Libya, once again claiming it was to bring democracy. Nobel peace prize-winner and US President Obama says unleashing cruise missiles from submarines is to oust the dictator and introduce democracy.
The question that anyone with even minimum intelligence cannot help asking is the following: Are countries like France, England, the USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland who defend their right to bomb Libya on the strength of their self proclaimed democratic status really democratic? If yes, are they more democratic than Gaddafis Libya? The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason that democracy doesnt exist. This isnt a personal opinion, but a quote from someone whose native town Geneva, hosts the bulk of UN institutions. The quote is from Jean Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 and who writes in chapter four of the third book of the famous Social Contract that there never was a true democracy and there never will be.
Rousseau sets out the following four conditions for a country to be labeled a democracy and according to these Gaddafis Libya is far more democratic than the USA, France and the others claiming to export democracy:
1. The State: The bigger a country, the less democratic it can be. According to Rousseau, the state has to be extremely small so that people can come together and know each other. Before asking people to vote, one must ensure that everybody knows everyone else, otherwise voting will be an act without any democratic basis, a simulacrum of democracy to elect a dictator.
The Libyan state is based on a system of tribal allegiances, which by definition group people together in small entities. The democratic spirit is much more present in a tribe, a village than in a big country, simply because people know each other, share a common life rhythm which involves a kind of self-regulation or even self-censorship in that the reactions and counter reactions of other members impacts on the group.
From this perspective, it would appear that Libya fits Rousseaus conditions better than the USA, France and Great Britain, all highly urbanised societies where most neighbors dont even say hello to each other and therefore dont know each other even if they have lived side by side for twenty years. These countries leapfrogged leaped into the next stage the vote which has been cleverly sanctified to obfuscate the fact that voting on the future of the country is useless if the voter doesnt know the other citizens. This has been pushed to ridiculous limits with voting rights being given to people living abroad. Communicating with and amongst each other is a precondition for any democratic debate before an election.
2. Simplicity in customs and behavioral patterns are also essential if one is to avoid spending the bulk of the time debating legal and judicial procedures in order to deal with the multitude of conflicts of interest inevitable in a large and complex society. Western countries define themselves as civilised nations with a more complex social structure whereas Libya is described as a primitive country with a simple set of customs. This aspect too indicates that Libya responds better to Rousseaus democratic criteria than all those trying to give lessons in democracy. Conflicts in complex societies are most often won by those with more power, which is why the rich manage to avoid prison because they can afford to hire top lawyers and instead arrange for state repression to be directed against someone one who stole a banana in a supermarket rather than a financial criminal who ruined a bank. In the city of New York for example where 75 per cent of the population is white, 80 per cent of management posts are occupied by whites who make up only 20 per cent of incarcerated people.
3. Equality in status and wealth: A look at the Forbes 2010 list shows who the richest people in each of the countries currently bombing Libya are and the difference between them and those who earn the lowest salaries in those nations; a similar exercise on Libya will reveal that in terms of wealth distribution, Libya has much more to teach than those fighting it now, and not the contrary. So here too, using Rousseaus criteria, Libya is more democratic than the nations pompously pretending to bring democracy. In the USA, 5 per cent of the population owns 60 per cent of the national wealth, making it the most unequal and unbalanced society in the world.
4. No luxuries: According to Rousseau there cant be any luxury if there is to be democracy. Luxury, he says, makes wealth a necessity which then becomes a virtue in itself, it, and not the welfare of the people becomes the goal to be reached at all cost, Luxury corrupts both the rich and the poor, the one through possession and the other through envy; it makes the nation soft and prey to vanity; it distances people from the State and enslaves them, making them a slave to opinion.
Is there more luxury in France than in Libya? The reports on employees committing suicide because of stressful working conditions even in public or semi-public companies, all in the name of maximising profit for a minority and keeping them in luxury, happen in the West, not in Libya.
The American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote in 1956 that American democracy was a dictatorship of the elite. According to Mills, the USA is not a democracy because it is money that talks during elections and not the people. The results of each election are the expression of the voice of money and not the voice of the people. After Bush senior and Bush junior, they are already talking about a younger Bush for the 2012 Republican primaries. Moreover, as Max Weber pointed out, since political power is dependent on the bureaucracy, the US has 43 million bureaucrats and military personnel who effectively rule the country but without being elected and are not accountable to the people for their actions. One person (a rich one) is elected, but the real power lies with the caste of the wealthy who then get nominated to be ambassadors, generals, etc.
