THE MANY LIES IN WAR AGAINST LIBYA
Forum di discussione del MFE e della GFEKadhafi's Africa: The Untold Story
THE MANY LIES TOLD BY THE WEST IN THEIR WAR AGAINST LIBYA
By Jean-Paul Pougala
*A- THE REAL REASONS FOR THE WAR IN LIBYA*
1- The first African satellite RASCOM 1
It was Libya's Kadhafi who gave all of Africa its first real revolution in
modern times: by ensuring universal coverage of the continent via telephone,
television, radio-broadcast and the many other applications such as telemedicine
and long-distance learning; for the first time in history, a low-cost connection
became available across the continent, and even into rural areas thanks to a
bridging WMAX system.
The story begins in 1992 when 45 African countries created the RASCOM
organization to acquire an African satellite in order to bring down the cost of
communications across the continent. At that time, calling from or to Africa had
the most expensive call rates in the world, since there was a surcharge of 500
million dollars which Europeans collected annually on telephone conversations
even within some African countries, just to transmit voice messages via European
satellites like Intelsat. An African satellite would barely cost 400 millions
dollars payable once and thus avoiding the 500 million annual rental fees. Which
banker wouldn't finance such a project? But the difficult part of the equation
remained unsettled: how does a beggar gain their freedom from exploitation by
their master by borrowing money from this same master to achieve this?
And so, the World Bank, the IMF, USA, the European Union had needlessly been
bilking these countries for over 14 years. It was in 2006 that Kadhafi put an
end to the agony of senseless begging from those supposed benefactors in the
West who only grant loans at predatory rates; the Libyan leaders put 300 million
dollars on the table, the African Development Bank put 50 million, the West
African Development Bank contributed 27 million and it is thus, Africa has owned
its very own communications satellite since December 26th 2000; The very first
communications satellite in its history. In the meantime, China and Russia have
jumped in, this time by donating their own technology which allowed the
launching of more new satellites; South-Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algerian and
even a second African satellite was launched in July of 2010. And by 2020, we
are expecting the very first satellite which would be 100% African and built on
African soil, specifically in Algeria. This satellite is expected to be amongst
the best in the world, but would cost ten times cheaper, a true achievement.
This is how a simple gesture worth 300 millions dollars can change the lives on
an entire continent. Kadhafi's Libya had cost the West not only the 500 million
dollars annually but billions of dollars from debt and interest which this debt
would have generated ad infinitum and exponentially, and contributed towards
sustaining the obscure system which continues to rob Africa blind.
2- African Monetary Fund, African Central Bank, African Investment Bank
The 30 billion dollars which M. Obama confiscated belongs to the Libyan Central
Bank and was earmarked as the Libyan contribution toward the finalization of the
African Federation in its three keystone phases: The African Investment Bank to
be based in Sitre-Libya, The creation in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund with
a startup capital of 42 billion dollars with Yaoundé as its headquarters, the
African Central Bank with its headquarters in Abuja-Nigeria from which, the
first issuance of legal tender would signal the end of the CFA Franc through
which Paris has been able to pillage some African countries for over 50 years.
From this we can understand France's grudge against Kadhafi. The African
Monetary Fund would supplant in each and every way the activities of the
International Monetary Fund on African soil - a role which, using barely 25
billion dollars in capital, the IMF had been able to bring an entire continent
to its knees through questionable privatization policies, as witnessed by the
reality of forcing African countries to trade-in one public monopoly for a
private monopoly. It was these same Western countries which came knocking at the
door trying to become members of the African Monetary Fund (AMF) and its was via
a unanimous vote of 16-17 in December 2010 in Yaoundé that Africans rejected
this proposition, enshrining that only African countries would be members of the
AMF.
It therefore seems obvious that after Libya, the Western coalition will declare
its next war against Algeria, since, in addition to its enormous energy
resources, that country has financial reserves exceeding 150 Billion Euros. This
is much coveted by all the countries which are now bombing Libya all of whom
have the same things in common, they are all practically bankrupt, the USA alone
has 14.000 billion dollars in debt, France, Great Britain and Italy each have
2.000 Billion in public debt while all the 46 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa
have less than 400 billion dollars in total public debt. Launching fake wars in
Africa in the hopes of finding the oxygen needed to fuel their economic apnea
that would only worsen having the effect of pushing the West further into a
decline which began in 1884, during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the
American economist Adam Smith had predicted in 1865, in his support for Abraham
Lincoln's abolition of slavery, «the economies of all countries which practice
the enslavement of Black people are in the throes of a decent into hell which
would be a rude awakening on the day when all the other nations would awaken»
3- REGIONAL TRADE BLOCS AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE CREATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AFRICA
In order to de-stabilize and destroy the African Union which is tending
dangerously (as judged by the West) towards a United States of Africa under the
guiding hand of Kadhafi, the European Union had tried, unsuccessfully, to create
the UfM (Union for the Mediterranean1). At all cost, they had to pry North
Africa away from the rest of the continent by hammering the same racists themes
of the 18th and 19th centuries according to which the African populations of
Arab extraction were more "advanced", and more "civilized" than the rest of the
continent. That plan failed when Kadhafi would not play along. He had quickly
understood the game from the moment when there was all that talk about the
Mediterranean which [only] involved some African countries without informing the
African Union, but at the same time, inviting ALL the 27 member nations of the
European Union. The UfM without the principal engine of the African Federation
was dead on arrival, moribund with Sarkozy as its President and Mubarak, its
vice-president. It is this same idea which Alain Juppé is trying to re-launch,
as he eyes Kadhafi's fall from power, of course. What African leaders don't
understand is that, as long as it is the European Union which is financing the
African Union, we will remain stuck at the starting-line, because under these
conditions, there will be no effective independence. It is in this same vein
that the European Union has encouraged and financed the various regional trade
blocs in African. It is obvious that ECOWAS which has an embassy in Brussels and
which gets most of its financing from the EU, is a major obstacle to the
creation of the African Federation. It is what Lincoln fought against during the
secessionist civil war in the United States, since, from the moment when a group
of nations assemble around a regional political organization, that would only
fracture the central governing authority. This is what Europe wanted and it is
what Africans did not understand by creating one after the other; COMESA, UDEAC,
SADC and the Greater Maghreb Union which never became operational thanks in part
to Kadhafi who understood the game all too well.
4- KADHAFI, THE AFRICAN WHO WAS ABLE TO CLEANSE THE HUMILIATION OF APARTHEID
Kadhafi is in the hearts of almost every African as a very generous humanitarian
for his disinterested support in the fight against the racist regime of South
Africa. If Kadhafi had been a self-centered man, nothing would have forced him
to draw the ire of the West by financially and militarily support the ANC in its
battle against apartheid. Which is why, shortly after being released from his 27
years in prison, Mandela decided to break with the United Nation's embargo
against Libya in October 23rd of 1997. As a result of this embargo which was
also aerial, no plane had landed in Libya over five long years. To go to Libya,
one had to catch a plane into Tunisia; get to Djerba and continue by car for 5
hours to Ben Gardane, crossing the border and going another 3 hours by road
across the desert to Tripoli. On the other hand, one could go through Malta and
then crossover by night, using poorly fitted boats and reach the Libyan coast. A
true ordeal for an entire people, just to punish one man. Mandela decided to
breach this injustice and responded to the former American president Bill
Clinton, who had considered this visit «unfortunate», Mandela argued: «No nation
can claim to itself the role of a global policeman, and no nation can dictate to
others what they must and must not do». He added: «those who yesterday where
friends of our enemies, today have the temerity of demanding that I should not
visit my brother Kadhafi, they're asking us to be ungrateful and to forget our
friends from the past». In fact, for the West, South African racists where
kindred whom they were trying to protect. It is for this reason that members of
the ANC had been branded dangerous terrorists, including Nelson Mandela himself.
It was only in July 2nd 2008 that the American Congress passed a law erasing
Nelson Mandela's name and those of his ANC comrades from this black list, not
because they had come to terms with the idiocy of such a list, but because they
wanted to make a gesture of goodwill to the 90-year-old Nelson Mandela. If today
the West has repented its support for Nelson Mandela's enemies and are truly
sincere when streets and places are christened after him, how do they justify
waging war against the man who brought victory to Nelson Mandela and to his
people, Kadhafi?
B- THOSE WHO WISH TO EXPORT DEMOCRACY, ARE THEY THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS?
