Aug 23



The Ghanaian Times 23 August 2011

IF (as is said)

Might is right,

Then right should equal ‘more might’;

Because (although not often said)

Might isn’t quite right

For each and every cause,

Whereas Truth and its brother, Right,

Serve all humanity’s cause

© cd082011

It was quite unbelievable, of course,  when Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who had taken up arms to overthrow King Idris of Libya in 1969, began to talk like a monarch himself – a monarch who, moreover,  seemed to believe in the ‘divine right’ of kings to rule.

Spouting fire at the ‘rebels’ who had taken up arms against his rule in February 2011, Gaddafi described them as “drug users” and “rats”. And he said his army would come looking for them “from house to house” and street to street to kill them.

Gaddafdi’s  son and designated heir as ruler of Libya, Saif Gaddafi, was even more arrogant. He warned that  the streets of Libya would run with “rivers of blood” if the opposition’s protests continued. The reports of hundreds killed by Gaddafi’s forces  were “a huge exaggeration”,  Saif claimed. The “opposition elements” causing trouble, he added, were those “living abroad” who were trying to stir up “an Egyptian-style Facebook revolution.” Saif added that the rebels were nothing but  “drunkards and thugs” who were driving tanks about the streets. Like his father, he accused many of the ‘rioters’ of being ‘fuelled by drugs.’

Today, however, it is Muammar Gaddafi who is being sought “from house to house”.  The International Criminal Court (ICC),  ever ready to “try” murderers from developing countries but completely unconcerned at the relatively more hideous crimes of  George W Bush (in Iraq and Afghanistan)  or  Tony Blair (Iraq and Afghanistan), wants  Gaddafi and his sons to be brought to the ICC to be tried.

Indeed, the Libyan tragedy is chockfull of striking ironies. For one of the most tragic issues in modern international  geopolitics is the phenomenon of punishing millions of people while trying to “relieve” those same people from the tyranny of a ruler who is oppressing them.

We saw it at its worst in Iraq. Because the Americans and their allies wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein – who was, undoubtedly, a murderous ruler in the eyes of many of his own  people  — the allies  rained bombs on Iraqis from the air. They killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children.

Worse, their invasion served as a trigger to the resurgence  of incipient, internecine animosities within Iraqi society,  that  resulted in yet more deaths of thousands who were innocent of any crime except that of belonging to one religious  sect or the other. According to the US publication, Information Clearing House, the total  number of Iraqis “slaughtered since the U.S. Invaded Iraq [stands at] 1,455,590”. Actually, there is a big dispute over how casual;ties are counted in these war zones, but this number is awful enough, even if it is only half-accurate.

Alas, there is a danger that the same tragedy  will  happen before our very eyes in Libya. You see, when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) decided to intervene in the Libyan conflict, it did so (NATO said) to prevent  the Libyan city of Benghazi from falling into the hands of the forces of Col. Muammar  Gadhafi. Because of the terrible threats uttered against the rebels by the Gaddafis, humanitarian concern was aroused not only in NATO countries but elsewhere.

The Arab world was basking in the  “Arab Spring”, which had seen off the authoritarian rule of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, in a relatively peaceful manner. In Africa too, there was support in some quarters for the anti-Gaddafi forces, because many Africans have themselves experienced the iniquities of totalitarian rule.

It was therefore a fatal mistake  for Col. Gaddafi and his sons to threaten to pour fire and brimstone  on their enemies. Their first major tactical error occurred in the form of their reaction to  the seizure of Benghazi by fighters opposed to Gaddafi. Naturally incensed,  Gaddafi made a radio broadcast on 17 March 2011, in which he fiercely promised to storm the city of 700,000 inhabitants. As mentioned earlier, he threatened: “We shall show no mercy, no pity”… “We will come… house by house, room by room!…   They are rats and drug users. They are Al Qaeda!”