How many people in these self-proclaimed democracies know that Perus constitution prohibits an outgoing president from seeking a second consecutive mandate? How many know that in Guatemala, not only can an outgoing president not seek re-election to the same post, no one from that persons family can aspire to the top job either? Or that Rwanda is the only country in the world that has 56 per cent female parliamentarians? How many people know that in the 2007 CIA index, four of the worlds best-governed countries are African? That the top prize goes to Equatorial Guinea whose public debt represents only 1.14 per cent of GDP?
Rousseau maintains that civil wars, revolts and rebellions are the ingredients of the beginning of democracy. Because democracy is not an end, but a permanent process of the reaffirmation of the natural rights of human beings which in countries all over the world (without exception) are trampled upon by a handful of men and women who have hijacked the power of the people to perpetuate their supremacy. There are here and there groups of people who have usurped the term democracy instead of it being an ideal towards which one strives it has become a label to be appropriated or a slogan which is used by people who can shout louder than others. If a country is calm, like France or the USA, that is to say without any rebellions, it only means, from Rousseaus perspective, that the dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to pre-empt any revolt.
It wouldnt be a bad thing if the Libyans revolted. What is bad is to affirm that people stoically accept a system that represses them all over the world without reacting. And Rousseau concludes: Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium translation If gods were people, they would govern themselves democratically. Such a perfect government is not applicable to human beings. To claim that one is killing Libyans for their own good is a hoax.
WHAT LESSONS FOR AFRICA?
After 500 years of a profoundly unequal relationship with the West, it is clear that we dont have the same criteria of what is good and bad. We have deeply divergent interests. How can one not deplore the yes votes from three sub-Saharan countries (Nigeria, South Africa and Gabon) for resolution 1973 that inaugurated the latest form of colonisation baptised the protection of peoples, which legitimises the racist theories that have informed Europeans since the 18th century and according to which North Africa has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africa, that North Africa is more evolved, cultivated and civilised than the rest of Africa?
It is as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Algeria were not part of Africa, Even the United Nations seems to ignore the role of the African Union in the affairs of member states. The aim is to isolate sub Saharan African countries to better isolate and control them. Indeed, Algeria (US$16 billion) and Libya (US$10 billion ) together contribute 62 per cent of the US$42 billion which constitute the capital of the African Monetary Fund (AMF). The biggest and most populous country in sub Saharan Africa, Nigeria, followed by South Africa are far behind with only 3 billion dollars each.
It is disconcerting to say the least that for the first time in the history of the United Nations, war has been declared against a people without having explored the slightest possibility of a peaceful solution to the crisis. Does Africa really belong anymore to this organisation? Nigeria and South Africa are prepared to vote Yes to everything the West asks because they naively believe the vague promises of a permanent seat at the Security Council with similar veto rights. They both forget that France has no power to offer anything. If it did, Mitterand would have long done the needful for Helmut Kohls Germany.
A reform of the United Nations is not on the agenda. The only way to make a point is to use the Chinese method all 50 African nations should quit the United Nations and only return if their longstanding demand is finally met, a seat for the entire African federation or nothing. This non-violent method is the only weapon of justice available to the poor and weak that we are. We should simply quit the United Nations because this organisation, by its very structure and hierarchy, is at the service of the most powerful.
We should leave the United Nations to register our rejection of a worldview based on the annihilation of those who are weaker. They are free to continue as before but at least we will not be party to it and say we agree when we were never asked for our opinion. And even when we expressed our point of view, like we did on Saturday 19 March in Nouakchott, when we opposed the military action, our opinion was simply ignored and the bombs started falling on the African people.
Todays events are reminiscent of what happened with China in the past. Today, one recognises the Ouattara government, the rebel government in Libya, like one did at the end of the Second World War with China. The so-called international community chose Taiwan to be the sole representative of the Chinese people instead of Maos China. It took 26 years when on 25 October 1971, for the UN to pass resolution 2758 which all Africans should read to put an end to human folly. China was admitted and on its terms it refused to be a member if it didnt have a veto right. When the demand was met and the resolution tabled, it still took a year for the Chinese foreign minister to respond in writing to the UN Secretary General on 29 September 1972, a letter which didnt say yes or thank you but spelt out guarantees required for Chinas dignity to be respected.
What does Africa hope to achieve from the United Nations without playing hard ball? We saw how in Cote dIvoire a UN bureaucrat considers himself to be above the constitution of the country. We entered this organisation by agreeing to be slaves and to believe that we will be invited to dine at the same table and eat from plates we ourselves washed is not just credulous, it is stupid.
