AFRICAN ECONOMY

 

 

Africa’s Tribute to One of its Greatest

Hadiza Wada, DBA …October 22, 2011

When does having strong positive goals for your people, country and continent make you a mad man?  When the world allows your enemies to define your sanity.  When the world allows someone who shares no interest or goal of yours no matter how critically important and positive it is to your performance and destined function as a leader, to paint your image.  People have not composed themselves to ask “well before the Arab upheavals, what credibly supported charges were there against the man Muammar Gaddafi?”

Criticisms Labeled against Gaddafi 

Outside the continent of Africa, Muammar Gaddafi was either a “dangerous man” or “mad man.”  He has, for example, been described by the late President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s as “mad.”   Over the years, he has been highly criticized for openly supporting Islamic, Arab, and African causes.  He spoke out far more than many Islamic leaders across the world for occupied Palestine, and he has taken action in cash and kind to assist them in their struggle.  He has also defined for himself what the issues are in various African conflicts and had supported any group he feels needs funds to actualize their goals.  He does what he believes generally, without regard to what other nations, organizations, or people think about his actions or words.

Within the continent, Muammar Gaddafi draws criticism from neighboring countries who accuse him of aiding their rebel forces against them.  Some say he is doing that with expansionist ideas in mind [suggesting greed].  But careful scrutiny will show that prior to all this, in the early years of his leadership after taking over the country in a bloodless coup against a monarch, King Idris, he was willing to merge his country with poorer ones, while making significant concessions in the process, one of such countries being Sudan at a time it was listed as one of the poorest on the continent.  Libya is a very rich country, when compared with other oil rich countries that have multitudes of millions in population.  As recent as March 1990, to aid Sudan, the two countries announced a possible merger.

Left with no much criticisms that are supported by fact, many of Gaddafi’s critics, point at the length of his tenure.  It is true that the late Muammar Gaddafi has been in power for 42 years.   But what those who held that against him will not tell you is that, his leadership parameters were very limited.  He delegates immense powers to individual committees to reach consensus in individualized areas [something akin to different ministries] who are responsible for reaching and executing policies, projects and function.  What he provided in general was oversight over the individual committee member’s skill, knowledge, character, and practice - firing and replacing ones he cease to trust based on any one of their screen out criteria for service. 

So even if we assume he has ruled unilaterally for these 42 years, will that make him a madman, dangerous man, or all those labels he has earned?  After all, when compared to other Arab majority Islamic countries, that is not unusual at all.  What is it about him that makes him target of the rich and industrialized nations of the world, while they exempt others in similar circumstances from the name calling?  These are legitimate questions deserving credible answers, if we want to affirm or else deny such labels objectively.

What his Supporters Claim

Listening to a speech by the Minister Louis Farrakhan which he gave on the 14^th day of Ramadan [AH 1432] in New York’s Harlem corresponding to August 13, 2011 he listed Gaddafi’s accomplishments to his people.  Minister Farrakhan spoke at the invitation of a Non-Governmental Organization, NGO, known as the December 12 Movement who were holding an anti Libya invasion rally with placards carrying statements like “Attacking Libya is Attacking Africa.”  Among numerous other accomplishments Minister Farrakhan uttered were:

·       Built up his country providing housing to each and every citizen of Libya, with a policy that leaves no citizen homeless. 

·       In addition every Libyan citizen has a regular amount that comes to him directly from the country’s oil proceeds.

·       He raised the literacy rate from 20% when he took over power to 83% today.

·       He raised the average life expectancy of his people from 44 to 75 years.

·       He provides free medical care of very high standard for every citizen.

·       At a time when even the industrialized countries are struggling with job creation, he provides every Libyan who would like to work, a job.

Furthermore, Minister Farrakhan denies that he is just blowing Muammar Gaddafi’s trumpet because he was the only African leader who agreed to assist the African Americans [Nation of Islam] to establish an economically viable life within the United States, during Farrakhan’s 1997 World Friendly Tour.  Minister Farrakhan says he sells his dignity to no one, but will continue to speak the truth as he sees it. He describes Gaddafi as a simple man who leads a simple and humble life.

Other sources credited him with the idea of freeing Africa from centuries of subjugation by establishing avenues for wealth creation.  That idea consequently led to the creation of AU to replace OAU.  He first tabled an idea to reengineer the ailing OAU at a Togo Summit in 2000. He moved on to the idea of a United States of Africa insisting that without a strong united economic, and political unity within African nations, wealth creation will be almost impossible.  While only a few nations supported the idea at first, he was not deterred and therefore re-tabled it again and again especially when he became the AU Chair in 2009.  Before his death he has taken concrete steps, some almost unilaterally using Libyan excess resources to build and act upon his idea for the benefit of all Africans.  And in other respects, he was in on an idea of African - Latin American bilateral relations that would strengthen the two continents so they could build up their communities socially, economically and politically.

