![MAAT KHERU: The Voice of 62nd Century KC [21rst Century CE] Pan-Afrikanism](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5dMpjaAEXnhh2WcJTUK3JOYu4NICHpVLdHUkCtQ1vVFxrBmOo4_IjVAhPg52EsrISRZlcZ1I_wYMqs8KJFnDJCUJAck8cET-Yz8GVLXoVb__oLhw8AncXGTh61VheXoUx0UEVlupcsYT-/s1600/Pictures91-001.jpg)
World News
Gold, Oil, Africa and Why the West Wants Gadhafi Dead
By Brian E. Muhammad -Contributing Writer-
Updated Jun 7, 2011 - 7:59:09 PM
Gold, Oil, Africa and Why the West Wants Gadhafi Dead
By Brian E. Muhammad -Contributing Writer-
Updated Jun 7, 2011 - 7:59:09 PM
Muammar Gadhafi's decision to pursue gold standard and
reject dollars for oil payments may have sealed his fate
(FinalCall.com) - The war raging in Libya since
February is getting progressively worse as NATO forces engage in regime change
and worse, an objective to kill Muammar Gadhafi to eradicate his vision of a
United Africa with a single currency backed by gold.
Observers say implementing that vision would change the
world power equation and threaten Western hegemony. In response, the United
States and its NATO partners have determined “Gadhafi must go,” and assumed the
role of judge, jury and executioner.
“If they kill Brother Gadhafi, I submit to you that American
interests in Africa will come under severe strain,” warned the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan on WPFW-FM's
"Spectrum Today” program with Askia Muhammad.
“That man has invested in Africa more than any other leader
in the recent history of Africa's coming into political independence,” he continued.
The Muslim leader said America needs access to the mineral resources in Africa
to be a viable power in the 21st century.
Minister Farrakhan further pointed out in the April 1 radio interview that
the current plot to kill Col. Gadhafi comes at a time of great distress and
decline for America. The fall of the dollar is a manifest loss of America's
prestige and influence among the nations of the earth and an indicator of her
end.
“How's America's wealth today? How is she doing financially?
What is the deficit? Some say it's about $56 trillion counting Social Security
and Medicare. That's a big number. She's printing money, but there's nothing
backing it,” said Min. Farrakhan.
In the book, “The Fall of America,” the Most
Honorable Elijah Muhammad wrote,
“One of the greatest powers of America was her dollar. The loss of such power
will bring any nation to weakness, for this is the media of exchange between
nations.”
“The English pound and the American dollar have been the
power and beckoning light of these two great powers. But when the world went
off the gold and silver standard, the financial doom of England and America was
sealed,” he explained. Mr. Muhammad said further that “the Fall of America is
now visible and understandable.
“Long has Allah (God) been gradually removing the power of
the great and mighty America while few have noticed it. This has been done by
degrees, and they do not perceive it.”
Mr. Muhammad warned America's fall serves as a sign of fate
for her European counterparts.
Analysts say introducing the gold dinar as the new medium of
exchange would destroy dependence on the U.S. dollar, the French franc and the
British pound and threaten the Western world. It would “finally swing the
global economic pendulum” that would break Western domination over Africa and
other developing economies.
Attacking Col. Gadhafi can be understood in the context of
America and Europe fighting for their survival, which an independent Africa
jeopardizes.
“Gadhafi's creation of the African Investment Bank in Sirte
(Libya) and the African Monetary Fund to be based in Cameroon will supplant the
IMF and undermine Western economic hegemony in Africa,” said Gerald Pereira, an
executive board member of the former Tripoli-based World Mathaba.
The moves are also bad for France because when the African
Monetary Fund and the African Central Bank in Nigeria starts printing
gold-backed currency, it would “ring the death knell" for the CFA franc
through which Paris was able to maintain its neocolonial grip on 14 former
African colonies for the last 50 years.
“It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi,”
said Prof. Jean-Paul Pougala of the Geneva School of Diplomacy.
“The idea, according to Gaddafi, was that African and Muslim
nations would join together to create this new currency and would use it to
purchase oil and other resources in exclusion of the dollar and other
currencies,” said political analyst Anthony Wile in an editorial for The Daily
Bell online.
According to the International Monetary Fund, Libya's
Central Bank is 100 percent state-owned and estimates that the bank has nearly
144 tons of gold in its vaults. If Col. Gadhafi changed the purchasing terms of
his oil and other Libyan commodities sold on the world market and only accepted
gold as payment; a policy like that wouldn't be welcomed
by the power elites who control the world's central banks.
“That would certainly be something that would cause his
immediate dismissal,” said Mr.Wile.
Furthermore, pricing oil in something other than the dollar
would undercut the pedestal of U.S.. power in the world. Although in trouble,
the dollar is the reserve currency based on a deal made with Saudi Arabia in
1971 in which the Saudis, as the world's largest oil producer, agreed to accept
only dollars for oil, Mr. Wile observed.
The Libyan affair has sparked a divide in the world
community with the African Union and nations like Venezuela,
China and Cuba—and until recently
Russia—on one side as voices of reason, caution and respect for international
law and honoring the UN mandate which set the parameters for engagement in
Libya.
On the other side are war hawkish America, France, Britain
and Italy pursuing regime change and actively trying to assassinate Col.
Gadhafi, though they deny that aim.
“Why all of a sudden, this rush to destroy Gadhafi?” asked
Min. Farrakhan during his March 31 press conference on
America's Middle East and Libya policy. “I know why you are angry
with him; because he never agreed with your policies when it came to sucking
the resources of Third World peoples, and putting in place dictators that would
be amenable to America's policies.”
Other analysts concur that the control of Africa is front
and center as the prize in the scramble to kill Col. Gadhafi and preserve
Western domination on the world stage, making the African Union critical at
this time.
The AU stood with Libya since NATO forces began their
missile bombardment. The AU has also accused Western nations of marginalizing
an African solution to an “African problem.”
The AU criticized NATO for bombing Tripoli, targeting
Gadhafi family compounds and violating the stated UN mandate to uphold a no
fly-zone and protect civilians.
AU negotiations to end the conflict were brokered by South
African President Jacob Zuma, which the Libyan government accepted, but were
discarded by the rebels who set preconditions—in conjunction with NATO—that
demanded Col. Gadhafi's removal.
The AU is the framework the Libyan leader was using to
establish African self determination and economic self-sufficiency. Col.
Gadhafi financed the restructuring of the former Organization of African
Unity—formed by African leaders Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Sekou Toure of
Guinea, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and others—into the AU and revived the
concept of a United States of Africa with one continental army and a single
currency backed by gold.
However critics of U.S. foreign policy objectives in Africa
say efforts toward the continent becoming a unified bloc have been consistently
weakened for fear that Africa will leverage more equity and control in the
arena of global economics.
But the plan for an independent African currency backed by gold
appears to be the real reason behind the frenzied attack on Col. Gadhafi.
Whenever a government and leader arose that desired to use
the resources of that nation for its people, America—through the CIA—would plan
insurrections, coups, terrorist activities and even assassination of good
leaders, observed Min. Farrakhan.
Despite the ire of Western foes, Muammar Gadhafi gained the
clout to lead creation of a single currency because of strong oil profits
versus a small population.
“The US, the other G-8 countries, the World Bank, IMF, BIS
(Bank for International Settlements), and multinational corporations do not
look kindly on leaders who threaten their dominance over world currency
markets,” wrote John Perkins, author of
“Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” on Johnperkins.com. It is redolent of Saddam
Hussein advocating similar policies shortly before the U.S. invaded Iraq, he
said.
“Gadhafi knew how to play the West at their own game. He
dared to wield real economic power in the name of Africa and anyone who dares
to do so will feel the full wrath of Empire,” remarked. Perrier.
With the hopes of breaking Col. Gadhafi, foreign governments
froze nearly $70 billion of Libyan assets belonging to the Libyan Investment
Authority, the 13th largest international investment fund in the world.