When the African Union endorsed Ouattaras victory and glossed over contrary reports from its own electoral observers simply to please our former masters, how can we expect to be respected? When South African president Zuma declares that Ouattara hasnt won the elections and then says the exact opposite during a trip to Paris, one is entitled to question the credibility of these leaders who claim to represent and speak on behalf of a billion Africans.
Africas strength and real freedom will only come if it can take properly thought out actions and assume the consequences. Dignity and respect come with a price tag. Are we prepared to pay it? Otherwise, our place is in the kitchen and in the toilets in order to make others comfortable.
Jean-Paul Pougala is a Cameroonian writer. Translated from the French by Sputnik Kilambi
FairPlayer
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 27, 2006
- 4,145
- 723
Kizdude, Africa is toothless because of poor leadership and lack of good governance
Wametufanya tuamini katika ubepari huku wao wakiendesha nchi zao kwa uzalendo wa hali ya juu. Hakuna ajuaye kuwa USA kamwe haitaweza kutoa rasilimali zake kwa taifa lingine bila sababu kwani lipo katika matatizo makubwa. Tukifikiri ni kwa nini tuna mipaka ya nchi kamwe tusingeruhusu hizi hujuma maana tungeheshimu utu na mipaka tuliyowekewa. je kuna justification ya kulipua amali za serikali na mwisho wa siku ukasema unatoa misaada kujenga. If you want people to be under you you have to make sure that all the time they are not independent economically socially and politically then you can use them as much as you can. The power of Gaddafi in all sorted areas was a threat to any kind of investment in Afrioca. It was a dificult moment for western to have african resources while Libya was in move to support many of african countries. What kind of motive would they tell other nations rather than misaada in order to get the resources. Gadafi for me will remain as Graet leader.
FairPlayer
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 27, 2006
- 4,145
- 723
You are absolutely right Sir!
Hao waje na hoja za msingi tuone exposure yao ikoje, waje tupambambane kwa hoja.
ubun2
Senior Member
- Jun 23, 2011
- 145
- 55
In Tanzania after 50yrs. the gvt. in power watches and lets happen a criminal activity going on at their own central bank today-(known as the Valambhia case in the local media-a 'special' project of the few-read all about it in the suppressed article titled "revealed: the most expensive legal case in Dar's history" by R.Mgamba and dated June 2009-article is not available online as it is suppressed by the gvt.) The Tanzanian people have the right to know about this matter.
My point is that when there is no good governance or respect for the rule of law, or the understanding of these concepts till then there cannot be a unified African federation or unified anything because in order to be unified one has to have the will and conviction first then proceed with the vision. History has shown us that no government can exist when abuses of human rights, abuses of justice are going on. They have all failed!
My point is that when there is no good governance or respect for the rule of law, or the understanding of these concepts till then there cannot be a unified African federation or unified anything because in order to be unified one has to have the will and conviction first then proceed with the vision. History has shown us that no government can exist when abuses of human rights, abuses of justice are going on. They have all failed!
The leader of Libya's rebel movement, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, has dismissed his entire executive committee, which functions as a cabinet.
This came in response to the killing of the rebel military chief Abdel Fattah Younes last month, a spokesman said.
Some among the rebels have blamed an allied Islamist faction for his death.
BBC News - Libya rebel leader sacks 'cabinet' over Younes death
This came in response to the killing of the rebel military chief Abdel Fattah Younes last month, a spokesman said.
Some among the rebels have blamed an allied Islamist faction for his death.
BBC News - Libya rebel leader sacks 'cabinet' over Younes death
The Libyan government has accused Nato of killing dozens of civilians in an attack on a village in western Libya.
Col Muammar Gaddafi's administration said Nato bombed Majar, south of the city of Zlitan, on Monday to allow rebel fighters to enter the area.
Officials say 85 civilians were killed, but Nato says the target was a military one, with civilian deaths unlikely.
A BBC correspondent says he saw about 30 body bags at a local hospital, but it was unclear how the people died.
BBC News - Libya says Nato air strike kills dozens south of Zlitan
Col Muammar Gaddafi's administration said Nato bombed Majar, south of the city of Zlitan, on Monday to allow rebel fighters to enter the area.
Officials say 85 civilians were killed, but Nato says the target was a military one, with civilian deaths unlikely.
A BBC correspondent says he saw about 30 body bags at a local hospital, but it was unclear how the people died.
