GROBR - Muammar Gaddafi

The BBC and CNN announced that the ‘Rebels’ have finally brought the Gaddafi regime to an end after fighting against the tyrant for more than three months.

On the face of it, the event should augur well for Libya and the world for the people of Libya can now elect their own democratic form of government and as for the world, it is one tyrant less to deal with. At least, that is what the Western press would like us to believe but in reality what does all this signify to new world order and especially for emerging nations like Sri Lanka?

Libya became an independent state in 1951 and before that its land in the sub Saharan desert was the scene of much fighting between colonial powers that tried reign supreme in the world through World War 1 and World War 11. Gaddafi, the son of a Bedouin farmer, later a Captain in the Army, came to power deposing King Idris in 1969 through a military coup.

US and British military bases

After ceasing power Gaddafi closed US and British military bases and nationalized the oil industry from the hands of multi national companies. He also banned alcohol and gambling and made education, housing and even capital free to the average Libyan. His own form of Islamic socialism acted as a catalyst in ushering reforms in the neighbouring Arab Kingdoms and in turn those Kings saw Gadaafi as a ‘communist’ and a threat to their Kingships. In fact Gaddafi proclaimed, at the height of his power, that he would support forces that would establish true ‘Islamisation’ in the Arab world. Gaddafi’s foreign policy was essentially anti imperialist and anti Israel and hence he often ran in to confrontational situations with Western powers.

The current ‘Arab spring’ started in Tunisia and spread across Egypt to other countries in the region and much later to Libya.

In Egypt and Tunisia the situation came to a point where the rulers just could not stand in the face of mounting opposition and hence they had no choice but to abdicate. The situation in Libya was not so decisive and initially there were some rumblings in Benghazi that the Libyan forces bungled killing 14 anti government protestors.

The NATO however deployed its military power to instigate the opposition to Gaddafi as they viewed this as an opportunity to get rid of a man unfriendly and would not yield to the interest of the West. The NATO forces that stoically viewed thousands of civilians being killed in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and even Syria started ‘oozing’ with benevolence towards the rebels in Libya.

The UN mandate was to maintain a ‘no fly zone’ over Bhengazi and but the Western leaders while admitting that the mandate is not for a regime change yet insisted that ‘Gaddafi should go’.

Unrest in Libya

While the NATO forces were aiding, arming and even organizing the opposition to Gaddafi on the grounds of alleged unrest in Libya, an intriguing yet a parallel situation took place in the heart of the Western world. London erupted in riots and they raged for well over 20 days across the suburbs to Manchester and Birmingham. Billions worth of property were destroyed and those who took part in the riots were young unemployed people. David Cameron was looking askance unable to quell the situation and he thundered that ‘rioters will face the full force of law’. The government of United States on the other hand, instead of sending forces to help the rebels as in Libya, sent the American Police Chief to advise Cameron on the enforcement of law and order. Hence we have this situation where rioting in Libya essentially is ‘unrest of the people’ whereas rioting in London essentially is a ‘break down in law and order’!

One could still argue that Britain is a democracy while Libya is not. Well, if democracy is the ‘government of the people’, the strength, foresight and even the sustenance of such a government will necessarily depend on the character and organization of the country’s people. Britain has had a two hundred year history of a representative government whereas in Libya people have just realized what sovereignty means to them.

Arab world

People’s needs and aspirations in different countries often remain in different stage of graduation and especially those that have been subjected to hundreds of years of colonialism will take time to attain the standard of Britain in their civil societies.

The sustenance of a democratic form of government is in the strength of that country’s civil society and hence until such sustainable level is reached countries may under go different stage of progression in governance. Such stages then may include even a monarchy and sometimes a single party governance. Therefore the powerful and stable democracies in this world cannot demand the rest of the world, that has undergone years of colonialism in their own hands, to become democracies in a jiffy.

The democratic argument in any case has no relevance here because the West is openly aiding an abetting number of dictators across the Arab world only because there are not as unyielding as Gaddafi is.

Even if a democratic country runs into a riot situation, the Western media and the governments may gleefully orchestrate such incidents as a sign of ‘deep seated unrest’ depending on the degree of obedience the Sri Lankan regime may have towards the West. Even though democratic, the West may attribute a degree of ‘trueness’ to that democracy because their perception of democracy again is like Gaddafi’s ‘Islamisation’.

Thus the fall of Gaddafi has nothing to do with democracy or world peace but everything to do with regime change in states unyielding to the West. It is in that context that emerging states should view this development as a new form of colonialism that would eventually take away their independence and with that the new world order promised with the UN Charter of rights.

[email protected]