Although designed to hurt Col. Gadhafi, it injures Africa, because Libya
assists with development projects throughout Africa.
An example of such projects was installing independent
satellite communications across Africa, cutting off an expensive dependency on
Europe for the same services. Col. Gadhafi infused $300 million into the
project after the IMF, America and Europe broke repeated promises of finance.
In the 1990s forty-five African governments started
RASCOM—Regional African Satellite Communication Organization—so Africa would
have its own satellite and control communication costs on the continent.
Before RASCOM, costs for telephone calls to and from Africa
were the highest worldwide and the continent was burdened with an annual $500
million fee paid to Europe for satellite usage. African satellites cost a
onetime payment of $400 million and no annual fee—a move for self determination
led by Col. Gadhafi that agitated Europe.
The rebels and collaborators
Since the beginning of the hostilities, the 69-year-old
Gadhafi has consistently called for ceasefires and a political solution only to
be rebuffed and have NATO missiles aimed at him and his family. However, with
the stakes so high, what kind of Libya will emerge if Col. Gadhafi is killed?
“It will not be the rebels and the transitional council who
will take power in Libya—it will be the imperialist powers who take over and
the implications for Libya will be a complete re-colonization,” said Mr.
Pereira.
Some nations officially recognized the NTC as the new
legitimate government; however the NTC will face severe challenges as a
government post Gadhafi. The NTC and other rebel groups lack cohesive unity,
strengthening possibilities for ongoing civil strife.
Furthermore, the insurgency has become a nightmare wrought
with hard financial and military questions. Xinhua News-English reported the
group is cash poor and has difficulty raising money; while the only commodity
available to them is oil, which still belongs the Gadhafi government and is
embroiled in UN sanctions.
“I don't have any resources. Not a single dinar came in to
the treasury,” lamented NTC oil and finance head Ali Tarhouni during a May 29
press conference. “We only exported one shipment (of oil) and got $150 million
for that. So far we've spent $408 million on fuel. It's not a good number.”
The Benghazi-based rebels include remnants of the monarchy
deposed by the 1969 Al-Fateh revolution. Several times over the years, the
royalists attempted assassination of Col. Gadhafi and destabilization of the
revolution, but lacked military ability and popular support.
On May 24, U.S. assistant secretary of state Jeffery Feltman
announced the NTC will establish an office in Washington at the invitation of
President Barrack Obama. Comparable arrangements exist with France and Britain.
For now, after several months of military intervention,
betrayal by former comrades of the revolution and continued assassination
attempts by NATO, Muammar Gadhafi is still standing. For the imperialists
however, his elimination means the future of their power in Africa.
“Make no mistake, if NATO succeeds in Libya it will be a
massive setback for the entire continent,” said Mr. Pereira.
Related news:
Imperialist bombardment, assault on Libya
continues (FCN, 05-19-2011)
Why the West Want
the Fall of Muammar Gaddafi(Analysis by Jean-Paul Pougala, 04, 2011)
‘U.S. provoking China and Russia in Libya,Mediterranean'(Tehran
Times, 04-28-2011)
West 'getting away with murder' in Libya(FCN,
04-27-2011)
Farrakhan Questioned on Libya(WPFWRadio
Interview, 04-03-2011)
A CIA commander for the Libyan rebels(WSWS,
03-28-2011)
Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary
Pan-African Perspective(FCN, 03-08-2011)
Massive Disinformation War against Libya
for US/West Military Intervention? [The 4th Media](03-01-2011)
TIME, 1986 - LIBYA:
Real and Illusionary Events (TIME, 10-13-1986)
How the U.S. Government destabilized
foreign governments(FCN, 07-22-1985)
How 6 million People Were killed in CIA
secret wars(Info Clearing House)
Secret ties between CIA, drugs revealed(FCN,
1996)
FCN is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content
supplied by third parties. Original content supplied by FCN and FinalCall.com
News is Copyright 2012 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com. Content supplied by third
parties are the property of their respective owners.
Friday, 11 November 2011
Gadhafi’s Gold-money Plan Would Have Devastated Dollar
It remains unclear exactly why or how the Gadhafi regime
went from “a model” and an “important ally” to the next target for regime
change in a period of just a few years. But after claims of “genocide” as the
justification for NATO intervention were disputed by experts, several other
theories have been floated.
Oil, of course, has been mentioned frequently — Libya is
Africa‘s largest oil producer. But one possible reason in particular for
Gadhafi’s fall from grace has gained
significant traction among analysts and segments of the non-Western media:
central banking and the global monetary
system.
According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.
And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. The “Insiders” were apparently panicking over Gadhafi’s plan.
"Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks,” noted financial analyst Anthony Wile, editor of the free market-oriented Daily Bell, in an interview with RT. “So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward [for] removing him from power."
According to Wile, Gadhafi’s plan would have strengthened the whole continent of Africa in the eyes of economists backing sound money — not to mention investors. But it would have been especially devastating for the U.S. economy, the American dollar, and particularly the elite in charge of the system.
“The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence,” Wile noted in a piece entitled “Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack” earlier this year. “Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea.”
Investor newsletters and commentaries have been buzzing for months with speculation about the link between Gadhafi’s gold dinar and the NATO-backed overthrow of the Libyan regime. Conservative analysts pounced on the potential relationship, too.
“In 2009 — in his capacity as head of the African Union — Libya's Moammar Gadhafi had proposed that the economically crippled continent adopt the ‘Gold Dinar,’” noted Ilana Mercer in an August opinion piece for WorldNetDaily. “I do not know if Col. Gadhafi continued to agitate for ditching the dollar and adopting the Gold Dinar — or if the Agitator from Chicago got wind of Gadhafi's (uncharacteristic) sanity about things monetary.”
But if Arab and African nations had begun adopting a gold-backed currency, it would have had major repercussions for debt-laden Western governments that would be far more significant than the purported “democratic” uprisings sweeping the region this year. And it would have spelled big trouble for the elite who benefit from “freshly counterfeited funny-money,” Mercer pointed out.
“Had Gadhafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have done well for his own people, and for the world at large,” she concluded. “A Gadhafi-driven gold revolution would have, however, imperiled the positions of central bankers and their political and media power-brokers.”
Adding credence to the theory about why Gadhafi had to be overthrown, as The New American reported in March, was the rebels’ odd decision to create a central bank to replace Gadhafi’s state-owned monetary authority. The decision was broadcast to the world in the early weeks of the conflict.
In a statement describing a March 19 meeting, the rebel council announced, among other things, the creation of a new oil company. And more importantly: “Designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”
The creation of a new central bank, even more so than the new national oil regime, left analysts scratching their heads. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” noted Robert Wenzel in an analysis for the Economic Policy Journal. “This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences,” he added. Wenzel also noted that the uprising looked like a “major oil and money play, with the true disaffected rebels being used as puppets and cover” while the transfer of control over money and oil supplies takes place.
Other analysts, even in the mainstream press, were equally shocked. “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power?” wondered CNBC senior editor John Carney. “It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”
Similar scenarios involving the global monetary system — based on the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency, backed by the fact that oil is traded in American money — have also been associated with other targets of the U.S. government. Some analysts even say a pattern is developing.
Iran, for example, is one of the few nations left in the world with a state-owned central bank. And Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, once armed by the U.S. government to make war on Iran, was threatening to start selling oil in currencies other than the dollar just prior to the Bush administration’s “regime change” mission.
According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.
And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. The “Insiders” were apparently panicking over Gadhafi’s plan.
"Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks,” noted financial analyst Anthony Wile, editor of the free market-oriented Daily Bell, in an interview with RT. “So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward [for] removing him from power."
According to Wile, Gadhafi’s plan would have strengthened the whole continent of Africa in the eyes of economists backing sound money — not to mention investors. But it would have been especially devastating for the U.S. economy, the American dollar, and particularly the elite in charge of the system.
“The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence,” Wile noted in a piece entitled “Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack” earlier this year. “Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea.”
Investor newsletters and commentaries have been buzzing for months with speculation about the link between Gadhafi’s gold dinar and the NATO-backed overthrow of the Libyan regime. Conservative analysts pounced on the potential relationship, too.
“In 2009 — in his capacity as head of the African Union — Libya's Moammar Gadhafi had proposed that the economically crippled continent adopt the ‘Gold Dinar,’” noted Ilana Mercer in an August opinion piece for WorldNetDaily. “I do not know if Col. Gadhafi continued to agitate for ditching the dollar and adopting the Gold Dinar — or if the Agitator from Chicago got wind of Gadhafi's (uncharacteristic) sanity about things monetary.”
But if Arab and African nations had begun adopting a gold-backed currency, it would have had major repercussions for debt-laden Western governments that would be far more significant than the purported “democratic” uprisings sweeping the region this year. And it would have spelled big trouble for the elite who benefit from “freshly counterfeited funny-money,” Mercer pointed out.
“Had Gadhafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have done well for his own people, and for the world at large,” she concluded. “A Gadhafi-driven gold revolution would have, however, imperiled the positions of central bankers and their political and media power-brokers.”
Adding credence to the theory about why Gadhafi had to be overthrown, as The New American reported in March, was the rebels’ odd decision to create a central bank to replace Gadhafi’s state-owned monetary authority. The decision was broadcast to the world in the early weeks of the conflict.
In a statement describing a March 19 meeting, the rebel council announced, among other things, the creation of a new oil company. And more importantly: “Designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”
The creation of a new central bank, even more so than the new national oil regime, left analysts scratching their heads. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” noted Robert Wenzel in an analysis for the Economic Policy Journal. “This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences,” he added. Wenzel also noted that the uprising looked like a “major oil and money play, with the true disaffected rebels being used as puppets and cover” while the transfer of control over money and oil supplies takes place.
Other analysts, even in the mainstream press, were equally shocked. “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power?” wondered CNBC senior editor John Carney. “It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”
Similar scenarios involving the global monetary system — based on the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency, backed by the fact that oil is traded in American money — have also been associated with other targets of the U.S. government. Some analysts even say a pattern is developing.
Iran, for example, is one of the few nations left in the world with a state-owned central bank. And Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, once armed by the U.S. government to make war on Iran, was threatening to start selling oil in currencies other than the dollar just prior to the Bush administration’s “regime change” mission.
While most of the establishment press in America has been
silent on the issue of Gadhafi’s gold dinar scheme, in Russia, China, and the global
alternative media, the theory has exploded in popularity. Whether salvaging
central banking and the corrupt global monetary system were truly among the
reasons for Gadhafi’s overthrow, however, may never be known for certain — at
least not publicly.
LIBYA'S GOLD DINAR, OIL FOR GOLD KILLED GADDAFI ?
DID GADDAFI'S "GOLDEN OIL PLAN" THREATEN WORLD
BANKERS ENOUGH TO MARK HIM FOR MURDER? PERHAPS IT DID!
LET'S LOOK AT FACTS.
LET'S LOOK AT FACTS.
SUCH A PLAN WOULD HAVE WRECKED THE GLOBAL ECONOMY AND GREATLY AFFECTED WORLD ECONOMICS HAD OTHER OIL-PRODUCING NATIONS FOLLOWED SUIT, OR EVEN IF THEY HADN'T!
In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in EUROS, EUROS, NOT U.S. DOLLARS! MANY said, at the time, that sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the EURO!
A gold dinar instituted by Libya would have had serious consequences for the world financial system, but may also have empowered the people of Africa, something African activists say the U.S. wants to avoid at all costs.
AT ALL COSTS?
Some say the US and its NATO allies literally could not afford to let that happen.
"Gaddafi’s Gold-Money Plan Would Have Killed the US Dollar"
Kevin Hayden wrote in 2011: "'According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.
PAY ATTENTION TO THIS!
Saddam did the same thing in 2000. What happened next? Iraq was invaded and Hussein was hanged. Iran began considering selling oil in Euros. What happened next? The country is placed on the table for planning nuclear war, is sanctioned by World Bank nations, and set up for a complete downfall. Gaddafi mentions the GOLD DINAR, GOLD FOR OIL. What happens next? He is cornered and assassinated on the street.
Remember my blog on the upcoming/ongoing AFRICAN INVASION BY THE U.S.'s AFRICOM?
http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2013/02/america-invades-34-36-african-nations.html
Who else wants to play suicide-roulette with the all-powerful wizards of the banking cartels, with U.S. foreign policy and dollar supremacy? No one else has the guns nor the cajones to play such a dangerous game...except Russia and China, but Russia is quite cozy at the moment and China relies ON America for its supremacy. It’s like all 3 countries are standing around a room together, ignoring the elephant.
See my blog on why Russia and China are buying mega-amounts of GOLD:
http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-russia-china-are-buying-gold.html
Libya/Gaddafi literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. The “Insiders” were apparently panicking over Gadhafi’s plan.
"Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks,” noted financial analyst Anthony Wile, editor of the free market-oriented Daily Bell. “So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward [for] removing him from power."
According to Wile, Gadhafi’s plan would have strengthened the entire continent of Africa in the eyes of economists backing sound money, not to mention international investors who have long been concerned over America's INSOLVENCY. It would have been especially devastating for the U.S. economy, the American dollar, and particularly the elite in charge of the banking system.
“The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence,” Wile noted in a piece entitled “Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack” earlier this year. “Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea.”
Investor newsletters and commentaries have been buzzing for months with speculation about the link between Gadhafi’s gold dinar and the NATO-backed overthrow of the Libyan regime. Conservative analysts pounced on the potential relationship, too.
“In 2009 — in his capacity as head of the African Union — Libya's Moammar Gadhafi had proposed that the economically crippled continent adopt the ‘Gold Dinar,’” noted Ilana Mercer in an August opinion piece for WorldNetDaily. “I do not know if Col. Gadhafi continued to agitate for ditching the dollar and adopting the Gold Dinar — or if the Agitator from Chicago got wind of Gadhafi's (uncharacteristic) sanity about things monetary.”
But if Arab and African nations had begun adopting a gold-backed currency, it would have had major repercussions for debt-laden Western governments that would be far more significant than the purported “democratic” uprisings sweeping the region this year. And it would have spelled big trouble for the elite who benefit from “freshly counterfeited funny-money,” Mercer pointed out.
“Had Gadhafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have done well for his own people, and for the world at large,” she concluded. “A Gadhafi-driven gold revolution would have, however, imperiled the positions of central bankers and their political and media power-brokers.”
AMERICAN MEDIA WAS LAX ON REPORTING THIS MIND-BLOWER!
Adding credence to the theory about why Gaddafi had to be overthrown, as The New American reported in March, was the rebels’ odd decision to create a central bank to replace Gaddafi’s state-owned monetary authority. The decision was broadcast to the world in the early weeks of the conflict.
In a statement describing a March 19 meeting, the rebel council announced, among other things, the creation of a new oil company. And more importantly: “Designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”
[IN JUST A FEW SHORT WEEKS, AMID COMPLETE UNREST IN LIBYA, NOT KNOWING IF THEY WOULD OR COULD MAINTAIN THEIR NEW-FOUND POWER, THESE MOSTLY FINANCIALLY ILLITERATE "REBELS" MADE THAT KIND OF MOVE? WHY CHANGE SOMETHING THAT HAD WORKED PERFECTLY FOR YEARS, HAD BROUGHT LIBYA OUT OF POVERTY, SOMETHING THAT THE NATION OWNED, INTO A NEW CENTRAL BANK OWNED BY THE SAME ELITIST SCOUNDRELS THAT OWN AMERICA'S FEDERAL RESERVE? WHY TURN OVER ALL OF THEIR RESOURCES TO AN INTERNATIONAL BANKING CARTEL? TO SAVE A WORLD-WIDE FINANCIAL PANIC FROM HAPPENING, OR BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE NEXT AT THE EXECUTIONER'S TABLE?]