BBC News - Libya says Nato air strike kills dozens south of Zlitan
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: articleTitle"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: Tmp_hSpace10"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gaddafi government accuses NATO of 'massacre'
Bloc denies government claim that 85 killed in strikes near capital, as opposition leaders regroup after reshuffle.
State television showed the charred bodies of at least three children who were allegedly killed by a NATO strike on Monday night in the village of Majar, about 150km east of the capital, Tripoli.
It also showed wounded women and children being treated in a hospital.
The Libyan government announced three days of mourning for the victims, according to state television.
Mussa Ibrahim, the Libyan government spokesman, said: "After the first three bombs dropped at around 21:00 GMT on Monday, many residents of the area ran to the bombed houses to try to save their loved ones."
"Three more bombs struck. Thirty-three children, 32 women and 20 men from 12 families were killed in the massacre," Mussa told reporters on an organised visit.
Gaddafi government accuses NATO of 'massacre' - Africa - Al Jazeera English
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: articleTitle"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: Tmp_hSpace10"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gaddafi government accuses NATO of 'massacre'
Bloc denies government claim that 85 killed in strikes near capital, as opposition leaders regroup after reshuffle.
State television showed the charred bodies of at least three children who were allegedly killed by a NATO strike on Monday night in the village of Majar, about 150km east of the capital, Tripoli.
It also showed wounded women and children being treated in a hospital.
The Libyan government announced three days of mourning for the victims, according to state television.
Mussa Ibrahim, the Libyan government spokesman, said: "After the first three bombs dropped at around 21:00 GMT on Monday, many residents of the area ran to the bombed houses to try to save their loved ones."
"Three more bombs struck. Thirty-three children, 32 women and 20 men from 12 families were killed in the massacre," Mussa told reporters on an organised visit.
Gaddafi government accuses NATO of 'massacre' - Africa - Al Jazeera English
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
NICK2275
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 31, 2010
- 3,930
- 920
Libyan TV shows footage of 'Khamis Gaddafi'
Libyan state television has showed what it said was footage of Muammar Gaddafi's son Khamis visiting people wounded in an air attack east of Tripoli.
Rebels had said last week that Khamis had been killed. The government had denied rebel claims that Khamis, commander of one of Gaddafi's most loyal and best-equipped units, had been killed by a NATO air strike near Zlitan.
Libyan TV said the footage was recorded on Tuesday. If genuine, it would be the first visual proof that Khamis was still alive.
Wearing a military uniform and an orange beret and bearing a striking resemblance to Khamis, a man was heard chatting to people the network said were wounded earlier on Tuesday in a NATO air strike on farmhouses near Zlitan.
The government said 85 civilians were killed in the attack. NATO said it hit a legitimate military target and was investigating the incident.
"They bombed the house. You mean you did not expect to be bombed," Khamis could be heard asking a woman lying in a hospital bed.
Earlier, state television showed the charred bodies of at least three children who were allegedly killed by a NATO strike on Monday night in the village of Majar, about 150km east of the capital, Tripoli.
Majar is near Zlitan, where NATO forces have been mounting attacks on troops loyal to Gaddafi.
Source-Al jazeera
Libyan state television has showed what it said was footage of Muammar Gaddafi's son Khamis visiting people wounded in an air attack east of Tripoli.
Rebels had said last week that Khamis had been killed. The government had denied rebel claims that Khamis, commander of one of Gaddafi's most loyal and best-equipped units, had been killed by a NATO air strike near Zlitan.
Libyan TV said the footage was recorded on Tuesday. If genuine, it would be the first visual proof that Khamis was still alive.
Wearing a military uniform and an orange beret and bearing a striking resemblance to Khamis, a man was heard chatting to people the network said were wounded earlier on Tuesday in a NATO air strike on farmhouses near Zlitan.
The government said 85 civilians were killed in the attack. NATO said it hit a legitimate military target and was investigating the incident.
"They bombed the house. You mean you did not expect to be bombed," Khamis could be heard asking a woman lying in a hospital bed.
Earlier, state television showed the charred bodies of at least three children who were allegedly killed by a NATO strike on Monday night in the village of Majar, about 150km east of the capital, Tripoli.
Majar is near Zlitan, where NATO forces have been mounting attacks on troops loyal to Gaddafi.
Source-Al jazeera
NICK2275
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 31, 2010
- 3,930
- 920
tangulia tunakuja nyuma yako
Last edited by a moderator: