The truth about Libya

Warning: This is a long and bitter post, almost like the road to freedom: The principle that underlies the overall concept of, especially, public international law is essentially the establishment of some kind of equitable standards of behavior or norms with a broader view to maintain world order and, ultimately, world peace.

International law recognizes the fact that the international community is made up of various sovereign states whose individual sovereignty and political freedom should be unwaveringly defended and respected. It is for this purpose that the doctrine of non-interference and total respect for the sovereignty of other internationally recognized states forms the essence of the United Nations Charter ( Although there are other sources of international law, the UN Charter is widely regarded as a sort of the international community's Constitution). Article 2(4) of the Charter expressly states that “[A]ll members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations". The Charter only allows interference in one exceptional circumstance: self-defence (Article 51).

These principles were ostensibly for every state actor to observe. But in practice the big boys are definitely above them and have showed contempt at every opportunity they get all while expecting the other guys lower in the food chain to fully adhere. If a smaller country deviates from this norm, a full "international" outcry complete with concomitant sanctions is sure to follow. But let one USA and one Britain invade and blatantly violate the core principle of international law by invading a number of sovereign states without a justified cause, then well, it is not a big deal. They simply don't give a damn.


Although humanitarianism as a legally justifiable reason to intervene has emerged as a norm in recent times it is still a very controversial matter internationally and it has not been documented or codified as law. Historically, there have been very few interventions on genuine humanitarian grounds. I can only recall the December 25, 1978 Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia to halt the crazily violent Pol Pot, the 1978 Tanzanian invasion of Uganda to stop Idi " the Terrible" Amini and perhaps the Cuban mission in Angola to halt the South African Army's advances in Angola. Most interventions, especially by the USA, have been outright armed aggressions against sovereign states (Haiti: "Operation Uphold Democracy" 1994—1995, Somalia: "Operation Restore Hope," 1992, Vietnam: Operation Opium, Nicaragua in the 80s etc etc).

Enter Libya 2011. We have a group of people armed with modern weapons trying to overthrow a legitimate and internationally recognized government but who are pretending to be civilians. On the other hand we have a bunch of Western bullies who, instead of minding their own businesses decided to support these insurgents with a view to topple Gadhaffi simply because he does not agree with the establishment of the "Africomand" and other wicked plots? What did the Namibian government do when the Caprivi secessionists tried their thing? Can anyone say that the actions of our defence force constituted of "killing of innocent people"? How is the Libyan case different from the Caprivi case? Or more accurately how come Gadhaffi is wrong by defending his regime from a bunch of armed thugs but Bush is justified by invading Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of state security? How can they openly declare that their mission is to change regimes in Libya and sent “officers” and “engineers” to help the insurgents? Does anybody in his/her rightful mind think the West with their big dog, NATO, would have intervened if Libya's main export was cabbage for instance?.

The main reason these Western bullies are at liberty to invade other countries and stupidity cite humanitarian reasons is twofold: (1) the five permanent Security Council members (how many countries are in the world again?) with their unhindered power to determine what constitutes a humanitarian issue and (2) the Rome Statute does not currently allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute the crime of aggression. The Rome Statute specifically mentioned the crime of genocide, torture, and other violent crimes but crucially omitted the crime of aggression. My guess is that it was purposely omitted to cater for such imperialistic schemes.

The fact that the Western imperialist are doing what they are doing is unfortunate but understandable: they are merely taking care of their own. The most disturbing, and perhaps even embarrassing issue is the people who, without anything to gain whatsoever, readily jump onto the West's imperial bandwagon and support them in their colonial agendas. The “coalition” is yet to find those elusive weapons of mass destruction in Iraq yet people are already prepared to back another crusade in Libya? What do people learn from history? I mean seriously? How can an African, with full and unbiased information, demand that Gadhaffi must go? On what basis do people make this demand? Because, in my opinion, the insinuation that Gadhaffi has been there for 41 years, in itself, does not warrant the demand for his departure. Namibia has seen two presidents in 20 years but look at us now; we are at 55% unemployment rate. A long period in power is not inherently bad but only objectionable if coupled with injustices and unfairness. Africans lived that way for centuries. As a general rule a leader must be ousted as soon as the first sign of bad leadership became evident, but otherwise what is the point? What matters is the results and general happiness of society. If president Pohamba, or anybody else for that matter, was to rule beyond that so-called Vision 2030 and provided that we are at least at half the Libyan living standard I will have no qualms about that at all. Although not as well marketed as the "Gadhaffi is killing innocent civilians" hit song Gadhaffi's record on wealth re-distribution to ordinary Libyans is quite outstanding and will leave many European countries, including Russia, Poland, Portugal and Turkey green with envy. There are numerous countries with enormous natural riches but it does not reflect on the ordinary citizens, including Namibia yet the people miraculously continue to vote for the same party. Libyans don't pay school fees, medical fees and their socio-economic rights are far more guaranteed than in, say South Africa, where such rights are entrenched in that country's Constitution.

We are being barraged with the “innocent rebels" images on our TVs every day, where are the video clips showing millions of pro-Gadhaffis marching in Tripoli and other areas? I have seen a number of such clips myself and will be more than happy to forward a copy or two to anyone interested. What is happening in Libya bears no resemblance to what happened in Tunisia and Egypt. Those were bona fide revolts. In Libya the Western nations simply got an opportunity to do what they have been trying to do for ages: oust Gadhaffi and replace him with a more obedient character. The so-called rebels are unmistakably under the direction of American and Israeli intelligence agencies despite the repeated claims by Obama administration officials to the contrary. Khalifa Haftar who was clandestinely appointed chief rebel commander on the 17th of March has long standing relationship with the CIA. On June 21, 1988 Haftar, with strong backing from the Central Intelligence Agency founded the anti-Gadaffi movement, the Libyan National Army (LNA) which had training camps in Falls Church, Virginia where he has been living quietly for the last 20 years, before returning to Benghazi to lead the fight against Gaddafi. The Wall Street Journal also reported of three major role player in the rebels’ camp (Abdel Hakim al-Hasady, Salah al-Barrani, and Sufyan Ben Qumu) who are well known former Al-Quaeda top fighters. Al Qaeda, mind you, was effectively created by the CIA through its activities in recruiting and mobilizing radical Islamists to go to Afghanistan in the 1980s and join the mujaheddin guerrillas fighting the Soviet army there. This to me does not look like a humanitarian intervention but more of a well coordinated, foreign sponsored coup.
Our local newspapers are pathetically useless when it comes to international news coverage. Typical of mainstream media, they are deeply sucked in by global waves of propaganda and have proved that they totally lack the capacity to report independently (perhaps for the fear of being seen as the "odd man out" or as backing dictators. Well if you hate dictators so much why don't you run a piece or two on the American "Sheiktators" in most of the oil kingdoms and other long serving American puppets elsewhere in the world?). The Americans are the masters of hypocrisy. They claim that they had to intervene because Gadhaffi was killing civilians, which is a blatant lie by the way, while they turn a blind eye at the real killing of innocent civilians currently going on in Bahrain simply because the Bahraini leaders are in "good standing". They are busy imposing sanctions on Iran for a peaceful nuclear project while at the same time sponsoring similar projects in India, Egypt and South Korea. They proclaim themselves as world human rights policemen but at UN they are repeatedly vetoing any resolutions that condemn Israel's atrocious activities in Gazza.

As it is now practically, the norm is the higher up a country is in the league the lower the expectation to comply with international law and the lower your position down the food chain the higher the expectation level of adherence.

Source: http://www.mopanetree.com/content/