Well, the creation of a new central bank, even more so than the new national oil regime, left financial analysts the world over scratching their heads, blogging comments, asking WHY.
“I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” noted Robert Wenzel in an analysis for the Economic Policy Journal. “This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences,” he added. Wenzel also noted that the uprising looked like a “major oil and money play, with the true disaffected rebels being used as puppets and cover” while the transfer of control over money and oil supplies takes place.
Other analysts, even in the mainstream press, were equally shocked. “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power?” wondered CNBC senior editor John Carney. “It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”
Similar scenarios involving the global monetary system — based on the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency, backed by the fact that oil is traded in American money — have also been associated with other targets of the U.S. government. Some analysts even say a pattern is developing.
Iran, for example, is one of the few nations left in the world with a state-owned central bank. And Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, once armed by the U.S. government to make war on Iran, was threatening to start selling oil in currencies other than the dollar just prior to the Bush administration’s “regime change” mission.
While most of the establishment press in America has been silent on the issue of Gadhafi’s gold dinar scheme, in Russia, China, and the global alternative media, the theory has exploded in popularity. Whether salvaging central banking and the corrupt global monetary system were truly among the reasons for Gadhafi’s overthrow, however, may never be known for certain — at least not publicly.
BUT LET'S CONTINUE WITH FACTS!
FACT: Libya is Africa’s largest exporter of oil, 1.7 million tons a day, which quickly was reduced to 300-400,000 tons/day AFTER the US-NATO bombing.
Libya exports 80% of its oil: 80% of that to several EU lands (32% Italy, 14% Germany, 10% France); 10% China; 5% USA.
FACT: Gaddafi HAD INDEED been preparing to launch a 'gold dinar for oil trade' with all of Africa’s 200 million people and other countries interested. He had indeed been working with this since 2002, together with Malaysia. As of recently, only South Africa and the head of the League of African States were opposed. Before the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was in agreement as was Sudan, Burney, then Indonesia, then the United Arab Emirates, and also Iran.
FACT: French President Nickolas Sarkozy called this, “a threat for financial security of mankind”. Much of France’s wealth—more than any other colonial-imperialist power—comes from exploiting Africa.
FACT: The Central Bank of Libya WAS 100% owned by state (since 1956) and is thus OUTSIDE of multinational corporation control (BIS-Banking International Settlement rules for private interests). Libya COULD AND DID finance its own projects and do so without interest rates, which reduced the costs by half of what private global banks demand. Libya’s central bank (with three branches in the east including Benghazi) DID INDEED HAVE 144 tons of gold in its vaults, which it could have used to start the gold dinar. (China, Russia, India, Iran are ALSO stockpiling great sums of gold rather than relying only on dollars! ARE THEY NEXT?)
FACT: Gaddafi/ Libya's Central Bank used $33 billion, without interest rates, to build the Great Man-Made River of 4,000 kilometers with three parallel pipelines running oil, gas and water supplying 70% of the people (4.5 of its 6 million) with clean drinking and irrigation water. This provides adequate crops for the people making it a competitive exporter of vegetables with Israel and Egypt. LIBYA WAS ON THE RISE, FINANCIALLY, LIKE NO OTHER AFRICAN NATION! Libya was a beacon to other African nations to follow, to throw off their enslavement of and dependency on the 'WEST', especially on the 'International Monetary Fund, 'World Bank', and the USA!
FACT: Gaddafi/ Libya's Central Bank had also financed Africa’s first communication satellite with $300 million of the $377 cost. It achieved start-up for ALL Africa, December 26, 2007, and was saving the 45-African nations an annual fee of $500 million previously pocketed by Europe for the privilege of using EUROPEAN satellites! This meant much less cost for telephones and other communication systems. Libya was an up-and-coming new financial 'player'!
FACT (a very, very odd fact!) The opposition led by so-called 'former Gaddafi ministers and some Eastern clan leaders' set up a central bank in Benghazi to replace Libya’s central bank even before they have set up a government or an organized army. It was immediately recognized by Paris stock exchange and soon other Westerners. This is the first time in history rebels have set up a bank before victory or before having a government.
FACT: There is absolute evidence from Gaddafi defectors (especially Nouri Mesmari), under France's 'protection', that France started preparing a Benghazi based rebellion against Gaddafi from November 2010, in order to stop his plans to switch from the dollar to a new gold currency. US politician, Rep. Dennis Kucinich confirms this.
On December 23, 2010, Libyans Ali Ounes Mansour, Farj Charrant and Fathi Boukhris met with Mesrami and French officials in Paris. Those three are now part of the Benghazi-based leadership.
US General Wesley Clark (ret.) told Democracy Now (in 2007) that just ten days after September 11, 2001, another general had told him that the Bush government was planning to invade: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. What they have in common is that they were not members of banks within the BIS, and most of them have LOTS of oil. Saddam Hussein had agreed with France's President to switch from dollars to Euros in oil trading six months before Bush invaded.
FACT: While Gaddafi had turned much of his oil sales toward the West, inviting in many of the major oil companies for huge profits (BP, EXXON Mobil, Shell, Total, etc), he did NOT EVER join the U.S. wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, as did most of the other oil-rich Middle Eastern governments. Nor did he sign on with AFRICOM, a US-inspired pact oriented towards U.S. economic and military benefit in Africa and also oriented to isolate China from Africa’s natural resources. In fact, China has 50 major economic projects going on in Libya with $18 billion invested. Before the US-NATO invasion, there were 30,000 Chinese workers on these and other projects. Much of China’s investment is destroyed.
FACT: Human Rights Watch (which some have long called an 'imperialist-oriented NGO') reported that there had NEVER been any type of civilian bloodbath by Gaddafi. Facts also tell us that in Misurata, for example, with 400,000 population (Libya's second largest city), after two months of war only 257 people were killed, including combatants. Of 949 wounded, only 22 (3%) were women. Quite a different story from American MSM propaganda, isn't it?
PLEASE NOTE! ONE CAN SIT AND WATCH FILMS, 'HOME VIDEOS' ALL DAY LONG OF HOW OFTEN GADDAFI WENT RIDING ABOUT IN AN OPEN CAR, STANDING AND WAVING FOR MILES IN THE OPEN AIR, STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF HUGE CROWDS, STANDING ON BALCONIES, AN EASY TARGET FOR A SHOOTER, WITHOUT ANY SECURITY GUARDS TO BLOCK SHOTS AT HIM. WHO ATTEMPTED HIS ASSASSINATION IN ALL THE YEARS HE BOLDLY WENT ABOUT AMIDST THE PUBLIC, OPEN TO ATTACK FROM THOSE WHO LINED THE STREETS TO SEE HIM? ONLY THE USA! HE WAS HARDLY THE HATED FIEND AMERICAN NEWS MEDIA BRANDED HIM AS, APPARENTLY!
FACT: As France took the lead, along with UK, to threaten Gaddafi militarily, Gaddafi threatened (March 2) to throw western oil companies out of Libya. With more blustering from the west, Gaddafi invited (March 14) Chinese, Russian and Indian oil companies to take their place. On March 17, the US-France-UK got want they wanted for starters from the UN. Resolution 1973, calling only for a no-fly strategy and not a regime shift or troop landings, was not backed by key big powers: China, Russia, Brazil, India and Germany. Of the 28 NATO countries, only 14 are involved in the Libyan campaign and only six of those were in the air war.
Denmark is one of those six. It spent 70 million kroner ($12 million) in the first two weeks of bombing. By April 30, it had dropped 297 bombs on Libya. Denmark’s 2011 defense-war budget is $4 billion annually (22.4 billion kroner) out of $130 billion (671 billion kroner) budget. It used more money than ever for wars: $250 million annually in Afghanistan, three times 2008 expenditures–$14 billion total in nine years. It used $½ billion in five active years at war in Iraq and continues there with less.
What the US-NATO-EU hoped to achieve was to eliminate the half-reliable partner Gaddafi and replace him with a neo-liberal oriented government that will do their bidding: sign on AFRICOM, kick China out, reverse the government central bank to a BIS private enterprise, continue using dollars of course, and have the lackey leaders join in their permanent wars throughout the Middle East and Africa.
New neo-liberal socio-economic policies would eliminate what the Gaddafi government has provided the entire population through state subsidies funded with oil export sales: the highest standard of living in Africa with free, universal health and education care, and the possibility of studying abroad at state expense; $50,000 for each new married couple to get started with; non-interest state loans; subsidized prices of cars much lower than in Europe; the cheapest gasoline and bread prices in the world (similar to Venezuela), and no taxes for those working in agriculture.
WHY WOULD A PEOPLE LIVING UNDER SUCH PERKS, SO MANY BENEFITS HATE GADDAFI? ACCORDING TO OVER 83% OF THEM, THEY NEVER DID HATE HIM, AND THEY DEEPLY GRIEVE HIS DEMISE! 1.7 MILLION GATHERED IN TRIPOLI TO PROTEST THE FIRST NATO STRIKES! THAT ALONE WAS 1/3rd THE NATION'S POPULATION! HE ROAMED FREELY IN LIBYAN STREETS, NOT ONCE COMING UNDER ATTACK FROM HIS PEOPLE, NOT UNTIL HE THREATENED THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING ELITE!
This is not to say that Gaddafi was REMOTELY all that one could want in a leader, that he was sweetness and light, for he was NOT, but he was definitely not as bad as most of U.S.-NATO's allies, such as dictators in the Middle East (House of Saad/Saud!) and some in Africa, or Asia/India. What NATO/ U.S. calls "friendly" governments are anything but, especially Saudi Arabia—which sent troops to 'good neighbor' Bahrain to murder hundreds of unarmed protesters, all condoned by the U.S.
REMEMBER THOSE 9/11 "HIJACKER/TERRORISTS ALL CARRIED SAUDI CITIZENSHIP? DID YOU FORGET THAT PART?
Look at Yemen, Oman, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, where the governments murder hundreds/THOUSANDS of unarmed protestors at will and never saw sanctions, until they ticked-off the WEST. It seems the US doesn’t like supporting non-violent demonstrators and would rather see them dead.
WE HAVE BUT TO LOOK AT HOW AMERICA TREATED OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTERS, LOOK FURTHER BACK AT KENT STATE, THE CIVIL RIGHTS ERA, LOOK AT THE "NO FREE SPEECH ZONES" RECENTLY PASSED BY CONGRESS, TO SEE WHAT KIND OF HARD-BALL TACTICS OUR OWN GOVERNMENT STOOPS TO, JUST LIKE OUR 'ALLIES'! And that is yet another, and one of the most important, reasons for U.S.-NATO taking over Libya: to stop the progressive, dynamic uproar throughout the Arabic world. If these mostly youth-led revolts could actually win, which would mean replacing the imperialist-backed system and not just a dictator here or there, it might lead to an anti-capitalist revolution.
IT COULD UPEND THE ENTIRE GLOBAL ECONOMIC HIERARCHY!
The REAL reasons we went in to Libya was because Gaddafi was trying to implement the gold dinar currency for oil and commodity purchases, which would have totally destroyed the U.S. dollar's purchasing power. Just think of the money that leering, traitor-criminal Bernake would have had to print had Gaddafi not been HIT!
Same thing with Iraq, except our long-term good old ally there, Saddam, whom we financed for decades to fight against Iran, threatened to switch from the US dollar to the Euro.
So, QUICKLY,
OMG! Send in the troops, send in NATO troops, or the raping,
thieving UN forces to ensure “stability” for the big corporations about to lose
those contracts in Libya, those banks that were kicked out, those oil companies
Gaddafi booted out, so MORE of Wall Street and the World Bank can rush in to
get their contracts to "rebuild" all of Libya that NATO/U.S.
destroyed with those thousands of bombs. And they get the pleasure of indebting
the Libyan people forever through the IMF and other central banks worldwide
Some victory for the Libyan people!
In case you missed it, in 1953 the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran Muhammad Mussadegh and replaced him with the pro-western dictator, the Shah, which sent the country into a decline. In 1954, the U.S. replaced democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman with a military dictator. In 1960, the US helped undermine Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, in Congo. Throughout the entire world, America and her fellow empire-builders have put them in AND taken them out, as it suits them. The list goes on with Gaddafi just another fallen once-upon-a-time ally turned into a bloody slick on the soil of yet another nation scheduled to be owned by the ones who own US, YOU AND ME. The general rule of thumb seems to be: strengthen US economy and support western ideology or die.
The "Libyan HUMANITARIAN Crisis" is a cover-story for a plan to shut down Gaddafi's attempt to set up an alternative international currency based on gold. It was done to STOP African progress OUT OF POVERTY AND DEPENDENCE ON THE WEST. Libya's natural resources, indeed all of Africa's natural resources are just too sparkly, too desirable for the West to turn away from!
"MUST HAVE THE PRECIOUS!!!"
WAS it the Golden Dinar which was the biggest aspect of this? Was it a rising African power, a nation showing other nations that they, too, could get out from under Western control? Not only would the Golden Dinar have 'screwed' the U.S. dollar if successful, it would have also screwed the Euro too!
Screwing up one currency of the international banking cartel is one thing, but also screwing up the Euro version SEEMS to have been the last straw.
Some victory for the Libyan people!
In case you missed it, in 1953 the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran Muhammad Mussadegh and replaced him with the pro-western dictator, the Shah, which sent the country into a decline. In 1954, the U.S. replaced democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman with a military dictator. In 1960, the US helped undermine Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, in Congo. Throughout the entire world, America and her fellow empire-builders have put them in AND taken them out, as it suits them. The list goes on with Gaddafi just another fallen once-upon-a-time ally turned into a bloody slick on the soil of yet another nation scheduled to be owned by the ones who own US, YOU AND ME. The general rule of thumb seems to be: strengthen US economy and support western ideology or die.
The "Libyan HUMANITARIAN Crisis" is a cover-story for a plan to shut down Gaddafi's attempt to set up an alternative international currency based on gold. It was done to STOP African progress OUT OF POVERTY AND DEPENDENCE ON THE WEST. Libya's natural resources, indeed all of Africa's natural resources are just too sparkly, too desirable for the West to turn away from!
"MUST HAVE THE PRECIOUS!!!"
WAS it the Golden Dinar which was the biggest aspect of this? Was it a rising African power, a nation showing other nations that they, too, could get out from under Western control? Not only would the Golden Dinar have 'screwed' the U.S. dollar if successful, it would have also screwed the Euro too!
Screwing up one currency of the international banking cartel is one thing, but also screwing up the Euro version SEEMS to have been the last straw.
Gaddafi is gone....who's next? WHO IS NEXT? ANYONE WHO BUCKS
THE WORLD BANKING CARTEL? ANYONE WHO TELLS AMERICA TO BUTT OUT?
THINK! THINK QUICKLY, FOR SOON THAT WILL BE ILLEGAL HERE, PUNISHABLE BY DEATH!
THINK! THINK QUICKLY, FOR SOON THAT WILL BE ILLEGAL HERE, PUNISHABLE BY DEATH!
Perspectives
Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective
By Gerald A. Perreira -Guest Perspective-
Updated Mar 8, 2011 - 11:53:55 AM
Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective
By Gerald A. Perreira -Guest Perspective-
Updated Mar 8, 2011 - 11:53:55 AM
Thousands of Indians, Egyptians, Chinese, Filipinos, Turks,
Germans, English, Italians, Malaysians, Koreans and a host of other
nationalities are lining up at the borders and the airport to leave Libya. It
begs the question: What were they doing in Libya in the first place?
Unemployment figures, according to the Western media and Al Jazeera, are at
30%. If this is so, then why all these foreign workers?
For those of us who have lived and worked in Libya, there are many complexities to the current situation that have been completely overlooked by the Western media and ‘Westoxicated' analysts, who have nothing other than a Eurocentric perspective to draw on. Let us be clear – there is no possibility of understanding what is happening in Libya within a Eurocentric framework. Westerners are incapable of understanding a system unless the system emanates from or is attached in some way to the West. Libya's system and the battle now taking place on its soil, stands completely outside of the Western imagination.
For those of us who have lived and worked in Libya, there are many complexities to the current situation that have been completely overlooked by the Western media and ‘Westoxicated' analysts, who have nothing other than a Eurocentric perspective to draw on. Let us be clear – there is no possibility of understanding what is happening in Libya within a Eurocentric framework. Westerners are incapable of understanding a system unless the system emanates from or is attached in some way to the West. Libya's system and the battle now taking place on its soil, stands completely outside of the Western imagination.
News coverage by the BBC, CNN and Al Jazeera has been
oversimplified and misleading. An array of anti-Qaddafi spokespersons, most
living outside Libya, have been paraded in front of us – each one clearly a
counter-revolutionary and less credible than the last. Despite the clear and
irrefutable evidence from the beginning of this rebellion that Muammar Qaddafi
had considerable support both inside Libya and internationally, not one
pro-Qaddafi voice has been allowed to air. The media and their selected commentators
have done their best to manufacture an opinion that Libya is essentially the
same as Egypt and Tunisia and that Qaddafi is just another tyrant amassing
large sums of money in Swiss bank accounts. But no matter how hard they try,
they cannot make Qaddafi into a Mubarak or Libya into Egypt.
The first question is: Is the revolt taking place in Libya
fuelled by a concern over economic issues such as poverty and unemployment as
the media would have us believe? Let us examine the facts.
Under the revolutionary leadership of Muammar Qaddafi, Libya
has attained the highest standard of living in Africa. In 2007, in an article
which appeared in the African Executive Magazine, Norah Owaraga noted that
Libya, “unlike other oil producing countries such as Nigeria, utilized the
revenue from its oil to develop its country. The standard of living of the
people of Libya is one of the highest in Africa, falling in the category of
countries with a GNP per capita of between USD 2,200 and 6,000.”
This is all the more remarkable when we consider that in
1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world. According to the
World Bank, the per capita income was less than $50 a year - even lower than
India. Today, all Libyans own their own homes and cars. Two Fleet Street
journalists, David Blundy and Andrew Lycett, who are by no means supporters of
the Libyan revolution, had this to say:
“The young people are well dressed, well fed and well
educated. Libyans now earn more per capita than the British. The disparity in
annual incomes... is smaller than in most countries. Libya's wealth has been
fairly spread throughout society. Every Libyan gets free, and often excellent,
education, medical and health services. New colleges and hospitals are
impressive by any international standard. All Libyans have a house or a flat, a
car and most have televisions, video recorders and telephones. Compared with
most citizens of the Third World countries, and with many in the First World,
Libyans have it very good indeed.” (Source: Qaddafi and the Libyan Revolution)
Large scale housing construction has taken place right
across the country. Every citizen has been given a decent house or apartment to
live in rent-free. In Qaddafi's Green Book it states: “The house is a basic
need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by
others.” This dictum has now become a reality for the Libyan people.
Large scale agricultural projects have been implemented in
an effort to ‘make the desert bloom' and achieve self-sufficiency in food
production. Any Libyan who wants to become a farmer is given free use of land,
a house, farm equipment, some livestock and seed. In addition, all basic food
items are subsidised and sold through a network of 'people's shops'.
Today, Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems
in the Arab and African World. All people have access to doctors, hospitals,
clinics and medicines, completely free of all charges.
The fact is that the Libyan revolution has achieved such a
high standard of living for its people that they import labour from other parts
of the world to do the jobs that Libyans refuse to do. The Libyans themselves
are able to sustain a very decent standard of living without having to take
menial work - this is because the families and extended families are prosperous
and therefore do not need their young sons and daughters to work at jobs they
do not want to do in order to be housed, clothed and fed. Many of these
'unemployed' travel to lands as far as Malaysia and China buying goods for sale
in their family businesses. Libya has been called by many observers inside and
out, ‘a nation of shop keepers'. It is part of the Libyan Arab psyche to own
your own small business and this type of small scale private enterprise
flourishes in Libya. We can draw on many examples of Libyans with young sons
who expressed the idea that it would be shameful for the family if these same
young men were to seek menial work, and instead preferred for them to remain at
home supported by the extended family.
Those workers who are not being brought into Libya to do
menial work are being brought in to work in professions such as nursing,
teaching in the international schools and as professionals in oil related and
other high tech industries. All Libyans have access to free education from
primary to university level and are encouraged to take up scholarships for
advanced post-graduate studies at universities abroad. However, it is important
to note that Libya is a deeply traditional society, and although the Libyan revolution
has made education and training freely available to all its citizens, male and
female, there has been a preference in many families for women not to go to
higher levels of education and into professions which are traditionally seen as
'male professions', and for young Libyan males to go into the family business
rather than seek professional training.
No system is perfect, and Libya is no exception. They suffered nine years of economic sanctions and this caused huge problems for the Libyan economy. Also, there is nowhere on planet earth that has escaped the monumental crisis of neo-liberal capitalism. It has impacted everywhere – even on post revolutionary societies that have rejected 'free market' capitalism. However, severe economic injustice is not at the heart of this conflict. So then, what is?
No system is perfect, and Libya is no exception. They suffered nine years of economic sanctions and this caused huge problems for the Libyan economy. Also, there is nowhere on planet earth that has escaped the monumental crisis of neo-liberal capitalism. It has impacted everywhere – even on post revolutionary societies that have rejected 'free market' capitalism. However, severe economic injustice is not at the heart of this conflict. So then, what is?
A Battle for Africa
The battle that is being waged in Libya is fundamentally a
battle between Pan-African forces on the one hand, who are dedicated to the
realization of Qaddafi's vision of a united Africa, and reactionary racist
Libyan Arab forces who reject Qaddafi's vision of Libya as part of a united
Africa and want to ally themselves instead with the EU and look toward Europe
and the Arab World for Libya's future.
One of Muammar Qaddafi's most controversial and difficult
moves in the eyes of many Libyans was his championing of Africa and his
determined drive to unite Africa with one currency, one army and a shared
vision regarding the true independence and liberation of the entire continent.
He has contributed large amounts of his time and energy and large sums of money
to this project and like Kwame Nkrumah, he has paid a
high price.
Many of the Libyan people did not approve of this move. They
wanted their leader to look towards Europe. Of course, Libya has extensive
investments and commercial ties with Europe but the Libyans know that Qaddafi's
heart is in Africa.
Many years ago, Qaddafi told a large gathering, which
included Libyans and revolutionaries from many parts of the world, that the
Black Africans were the true owners of Libya long before the Arab incursion
into North Africa, and that Libyans need to acknowledge and pay tribute to
their ancient African roots. He ended by saying, as is proclaimed in his Green
Book, that “the Black race shall prevail throughout the world”. This is not
what many Libyans wanted to hear. As with all fair skinned Arabs, prejudice
against Black Africans is endemic.
Brother Leader, Guide of the Revolution and King of Kings
are some of the titles that have been bestowed on Qaddafi by Africans. Only
last month Qaddafi called for the creation of a Secretariat of traditional
African Chiefs and Kings, with whom he has excellent ties, to co-ordinate
efforts to build African unity at the grassroots level throughout the
continent, a bottom up approach, as opposed to trying to build unity at the
government/state level, an approach which has failed the African unification
project since the days of Kwame Nkrumah and Sekou Toure. This bottom up
approach is widely supported by many Pan Africanists worldwide.
African Mercenaries or Freedom Fighters?
In the past week, the phrase ‘African mercenaries' has been repeated over and over by the media and the selected Libyan citizens they choose to speak to have, as one commentator put it, “spat the word ‘African' with a venomous hatred”.
The media has assumed, without any research or understanding
of the situation because they are refusing to give any air time to pro-Qaddafi
forces, that the many Africans in military uniform fighting alongside the
pro-Qaddafi Libyan forces are mercenaries. However, it is a myth that the
Africans fighting to defend the Jamahiriya and Muammar Qaddafi are mercenaries
being paid a few dollars and this assumption is based solely on the usual
racist and contemptuous view of Black Africans.
Actually, in truth, there are people all over Africa and the African Diaspora who support and respect Muammar Qaddafi as a result of his invaluable contribution to the worldwide struggle for African emancipation.
Actually, in truth, there are people all over Africa and the African Diaspora who support and respect Muammar Qaddafi as a result of his invaluable contribution to the worldwide struggle for African emancipation.
Over the past two decades, thousands of Africans from all
over the continent were provided with education, work and military training -
many of them coming from liberation movements. As a result of Libya's support
for liberation movements throughout Africa and the world, international
battalions were formed. These battalions saw themselves as a part of the Libyan
revolution, and took it upon themselves to defend the revolution against
attacks from within its borders or outside.
These are the Africans who are fighting to defend Qaddafi
and the gains of the Libyan revolution to their death if need be. It is not
unlike what happened when internationalist battalions came to the aid of the
revolutionary forces against Franco's fascist forces in Spain.
Malian political analyst, Adam Thiam, notes that “thousands
of Tuaregs who were enrolled in the Islamic Legion established by the Libyan
revolution remained in Libya and they are enrolled in the Libyan security
forces.”
African Migrants under Attack
As African fighters from Chad, Niger, Mali, Ghana, Kenya,
Guinea and Southern Sudan (it should be noted that Libya supported the Sudanese
People's Liberation Army under John Garang in their war of liberation against
Arab hegemonists in Khartoum, while all other Arab leaders backed the Khartoum
regime) fight to defend this African revolution, a million African refugees and
thousands of African migrant workers stand the risk of being murdered as a
result of their perceived support for Qaddafi.
One Turkish construction worker described a massacre: “We
had 70-80 people from Chad working for our company. They were cut dead with
pruning shears and axes, attackers saying: ‘You are providing troops for
Qaddafi. The Sudanese were also massacred. We saw it for ourselves.”
This is a far cry from what is being portrayed in the media
as ‘peaceful protesters' being set upon by pro-Qaddafi forces. In fact, footage
of the Benghazi revolt shows men with machetes, AK 47s and RPGs. In the Green
Book, Qaddafi argues for the transfer of all power, wealth and arms directly
into the hands of the people themselves. No one can deny that the Libyan
populace is heavily armed. This is part of Qaddafi's philosophy of arms not
being monopolised by any section of the society, including the armed forces. It
must be said that it is not usual practice for tyrants and dictators to arm
their population.
Qaddafi has also been very vocal regarding the plight of
Africans who migrate to Europe, where they are met with racism, more poverty,
violence at the hands of extreme right wing groups and in many cases death,
when the un-seaworthy boats they travel in sink.
Moved by their plight, a conference was held in Libya in
January this year, to address their needs and concerns. More than 500 delegates
and speakers from around the world attended the conference titled ‘A Decent
Life in Europe or a Welcome Return to Africa.'
“We should live in Europe with decency and dignity,” Qaddafi
told participants. “We need a good relationship with Europe, not a relationship
of master and slave. There should be a strong relationship between Africa and
Europe. Our presence should be strong, tangible and good. It's up to you as the
Africans in the Diaspora. We have to continue more and more until the unity of
Africa is achieved.
From now on, by the will of God, I will assign teams to
search, investigate and liaise with the Africans in Europe and to check their
situations...this is my duty and role towards the sons of Africa; I am a
soldier for Africa. I am here for you and I work for you; therefore, I will not
leave you and I will follow up on your conditions.”
Joint committees of African migrants, the United Nations,
the African Union, the European Union and international organizations present
at the conference discussed the need to coordinate the implementation of many
of the conference's recommendations.
Statements are appearing all over the internet from Africans
who have a different view to that being perpetuated by those intent on
discrediting Qaddafi and the Libyan revolution. One African commented:
“When I was growing up I first read a comic book of his
revolution at the age of ten. Since then, as dictators came and went, Colonel
Qaddafi has made an impression on me as a man who truly loves Africa! Libyans
could complain that he spent their wealth on other Africans! But those Africans
he helped put in power, built schools and mosques and brought in many forms of
development showing that Africans can do for themselves. If those Africans
would abandon him to be swallowed by Western Imperialism and their lies and
just let him go as a dictator in the name of so-called democracy...if they
could do that...they should receive the names and fate that the Western press gives
our beloved leader. If there is any one person who was half as generous as he
is, let them step forward.”
And another African comments:
“This man has been accused of many things and listening to
the West who just recently were happy to accept his generous hospitality, you
will think that he is worse than Hitler. The racism and contemptuous attitudes
of Arabs towards Black Africans has made me a natural sceptic of any overtures
from them to forge a closer link with Black Africa but Qaddafi was an
exception.”
Opportunistic Revolt
This counter-revolutionary revolt caught everyone, including
the Libyan authorities, by surprise. They knew what the media is not reporting:
that unlike Egypt and Tunisia and other countries in the region, where there is
tremendous poverty, unemployment and repressive pro-Western regimes, the Libyan
dynamic was entirely different. However, an array of opportunistic forces,
ranging from so-called Islamists, Arab-Supremacists, including some of those
who have recently defected from Qaddafi's inner circle, have used the events in
neighbouring countries as a pretext to stage a coup and to advance their own
agenda for the Libyan nation. Many of these former officials were the authors
of, and covertly fuelled the anti-African pogrom in Libya a few years ago when
many Africans lost their lives in street battles between Africans and Arab
Libyans. This was a deliberate attempt to embarrass Qaddafi and to undermine
his efforts in Africa.
Qaddafi has long been a thorn in the side of Islamist groups
such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Party of Islamic Liberation. In his
recent address to the Libyan people, broadcast from the ruins of the Bab
al-Azizia compound bombed by Reagan in 1986, he asked the 'bearded ones' in
Benghazi and Jabal al Akhdar where they were when Reagan bombed his compound in
Tripoli, killing hundreds of Libyans, including his daughter. He said they were
hiding in their homes applauding the US and he vowed that he would never allow
the country to be returned to the grip of them and their colonial masters.
Al Qaeda is in the Sahara on his borders and the
International Union of Muslim Scholars is calling for him to be tried in a
court. One asks why are they calling for Qaddafi's blood? Why not Mubarak who
closed the Rafah Border Crossing while the Israeli's slaughtered the
Palestinians in Gaza. Why not Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Blair who are
responsible for the murder of millions of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The answer is simple - because Qaddafi committed some
‘cardinal sins'. He dared to challenge their reactionary and feudal notions of
Islam. He has upheld the idea that every Muslim is a ruler (Caliph) and does
not need the Ulema to interpret the Quran for them. He has questioned the Islam
of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda from a Quranic/theological perspective
and is one of the few political leaders equipped to do so. Qaddafi has been
called a Mujaddid (this term refers to a person who appears to revive Islam and
to purge it of alien elements, restoring it to its authentic form) and he comes
in the tradition of Jamaludeen Afghani and the late Iranian revolutionary, Ali
Shariati.
