West's double standards
NO SOONER had news of Muammar Gaddafi's execution spread from Sirte than an outburst of celebration greeted commentary in some circles across the globe.
When an aide showed her a picture of Gaddafi's dead body, an excited US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exclaimed: "Wow!" And in poor taste, she announced: "We came, we saw, he died."
Her boss, President Barack Obama, described the occasion as a "momentous day."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy described the execution as a "disappearance" and said it was "a major step forward in the battle fought for more than eight months by the Libyan people to liberate themselves from the dictatorial and violent regime imposed on them for more than 40 years".
The number one peace tribune and international civil servant, United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said the execution "marks a historic transition for Libya" while at the same time calling for "healing and rebuilding ... generosity of spirit, not for revenge".
These comments prompted Russian ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato), Dmitry Rogozin, to write on Twitter: "The faces of the leaders of 'world democracies' are so happy, as if they remembered how they hanged stray cats in basements in their childhoods."
As happened after the execution and dumping at sea of Osama bin Laden by US Special Forces, the unintelligible narrative of Gaddafi's execution reflects a world that has come to accept double standards and outright distortion as a function of power.
Gaddafi "disappeared"; he was not executed. The change of regime in Tripoli was effected by the Libyan people, not Nato.
Facts have been twisted. The execution becomes a "momentous day", one that "marks a historic transition for Libya".
That the execution is a manifestation of (and will exacerbate) social divisions and the controversial role of some major world powers is glossed over.
Similarly overlooked are the troubling ethical and political dimensions relating to international law, global governance and the future of the world itself.
Nato member states, Libya's National Transitional Council's (NTC) backers (or is it handlers?), claim that their intervention is an altruistic venture driven by lofty values of human rights, democracy, free speech and rule of law - the exact opposite of Gaddafi.
But once captured, Gaddafi became a prisoner of war, with legal and moral implications for his captors.
Article 13 of the Geneva Convention to which Nato is a signatory states: "Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
Where then are the values of the rule of law in the execution of a political opponent? Why did they not bring Gaddafi before an impartial court of law? Do the celebratory chants by NTC backers not betray their rhetoric?
The crisis could have been resolved without much blood-letting and the destruction of infrastructure if the African Union's (AU) proposals had been heeded. But Nato 's primary consideration was to remove Gaddafi to create a client state, which would make it possible for the West to access its oil , as recent revelations of secret oil deals between the NTC and the West suggest, and to orient Libya into the West's sphere of influence in the region.
Nato states pursue AU-type approaches to conflict resolution when it suites them . It adopted this approach in Bahrain, were the monarchy earlier this year responded to popular uprisings in the same fashion as Gaddafi did .
In sharp contrast, the US, said Clinton, "made clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing Bahrain. Violence is not the answer, a political process is".
The difference in approach is that Bahrain is a US ally, home to its navy's Fifth Fleet and part of Washington's geo-political architecture in the region.
Further, in contrast, Gaddafi demanded the US withdrawal in Tripoli in June 1970, denying it a strategic military facility in the Maghreb, the Sahel and the Middle East.
So, when US President Ronald Reagan called Gaddafi "This mad dog of the Middle East" in 1986, he was expressing more than outrage at the Libyan leader's alleged involvement in terrorist attacks against the US. Beneath this street-level and un-presidential crudeness was a subterranean ideological grudge, Gaddafi's inconsistencies notwithstanding.
In the last 10 years, the US has pressured African governments to establish military bases in Africa under the auspices of the US Africa Command (Africom). With Gaddafi gone, Libya is most likely to be an Africom host nation, alongside Uganda, which recently invited 100 US military advisers to help hunt down Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army.
South Sudan is another potential Africom host. Sixteen days after independence i n July, Africom Commander, General Carter Ham met President Salva Kiir Mayardit to discuss "military partnership" (read "military tutelage") .
Given (North) Sudan's belief that the US seeks to effect regime change in Khartoum, an Africom presence in South Sudan will further tensions between the two countries.
No doubt, the world will be fed familiar Afro-pessimist narratives of a conflict-prone Africa, ignoring the role others play in promoting conflict on the continent.
- Papo is ANC Member of the Gauteng provincial legislature and SACP Gauteng PEC. This is written in his personal capacity.See Part Two tomorrow
coolio
100 % correct. they talk about the evil things of the regime but forget to talk about the best healthcare, access to education, housing and unemployed allowance that gaddafi provided to the citizens of libya. the west are motivated by gaining access to libya oil. we South African blacks never killed whites as revenge for killing political prisoners and our fathers fought many years for this freedom. but NATO succeded in 8 months through killing. many white South Africans who benefited from apartheid are living in Europe (England) but they want to lecture us on human rights f%&#ck off USA, France and England. Gaddafi provided good living conditions for libyans long live his spiritReport Abuse
Gweez
The US and The entire West are dictators themselves...don't know much about politics but, I feel the west is undermining the AU by getting involved in matter that don't concerm them.But how are we as Africans supposed to stand up for ourselves, cause even those in power they don't wana reliquish their position in the spirit of democracy and it seems the only way out for them is DEATH.
Report Abuse
SteveBiko
Brother leader, provided the best for his country, he never let them suffer, the West were just jealous and after his oil, and the idiots people of Libya in the name of rebels play into the lies of the west they will suffer after this , cause there are now owe their lives to the west.. hope they all die of hunger like somalians.REST IN PEACE
MG
Report Abuse
SebolaNtimetseAdikateMoketla
ObamaLekwerekwere
Voted in also by Anti-Africa Americans
Later to be sent to k!ll his own people in Africa
in the 1980's Mandela calls Gaddafi "comrade Gaddafi"
He must have sobbed quietly when no one could see him.
Agents causing havoc after being brainwashed "you are under oppresive rule"
Thats why Cele was told to k!ll you- remember Andries Tatane
Try this in Zim you shall see
Agents of the West
Causing havoc in Africa in the name of service delivery protests (SA and Botswana)
LE TLO NNYELA
Wena Obama
Kwere
Kwere
Kwere
Kwere!
Report Abuse
Devon11
In my opinion you and the clearly uneducated xenophobe SebolaNtimetseAdikateMoketla above, may be deranged, sir.You're entitled to your view, but then again many who subscribe to any form of communist agenda (a system that has never worked anywhere in the world, not even in China) might not be the best judges of Realpolitik.
Gaddafi was a brutal dictator who was indicted by the ICC and who invited his fate. Now that's progress, and other dictators should take note of what happened there. But the bottom line is there is nothing you can do about it but pen ill conceived whiney opinion pieces. What are you gonna do? Invade the West in retaliation. No you cant, can you? So they win. Again. So quit whining, live with it, and perhaps focus on a cause which can actually make a difference in African people's lives, like fair trade for Africa.
Finish and klaar.
*drops mic*
Report Abuse
Rabubi02
OBAMA =OSAMA
difference? B & S = BS (bullsh!t)!!!!!!
down with these puppet @ss peole. O-bizzy, Hillary, Condy, Nic, UN (mo-fo's), NATO
Report Abuse
Mzabalazo
It very sad when those in power manipulate the system to favour them and promote peace where there is noone and promotes violence where they will benefit. The hippocracy of the west has long been transparent, Their support ofn Isrealis terrorism, the toppling of Hamas when it won free and fair. Iam not in favour of radical Islam, but if the legitimate majority of that counrty elects them ten who are we to oppose the self-determination of others when it doesnt suit our interests. It a pity the world is not fair.If Gaddafi has been toopled, why not Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi why should other dictators be accepteble to the west and others not.What is wrong in Libya is right in Bahrain and Isreal, This world unfortunately will never change, whoever has the power oppresses and or comtrol others, just like us in Mzansi, we are controlled by the Chinese, we supported the Burma/Maymar junta just because China supports them, we did not even think how it was like when the USA and the west supported apartheid.Pity.Report Abuse
Traveljunie
@Coolio100 % correct. they talk about the evil things of the regime but
forget to talk about the best healthcare, access to education,
housing and unemployed allowance that gaddafi provided to the
citizens of libya.
-----------------------
Can you give us the source of that info?
In futur before you write drivel as gospil check your facts. Its typical brainwash revolutionaries like you that get all angry about the wrong things.
Brother Gaddafi killed more of his own than what he helped. Just a simple test would be to ask why was there such a revolt against such a loved leader?
Report Abuse