And if Kadhafi's Libya was more democratic than the USA, France, Great Britain
and all of those who have a started a war to export democracy to Libya? On March
19th 2003, President Georges Bush dropped bombs on the heads of Iraqis under the
pretext of exporting democracy to their country. On March 19th 2011, eight years
later and to the day, its is the French President who was dropping bombs on the
heads of Libyans under the same pretext of bringing them democracy. Mister
Obama, 2009 Nobel Prize winner and President of the United States of America, in
order to justify his decision to hurl cruise missiles from sub-marines on the
heads of Libyans, the tells us that he is trying to unseat a dictators from
power and to install a democracy in that country.
The question which ever human being gifted with the least in capacity for
intellectual judgment and reason cannot help but ask: these countries like
France, England, USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland whose only legitimacy to go
an bombard Libyans is only based of having auto-declared themselves «democratic»
are they truly democratic? If yes, are they more democratic than Kadhafi's
Libya? The answer, unequivocally is NO, for the sole and simple reason that
democracy doesn't exist. Its not me asserting this, it is the very person whose
birthplace, Geneva, is home to the organs of the United Nations. That person is
of course Jean-Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 who asserted in Chapter
IV of Book III of his celebrated «Social Contract» that *: «there has never been
a true democracy, and there never will be one»*. In order for a State to be
truly democratic, Rousseau lays down 4 conditions according to which Kadhafi's
Libya is by far more democratic than the United States of America, France and
all the others who profess to export democracy into that country. These include:
1- *Dimensions of the State*: the bigger any government gets, the less it is
democratic, according to Rousseau, the State should be very small to allow its
citizens find ways of gathering and to enable each person to easily get to know
the next. And so before sending people off to vote, we should ensure that people
know each other otherwise voting for the sake of voting would be denuded of all
democratic underpinnings, it is a sham of a democracy to elect a dictator. The
organizing structure of the Libyan State is based on tribal groupings which by
definition involves people in small entities. The democratic sentiment is more
present within a tribe, in the village than in the greater Nation, by virtue of
the fact that everyone knows everyone else and that communal life revolves
around the same common interests bring some kind of auto-regulation, auto
censure is brought to bear at each moment, the reactions or the counter-reaction
of the other members for or against the opinions which anyone may hold. Seen
from this perspective, it is Libya which better responds to the exigencies of
Rousseau, one cannot say as much of the United States of America, France or
Great Britain, societies which have become strongly urbanized and where a
majority of neighbors do not even say hello to each other and hence do not even
know each other, even after having lived side-by-side for twenty years. In these
countries, we have moved directly into the following phase: «voting» which we
have malignantly sanctified so that many quickly forget that this vote is
useless from the moment when I start speaking voting on matters affecting the
nation's future without knowing ones fellow citizens. We have thus arrived at
the stupidity of citizens voting from abroad. Knowing one another and speaking
to each other is the essential condition of communication for the democratic
debate which should precede all elections.
2- *It requires a simplicity of values and behaviors* to avoid that we spend so
much time talking about justice before courts and seeking redress to the many
arguments of societal interest which any complex society naturally gives birth
to. Westerner define themselves as civilized people who have complex value
systems and see Libyans a nation of primitive people, who have simple value
systems. From this perspective, once again, it is Libya which better responds to
democratic criteria laid out by Rousseau than all those who pretend to give them
lessons in democracy. In a complex society, the manifold conflicts are resolved
by the law of the powerful, since the wealthier party can avoid prison because
he can afford a better attorney and more so, turns the State's repressive
apparatus against the person who steals a banana at a supermarket, instead of
turning it against the greedy financier who brings down a bank. In a city like
New York where 75% of the population is White, 80% of the managerial positions
are held by White people and they only represent 20% of the prison population.
3- *Equality in rank and in fortunes*. One only has to look at the 2010 FORBES
rankings to see the names of the wealthiest people in each of the countries
which is throwing bombs on the heads of Libyans and see the difference in
salaries with the lowest ranking wage earners in each of these countries and do
the same with Libya to understand that in terms of wealth distribution, Libya
should be the one exporting its know-how to those who are attacking her and not
the other way around. Even from this angle, according to Rousseau, Libya would
be more democratic than those who pompously want to export this supposed
democracy to that country. In the United States, 5% of the population possesses
60% of the nation's wealth. It is the most lopsided, unequal country in the
world.
