Since the sad, inglorious and atrocious murder of the Libyan strongman, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the local dailies all over the globe are filled with ugly and unspeakable sermons about him. The annoyance is that prime pages are dedicated to articles on Gaddafi misdeeds and Most of the writers paint Gaddafi as an evil man, a terrorist, a thief, a dictator, a murderer and a man with no iota of conscience. Some say that Gaddafi was a thorn in the flesh of the first world nations, especially America, for their meddlesomeness and violation of the territorial integrity of underdeveloped and developing nations.
But the veiled thing that plays behind every venture of man is “profit”. Hence it is important to think over, is it possible for the foreign powers that pulled down the government of Gaddafi to waste their funds in these hard times of global depression without an unambiguous plan to make yield? Now that the destruction of Libya is over, the foreign powers are beginning to angle for who gets what, in the rebuilding of Libya. The foreign powers can never go on board on an extravagant gamble. The oil wealth of Libya is the sure target of the alliance forces and they have succeeded.
The query subsequently is who profits the most if Gaddafi were to quit and would it really bring egalitarianism to Libya. Everyone on the street knows this was only about oil and banking. Until last year, Libya was producing nearly two million barrels of oil a day. To put that in perspective, India’s daily national utilization of oil is roughly three million barrels a day. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Libya a member of OPEC sits on one of the largest proven oil reserves in the world. Although Libya is not major oil producers such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE or Russia, but it reserves of crude oil are about 3% of the world’s total. Apart from above Libyan oil is considered of optimum quality with low sulphuric substance. And geographically too, Libya is far away from the Gulf region; consequently Libyan oil exports are not subject to the fluctuations resulting from Gulf’s political affairs. And above all the western powers most active in opposing the Gaddafi regime, namely the US, UK and France, import only 0.5% and 8.5% of Libyan oil as compared to their total imports? Now does that mean anything?
For many unaware with his works, Gaddafi’s name was identical with bizarre, even unusual manners, accentuated by maddening diplomacy wound up in dazzling costumery and dizzying dithyrambs. But the lesser known facts are Pre-Gaddafi Libya was one of the poorest countries on the world. Life expectancy in the 1960s was only 46 years. There was no health system to speak of in those days. Most Libyans lived in tents around the few pastures around the desert. Nearly the entire population of Libya was a rural society. For the past 40 years, Libya faced economic sanctions from most of the western world. Ethnic tensions were widespread and water was inadequate even literacy was less than 20 percent.
But Gaddafi single handedly built his country over four decades — from the sand and remnants of tribal society and turned it into metropolis culture. It was under him that the health status of his subject improved remarkably in comparison with the rest of West Asia (that includes Saudi Arabia). Life expectancy in Libya before the recent conflict began was 77.65 years. Literacy was at 82.6 percent and over 97 percent of the population had access to sanitation facilities. It just cannot be ignored that in the 1980s and ’90s, Gaddafi undertook what is to date the world’s largest drinking water project: 6,000 km of pipelines carried water under the Sahara to different corners of Libya. Libya ranks 58 out of 177 on the 2004 United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report, which measures quality of life.
In addition to the projects and development he carried out using his country’s petro-dollars, Gaddafi was a leading financier of development across Africa. More worryingly for the West, Gaddafi, not unlike other gulf rulers, was actively seeking to delink the price of oil from the dollar and float a new bullion based currency, in this case, a gold African dinar. This prompted Sarkozy to call Libya, “a threat to the financial security of mankind”, and it was the root cause of all trouble with the western powers. The trouble with the Colonel was he had sat there in authority far too long for a fuel-hungry Europe and North America to remain patient. Therefore Gaddafi’s end engineered by the US led NATO forces, after Saddam Hussein’s hanging in 2006 proves yet again that in the current world order, the United States of America can do whatever it wishes with other nations and leaders who do not toe its line.
Gaddafi treated his opponents perhaps almost as shoddily as American soldiers treat their prisoners at the villainous Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq. But then saying this does not means any support to the tormenters- be it Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi. But the military escalation on Libya was a second time that NATO is involved in an armed adventure outside its geographical zone. The point is this going to become a pattern in the future? The value of the human catastrophe, like in all wars, is inestimable. The stories of the aggressions on Libya are upsetting, the images extremely disturbing. And for those of us, who live in what is termed the Third World, the fate of Libya is something from which we must take note of. In his last address to the UN Security Council, in 2006-07, Gaddafi had asked, “What was the reason to invade Iraq? We want to know because it is mysterious and ambiguous and we may face the same destiny. The invasion in itself was and is a serious violation of the UN Charter.”
On September 17, 2002 the Bush administration published its “National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” So far, there has been no serious examination of this important document in the unbiased media. This is unfortunate, to say the least, because this document advances the political and theoretical justification for a massive rise of American militarism. The document asserts as the guiding procedure of the United States the right to use military might anywhere in the world, at any time it chooses, against any country it believes to be, or it believes may at some point become, a threat to American welfare. No other country in modern history, not even Nazi Germany at the height of Hitler’s madness, has asserted such a sweeping claim to global supremacy—or, to put it more candidly, world domination—as is made by the United States. In another passage, the document warns that the United States will take the actions necessary to guarantee that their efforts to meet their global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which they wouldn’t accept. In other words, the actions of the leaders of the United States will not be restrained by the conventions of international law! The disagreement is that the US hardly cares about egalitarianism or the well being of the people of other nations as long as its own financial and military interests are served. And this artificiality can well be judged by the fact that, the US doesn’t denounce human rights violations in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia which to us all are equally fraudulent and callous regimes.
After Gaddafi’s assassination the National Transitional Council (NTC) is in the process of running democratically elected government in the country. But for the Council steering Libya out to at least a near-perfect democracy will not be an easy job when the country has no contemporary history of party politics or the rule of law. The Arab experience has not been particularly forthcoming. Much of the Arab world is ruled by hereditary monarchies, military regimes and autocrats. A recent trend has been that even autocracies have become hereditary, as it was in the case of Syria. There is barely a functioning democracy anywhere in the region .Even where democratic elections are held, inconvenient winners are soon overthrown or not allowed to assume power due to significant external intervention or with the connivance of multi-national oil companies, as in the case of Algeria. So, it will be interesting to watch how the council establishes a democracy in Libya which had been in anarchy for decades.
http://theeasternpost.org/show_news_archive.php?ofPage=12&dt=2012-01-18
No comments:
Post a Comment