As already noted, Libya is a deeply traditional society,
plagued with some outmoded and bankrupt ideas that continue to surface to this
day. In many ways, Qaddafi has had to struggle against the same reactionary
aspects of Arab culture and tradition that the holy prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was
struggling against in 7th century Arabia - Arab supremacy/racism, supremacy of
family and tribe, historical feuding tribe against tribe and the
marginalisation of women. Benghazi has always been at the heart of
counter-revolution in Libya, fostering reactionary Islamic movements such as
the Wahhabis and Salafists. It is these people who founded the Libyan Islamic
Fighting Group based in Benghazi which allies itself with Al Qaeda and who
have, over the years, been responsible for the assassination of leading members
of the Libyan revolutionary committees.
These forces hate Qaddafi's revolutionary reading of the
Quran. They foster an Islam concerned with outward trappings and mere
religiosity, in the form of rituals, which at the same time is feudal and
repressive, while rejecting the liberatory spirituality of Islam. While these
so-called Islamists are opposed to Western occupation of Muslim lands, they
have no concrete programmatic platform for meaningful socio-economic and
political transformation to advance their societies beyond semi-feudal and
capitalist systems which reinforce the most backward and reactionary ideas and
traditions. Qaddafi's political philosophy, as outlined in the Green Book,
rejects unfettered capitalism in all its manifestations, including the ‘State
capitalism' of the former communist countries and the neo-liberal capitalist
model that has been imposed at a global level. The idea that capitalism is not
compatible with Islam and the Quran is not palatable to many Arabs and
so-called Islamists because they hold onto the fallacious notion that business
and trade is synonymous with capitalism.
Getting it Right
Whatever the mistakes made by Qaddafi and the Libyan
revolution, its gains and its huge contribution to the struggle of oppressed
peoples worldwide cannot and must not be ignored. Saif Qaddafi, when asked
about the position of his father and family, said this battle is not about one
man and his family, it is about Libya and the direction it will take.
That direction has always been controversial. In 1982, The
World Mathaba was established in Libya. Mathaba means a gathering place for
people with a common purpose. The World Mathaba brought together
revolutionaries and freedom fighters from every corner of the globe to share
ideas and develop their revolutionary knowledge. Many liberation groups
throughout the world received education, training and support from Muammar
Qaddafi and the Libyan revolution including ANC, AZAPO, PAC and BCM of Azania
(South Africa), SWAPO of Namibia, MPLA of Angola, The Sandinistas of Nicaragua,
The Polisario of the Sahara, the PLO, The Native American Movements throughout
the Americas, The Nation of Islam led by Louis Farrakhan to name but a few.
Nelson Mandela called Muammar Qaddafi one of this century's greatest freedom
fighters, and insisted that the eventual collapse of the apartheid system owed
much to Qaddafi and Libyan support. Mandela said that in the darkest moments of
their struggle, when their backs were to the wall, it was Muammar Qaddafi who
stood with them. The late African freedom fighter, Kwame Ture, referred to
Qaddafi as ‘a diamond in a cesspool of African misleaders'.
The hideous notion being perpetuated by the media and
reactionary forces, inside and outside of Libya, that this is just another
story of a bloated dictatorship that has run its course is a deliberate
distortion. In the words of the Islamic scholar Mahmoud Ayoub:
“For millions of the oppressed of Asia, Africa and Lation
America, Qaddafi is a hero, a comrade in the revolutionary struggle against
imperialism, exploitation and recism. In short, Qaddafi has been loved and
hated, admired and ridiculed, and above all feared as an impulsive politician
who refuses to play the usual
games
of international diplomacy.”
No one can deny Muammar Qaddafi's invaluable contribution to
human emancipation and the universal truths outlined in his Green Book.
Progressive scholars in many parts of the world, including
the West, have acclaimed The Green Book as an incisive critique of capitalism
and the Western Parliamentary system. In addition, there is no denying that the
system of direct democracy posited by Qaddafi offers an alternative model and
solution for Africa and the Third World, where multi-party so-called democracy
has been a dismal failure, resulting in poverty, ethnic and tribal conflict and
chaos.
Every revolution, since the beginning of time, has defended
itself against those who would want to roll back its gains. Europeans should
look back into their own bloody history to see that this includes the American,
French and Bolshevik revolutions. Marxists speak of Trotsky and Lenin's brutal
suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion by the Red Army as being a 'tragic
necessity'.
Let's get it right: The battle in Libya is not about
peaceful protestors versus an armed and hostile State. All sides are heavily
armed and hostile. The battle being waged in Libya is essentially a battle
between those who want to see a united and liberated Libya and Africa, free of
neo-colonialism and neo-liberal capitalism and free to construct systems of
governance compatible with the African and Arab personalities and cultures and
those who find this entire notion repugnant. And both sides are willing to pay
the ultimate price to defend their position.
Make no mistake, if Qaddafi and the Libyan revolution are
defeated by this opportunistic conglomerate of reactionaries and racists, then
progressive forces worldwide and the Pan-African project will suffer a huge
defeat and set back.
Gerald Perreira has lived in Libya for many years and was an
executive member of the World Mathaba.
FCN is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content
supplied by third parties. Original content supplied by FCN and FinalCall.com
News is Copyright 2012 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com. Content supplied by third
parties are the property of their respective owners.
Why the West Want the Fall of Muammar Gaddafi…Analysis by
Jean-Paul Pougala
This is an Analysis by a Cameroonian writer known as
Jean-Paul Pougala . The original analysis was in French and was translated by
Sputnik Kilambi. The analysis is divided into 5 parts.
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 country’s role in shaping the African Union and the
development of the continent.
It was Gaddafi’s 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. 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 wouldn’t finance such a project? But the
problem remained – how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their
master’s exploitation ask the master’s 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 that’s 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. Gaddafi’s 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 privatization like forcing
African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise
then that on 16-17 December 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 revitalize 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 destabilize 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 civilized 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 it’s funding on the European Union, is a vociferous opponent to the
African federation. That’s why Lincoln fought in the US war of secession
because the moment a group of countries come together in a regional
political organization, 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 wouldn’t 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 didn’t 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. That’s 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 realized how stupid that list was but because they wanted
to mark Mandela’s 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past
support for Mandela’s 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 Gaddafi’s 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 president’s 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 Gaddafi’s Libya?
The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason
that democracy doesn’t exist. This isn’t 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 Gaddafi’s 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 Rousseau’s conditions better than the USA, France and Great Britain,
all highly urbanized societies where most neighbours don’t even say hello
to each other and therefore don’t 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 doesn’t 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 behavioural 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 civilized 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 Rousseau’s 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
Rousseau’s 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 can’t 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 maximizing 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 Peru’s 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 person’s 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 world’s 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 Rousseau’s perspective,
that the dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to pre-empt any
revolt. It wouldn’t 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 don’t 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
colonization baptized ‘the protection of peoples’, which legitimizes 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 civilized 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 countries 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
organization? 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 Kohl’s 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 organization, 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.
Today’s events are reminiscent of what happened with
China in the past. Today, one recognizes 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 Mao’s 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 didn’t 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 didn’t say yes
or thank you but spelt out guarantees required for China’s dignity to be
respected. What does Africa hope to achieve from the United Nations without
playing hard ball? We saw how in Cote d’Ivoire a UN bureaucrat considers
himself to be above the constitution of the country. We entered this
organization 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 Ouattara’s 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 hasn’t 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.
same table and eat from plates we ourselves washed is not just credulous, it is stupid. When the African Union endorsed Ouattara’s 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 hasn’t 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.
Africa’s 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.
http://oleafrica.com/feature/why-the-west-want-the-fall-of-muammar-gaddafi-part-1-of-5/2202
No comments:
Post a Comment