Applying the Litmus Test against Gaddafi’s Enemies

The million dollar question asked by multitudes since the invasion of Libya seven months ago, was whether the reason forwarded by the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance [NATO] forces could be trusted on its face value.  For almost a year now, one nation after another on the coastline of the Mediterranean [African continent] and some on its neighboring Arabian Peninsula have been engulfed in mass demonstrations led mostly by the youths, the most active social networking group across the world. None of the countries involved thus far, has shown any sign of forging ahead with a promising agenda for a stable and sustainable government.  And if Iraq, a nation with a decade long experience of Western Invasion represents a Middle Eastern example of intervention in the name of humanitarian or establishment of a democratic government, then Libya’s future seems bleak.

Curious about such issues, people ask “Could it really be a humanitarian mission or an economic one.  Many analysts did not buy the humanitarian angle.  Analysts unlike sentimentalists usually look at similar claims in the past and study the probabilities that what one says about the present could be acceptable or not. How many humanitarian crises having far more significance on scale than Libya’s, has NATO missed or ignored completely, especially when such countries do not have much to offer in economic terms.  

In intensity, for example, one could recall the Rwandan carnage on the same continent, with far reaching consequences in humanitarian terms, for which no such nations intervened to stop the genocide.  It is for such reasons that people question the real motive of NATO and the countries behind it.  Others cite the move by NATO to confiscate the nation’s resources in the name of using it to fund the newly set up transitional authorities.

Russian International Television Channel RT [funded by a nation independent of the NATO alliance] reports  about the Libyan invasion “[while] some believe it is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about Gaddafi's plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth.

"It's one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you're going to change over from the dollar to something else, you're going to be targeted," says Ministry of Peace founder Dr. James Thring.  He mentioned two conferences organized and held by Col Gaddafi about the currency issue, in 1986 and 2000. “Everybody was interested; most countries in Africa were keen."

Such issues are very scary for the industrialized nations because it holds the key to overturning the current hierarchy of rich and poor states across the world.  The UK, one of the alliance nations has double what Libya has in its Gold reserve, but remember, Libya has a population of less than seven million people, meaning that it will ultimately become a richer nation with higher per capita, than that of a British citizen. 

It has already been authentically reported that one key reason for the targeting of Saddam Hussein the second time in 2003 was a similar idea of turning to the Euro as a currency for trade as against the dollar.  In its November 13, 2000 issue, the US Time Magazine writes “Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros ... Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."  By 2003 the world has been convinced that Saddam Hussein is a threat that needs to be eliminated.

Others see it as a vendetta, and a fulfillment of a long drawn battle.    Muammar Gaddafi was the only true African leader who openly expressed not only the desire, but took concrete actions to actualize a vision of uniting and earning genuine respect for Africans, their interest, and resources across the globe.  His vision for Africa was actualized with the reorganization of  the Organization of African Unity OAU into African Union AU, and the creation of various committees within it dedicated to working around the clock all through the year to reach some identified goals.  Those analysts foretold of the targeting of the Libyan leader to set a clear example for the world that whoever dares to express his will to defy foreign exploiters while working patriotically for the interest of his people and land [Africa] will be dealt with in similar fashion. 

It is for the above reason that similar leaders, including President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, another outspoken Spanish speaking leader of Latin America, who expresses genuine and nationalistic goals and ideals for his people, similar to that of the Late Gaddafi described the exit of Muammar Gaddafi as “a martyr.”   

As for some of the tactics used during the invasion, an Italian activist Yvonne Divito with Libyanfriends.com was interviewed about six weeks ago by Russian television RT after spending time seeing for herself what was happening in Libya.  Ms. Divito disclosed that the foreign forces, citing Italian forces in particular, were actually bombing civilian targets during Ramadan, a time when most of the populations stay indoors more, in total contradiction of the humanitarian reason forwarded by the NATO forces for intervening in Libya.  This she opined was to incite the general public more against their leader. She says what is portrayed in the international media is skewed to function as propaganda for the invading forces, away from the realities on the ground.

Conclusion

The Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi left this world as controversial as he had lived it.  His friends calling him one of the greatest contemporary heroes that ever lived on the continent of Africa, with an undeterred commitment to what he believes is right.  Others who hate him however, would like to think he is the worst monster that ever lived.  But if the rebellious fever that has seized many nations currently, which has actually spilled onto the US Wall Street is anything to worry about, then probably the world is the best stage that will judge him.  For if the rich win this war against the poor, the exploited, and the weak of the world, then he might go down as a loser in the struggle he led.  But if the weak, the homeless, the poor win, then the Late Muammar Gaddafi is vindicated in his war against what he had consistently described as forces of oppression and injustice.