4- *No luxuries*. According to Rousseau, for democracy to exist in a country,
there must be no luxuries because, luxury necessitates wealth and this last
becomes a virtue, the goal to be achieved at all cost is the people's wealth
fare, «luxuries simultaneously corrupt both the rich and the poor, the former by
possession, the latter by coveting; it sells the nation to listlessness, to
vanity; if serves the citizens up to the State for dinner, the former to meet
the needs of the latter, and each is happy in their role ». Is there more luxury
in France than in Libya? All those cautionary tales from employees who have been
pushed to suicide, even employees of public and para public companies, for
"reasons" of profitability and hence of possessions of luxury items by one of
the parties, are these more abundant in Libya or in the West?
In 1956, the American sociologist C. Wright Mills described American democracy
as « a dictatorship of the elites». According to Mills, The United States of
America isn't a democracy because in fact, it is money which speaks at elections
and not the people. The results of any election there is an expression of the
voice of money and not the voice of the people. After Daddy Bush and Son Bush,
for the Republic primaries of 2012, there is already talk about Bush-Benjamin.
In addition, if political power rests on a bureaucracy, Max Weber has noted that
there are 43 millions civil servants and soldiers in the United-States who
essentially control the country, but who weren't elected by anyone and who do
not respond directly to the people about their activities. Only one person (a
wealthy elite) is really elected but real power on the ground is held by a caste
of rich people who arrive at those positions simply through appointments to
positions such as ambassadorships, army generals etc ..
How many people in these supposedly «democratic» countries know that in Peru the
constitution forbids a second consecutive mandate for the incumbent president?
How many of them are aware than in Guatemala, not only can the incumbent NOT
present himself as a candidate to that position, but none of his/her kin, no
member of his family could aspire to that position? How many of them know that
Rwanda is the leading nation in the world that is most inclusive of women with
49% of the parliamentarians being women? How many of them know that in the 2007
CIA ranking, of the top-ten best-governed countries in the world, four are
African? With the gold medal going to Equatorial Guinea whose public debt
represent only 1.14% of its GDP.
Civil war, revolts, and rebellions are the ingredients indicating the telltale
signs of an emerging democracy Rousseau argues. Democracy isn't an end result,
it is a permanent process of re-affirming the natural rights of human beings and
all over the world (without exception) a handful of men or women, should
confiscate the people's power, and subvert it to help maintain themselves in
power. Everywhere, we find various forms of castes which subvert the very idea
of a «democracy» which should be an ideal towards which aspire and not a label
to appropriate or a refrain to be flaunted just because we can shout louder than
everyone else. When a nation is calm like France or the United States that is
devoid of any political unrest for Rousseau all of this only means that the
dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to prevent any attempts at
rebellion. If Libyans are revolting, it isn't necessarily a bad thing.
It is when people around the world stoically accept the system which is
oppressing them that is very bad. Rousseau concludes: « /Malo periculosam
libertatem quam quietum servitium -/translation: If there were ever a godly
people, they would govern themselves democratically. Such a perfect system of
government does not suit human beings». Asserting that Libyans are being killed
for their own good is a delusion.
*C- WHAT LESSONS FOR AFRICA? *
After 500 years of master-servant relations with the West, there is no room to
doubt that we have different criteria for judging good and bad. We have
profoundly divergent interests. How could one not decry the "yes" vote by three
African countries from Sub-Saharan Africa, Nigeria2, South-Africa and Gabon for
resolution 1973 authorizing the new form of colonialism called «protecting the
people», validating the racist theories which Europeans have been peddling since
the 18th century that North African has nothing in common with Sub-Saharan
Africa, North Africa is more evolved, more civilized and more cultivated than
the rest of Africa.
Events are unfolding as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Algeria weren't part of
Africa3. Even the United Nations appears to be ignoring the legitimacy of the
African Union over its member States.
The goal is to isolate the nations of Sub-Saharan African and to further
fragment them and keep them under control. In fact, for the startup capital of
the new African Monetary Fund (AMF), Algeria contributed 16 billion dollars and
Libya 10 billion dollars which together represented 62% of the 42 billion Dollar
capitalization needed. Africa's most populous nation, Nigeria followed by South
Africa came in far behind with 3 billion dollars each.
It is very troubling that this is the first time in the history of the United
Nations that it has declared war on a people without first exploring any path of
peaceful resolution to address the problem.
Does Africa still have a place in such an organization? Nigeria South Africa are
disposed to voting "Yes" to any demands from the West, because the naively
believe in the promises made to them by this or that nation to award them a
place as a permanent member of the Security Council with equal veto rights. They
forget that France has no power to grant such a position. If France did,
Mitterrand would have done this long ago for Germany's Helmut Kohl. United
Nations' reform is not on the agenda. The only way to counter this is through
the Chinese option: all 50 African countries should quit the United Nations.
They'd have to return another day, and only after they have been granted
something they've always wanted, a position for the African Union, nothing less.
This method of non-violence is the only weapon of justice that the poor and weak
people like us have. We simply have to quit the United Nations, since this
organization by its very structure, and via its hierarchy serves the interest of
the most powerful members.
We have to quit the United Nations to signal our disapproval of this conception
of the world based solely on the crushing of the weaker nations. At the very
least, they'd be at liberty to continue doing it as before, but without our
endorsement, and not having to suggest that were have endorsed it even though
they know well that we were never consulted. And after we have made our point,
as we did during the meeting on Saturday 19/3 in Nouakchott through the
declaration of opposition to military action, all of which was quietly ignored
in order to proceed with the bombardment of an African people.
What is unfolding today is the same scenario already witnessed before vis-à-vis
China. Today, they are recognizing the legitimacy of the Ouattara government;
they also are recognizing the legitimacy of the insurgents in Libya. It is the
same thing which happened at the end of the Second World War with China. The
so-called international community had chosen Taiwan as the sole representative
of the Chinese people in place of Mao Tse Tung's China. It took 26 years, that
is until October 25th 1971 and resolution 2758 which ALL Africans must read, to
put an end to this human absurdity. China was admitted, only after it demanded
and obtained permanent membership [on the Security Council] and with vetoing
rights, if not, she would not join. Once these requirement were met and the
admission resolutions were in force, it took another year until November 29th
1972, for the Chinese foreign Minister to issues his response in a letter to the
Secretary General at the United Nations no to say "Yes" or "Thank You", but to
dispel any misunderstandings, in guarantees about China's dignity and
respectability. What can Africans expect from the United Nations without taking
strong actions which insist on their respectability? In Cote d'Ivoire we saw an
official from the United Nations acting as if he was above the constitutional
institutions of that country. We have entered into this organization under
conditions that we would be serfs and them believing that we would be invited to
the table to eat with other nation on plates which we had to wash is simply
wishful thinking, worse, stupid. When the AU recognized Ouattara's victory
without taking into account the contrary conclusions of its own observers on the
ground, only to please their former masters, how could we possibly expect any
respect? When South-African President Zuma declares that Ouattara had not won
the elections and then changed his mind 180° after visiting Paris4, we must
begin to question what these leaders are worth who represent us and who speak on
behalf of one billion Africans.
Force and real freedom for Africa will come from its capacity to acting after
thoughtful consideration and them assuming the consequences of those actions.
Dignity and respectability come at a price. Are we prepared to pay that price?
If not, then our place will continue to be in the kitchen, in the toilets to
secure the comfort of others.
Geneva 28/03/2011
Jean-Paul Pougala - pougala@...
(*) Jean-Paul Pougala is a Cameroonian writer, director of the Institute for Geostrategic Studies and Professor of Sociology and Geopolitics at Geneva School of Diplomacy, in Switzerland.
Mer 30 Mar 2011 11:53 pm
"Pougala" <pougala@...>
pougala@...
Invia email Invia email
Kadhafi's Africa: The Untold Story - THE MANY LIES TOLD BY THE WES
Forum di discussione del MFE e della GFEKadhafi's Africa: The Untold Story THE MANY LIES TOLD BY THE WEST IN THEIR WAR AGAINST LIBYA By Jean-Paul Pougala (*)* ... Pougala
pougala@...
Invia email 30 Mar 2011
11:53 pm