Now, in a political struggle, especially one with an international dimension – and Libya’s position as a leading  producer  of “sweet crude” (the most sought-after petroleum in the world) automatically puts her in the category of nations whose affairs are closely scrutinised  by those  envious  of her oil — words are extremely important. Especially in these days when the Internet makes it so much easier for the actual words of international operators to be conveyed to the rest of the world — especially on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube.

So, as Gaddafi made his  inflammatory  statements about what he would do to his enemies, his words were being captured and re-disseminated all over the world. And a groundswell of emotion poured out across the world in support of the citizens of Libya who were not being allowed to experience “the Arab Spring”. That was a reality which the Gaddafis had not reckoned with.

Suddenly, the situation became tailor-made for politicians anxious to find a bandwagon on which to jump to  improve their approval ratings in their own countries. The message these politicians transmitted to the world was simple: If Gaddafi wanted to show the people of Benghazi that “might” was “right”, then they too  would  show him  that “right” (the people of Benghazi’s right and correct appeal to the world to be saved from  Gaddafi’s threat to exterminate them)  could summon an even more powerful  “might” to its side.

Prime Minister David Cameron of Great Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France showed themselves to be  nimble in the game of harnessing popularity abroad to local political advantage. They did not waste time in going to the United Nations and grandstanding there. They deployed remarkable  diplomatic skill to  get a Security Council that included Russia and China,   to pass a resolution whose wordage was so ambiguous that it could be interpreted to  enable them to take whatever action they thought fit  to “protect the civilian population” of Benghazi and other threatened cities of Libya.

Security Council Resolution 1973, which was also supported by the Arab League and the African Union,  read in part:

“The Security Council… expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation [in Libya], ….Reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population and  reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians, …

“Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity… [declares] that “the situation in Libya continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security” and therefore demands “the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians.”

The key provision in the Council’s resolution was this: [The Security Council] “authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.”

Gaddafi had shot himself in the foot but he didn’t know it. Yet. So long as NATO forces were not on  the ground in  Libyan territory, their actions would be lawful, in terms of the Security Council resolution. So NATO  warplanes made  their numerous “sorties” over Libya,  raining death against Gaddafi’s forces and civilians in the areas attacked.

There were, of course, no independent monitors on the ground to ensure that NATO did not send secret forces to assist Gaddafi’s enemies on the ground — in violastrion of the Security Council resolution. Once Gaddafi’s army  was being crippled from the air, his enemies on the ground, however bedraggled, were on the path to victory.  This weekend, that victory appeared to have become a reality.

In an article published  in The New York Times on 15 April 2011, Cameron, Sarkozy and Barack Obama (a late-comer to the campaign to defeat  Gaddafi) made it clear that they had moved from the original objective, for which they had secured UN authorisation (as provided by Security Council Resolution 1973) to a new ball game of their own choosing. They wrote: “So long as Gaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds. Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders.

This was  ‘double-talk’ of the first order: the Western leaders were signalling that they wanted a “regime change” in Libya, but their actual words were so cleverly crafted that they did not seem to be saying so — as far as legality was concerned! Indeed, an exact legal interpretation of their chosen words could occupy the International Court of Justice for a hundred years, if truth be told!

The world ought to be alerted that it is the “after-Gaddafi” scenario that carries the greatest danger. It is as if the Western leaders were unaware that similar attempts to instal “a new generation of leaders”, such as have  followed the invasion of  both Iraq and Afghanistan, had been anything but  a shining success. Unless great care is taken, Libya too will fall in to the hands of corrupt kleptocrats who will auction Libya’s oil resources to companies well practised in the art of resource-thieving, and who will be best-placed  to fill the pockets of the “new leaders”, with money that cannot be traced in any banks anywhwere.

Meanwhile, the lesson for the rulers of developing countries is clear: do not depend on “might” alone to rule your people. For if you depend on might, a mightier force than you possess, can be invited — or indeed invite itself —  to neutralise your own use of force. But you can’t complain, because you used force on your people, and so if someone else uses force on you, you and him  are morally equal, in the eyes of world opinion.

President Bashar Assad of Syria, are you listening?

© cd082011


Permanent link to this article: