THE MANY LIES TOLD BY THE WEST IN THEIR WAR AGAINST LIBYA

By Jean-Paul Pougala (*)

A- THE REAL REASONS FOR THE WAR IN LIBYA

1- The first African satellite RASCOM 1

It was Libya’s Kadhafi who gave all of Africa its first real
revolution in modern times: by ensuring universal coverage of the
continent via telephone, television, radio-broadcast and the many
other applications such as telemedicine and long-distance learning;
for the first time in history, a low-cost connection became available
across the continent, and even into rural areas thanks to a bridging
WIMAX system.
The story begins in 1992 when 45 African countries created the RASCOM
organization to acquire an African satellite in order to bring down
the cost of communications across the continent. At that time, calling
from or to Africa had the most expensive call rates in the world,
since there was a surcharge of 500 million dollars which Europeans
collected annually on telephone conversations even within some African
countries, just to transmit voice messages via European satellites
like Intelsat. An African satellite would barely cost 400 millions
dollars payable once and thus avoiding the 500 million annual rental
fees. Which banker wouldn’t finance such a project? But the difficult
part of the equation remained unsettled: how does a beggar gain their
freedom from exploitation by their master by borrowing money from this
same master to achieve this?
And so, the World Bank, the IMF, USA, the European Union had
needlessly been bilking these countries for over 14 years. It was in
2006 that Kadhafi put an end to the agony of senseless begging from
those supposed benefactors in the West who only grant loans at
predatory rates; the Libyan leaders put 300 million dollars on the
table, the African Development Bank put 50 million, the West African
Development Bank contributed 27 million and it is thus, Africa has
owned its very own communications satellite since December 26th 2007;
The very first communications satellite in its history. In the
meantime, China and Russia have jumped in, this time by donating their
own technology which allowed the launching of more new satellites;
South-Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algerian and even a second African
satellite was launched in July of 2010. And by 2020, we are expecting
the very first satellite which would be 100% African and built on
African soil, specifically in Algeria. This satellite is expected to
be amongst the best in the world, but would cost ten times cheaper, a
true achievement.
This is how a simple gesture worth 300 millions dollars can change the
lives on an entire continent. Kadhafi’s Libya had cost the West not
only the 500 million dollars annually but billions of dollars from
debt and interest which this debt would have generated ad infinitum
and exponentially, and contributed towards sustaining the obscure
system which continues to rob Africa blind.

2- AFRICAN MONETARY FUND, AFRICAN CENTRAL BANK, AFRICAN INVESTMENT BANK

The 30 billion dollars which M. Obama confiscated belongs to the
Libyan Central Bank and was earmarked as the Libyan contribution
toward the finalization of the African Federation in its three
keystone phases: The African Investment Bank to be based in
Sitre-Libya, The creation in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund with a
startup capital of 42 billion dollars with Yaoundé as its
headquarters, the African Central Bank with its headquarters in
Abuja-Nigeria from which, the first issuance of legal tender would
signal the end of the CFA Franc through which Paris has been able to
pillage some African countries for over 50 years. From this we can
understand France’s grudge against Kadhafi. The African Monetary Fund
would supplant in each and every way the activities of the
International Monetary Fund on African soil – a role which, using
barely 25 billion dollars in capital, the IMF had been able to bring
an entire continent to its knees through questionable privatization
policies, as witnessed by the reality of forcing African countries to
trade-in one public monopoly for a private monopoly. It was these same
Western countries which came knocking at the door trying to become
members of the African Monetary Fund (AMF) and its was via a unanimous
vote of 16-17 in December 2010 in Yaoundé that Africans rejected this
proposition, enshrining that only African countries would be members
of the AMF.
It therefore seems obvious that after Libya, the Western coalition
will declare its next war against Algeria, since, in addition to its
enormous energy resources, that country has financial reserves
exceeding 150 Billion Euros. This is much coveted by all the countries
which are now bombing Libya all of whom have the same things in
common, they are all practically bankrupt, the USA alone has 14.000
billion dollars in debt, France, Great Britain and Italy each have
2.000 Billion in public debt while all the 46 countries of Sub-Saharan
Africa have less than 400 billion dollars in total public debt.
Launching fake wars in Africa in the hopes of finding the oxygen
needed to fuel their economic apnea that would only worsen having the
effect of pushing the West further into a decline which began in 1884,
during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the American economist Adam
Smith had predicted, in his support for the abolition of slavery, «the
economies of all countries which practice the enslavement of Black
people are in the throes of a decent into hell which would be a rude
awakening on the day when all the other nations would awaken»

3- REGIONAL TRADE BLOCS AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE CREATION OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AFRICA

In order to de-stabilize and destroy the African Union which is
tending dangerously (as judged by the West) towards a United States of
Africa under the guiding hand of Kadhafi, the European Union had
tried, unsuccessfully, to create the UfM (Union for the
Mediterranean). At all cost, they had to pry North Africa away from
the rest of the continent by hammering the same racists themes of the
18th and 19th centuries according to which the African populations of
Arab extraction were more “advanced”, and more “civilized” than the
rest of the continent. That plan failed when Kadhafi would not play
along. He had quickly understood the game from the moment when there
was all that talk about the Mediterranean which [only] involved some
African countries without informing the African Union, but at the same
time, inviting ALL the 27 member nations of the European Union. The
UfM without the principal engine of the African Federation was dead on
arrival, moribund with Sarkozy as its President and Mubarak, its
vice-president. It is this same idea which Alain Juppé is trying to
re-launch, as he eyes Kadhafi’s fall from power, of course. What
African leaders don’t understand is that, as long as it is the
European Union which is financing the African Union, we will remain
stuck at the starting-line, because under these conditions, there will
be no effective independence. It is in this same vein that the
European Union has encouraged and financed the various regional trade
blocs in African. It is obvious that ECOWAS which has an embassy in
Brussels and which gets most of its financing from the EU, is a major
obstacle to the creation of the African Federation. It is what Lincoln
fought against during the secessionist civil war in the United States,
since, from the moment when a group of nations assemble around a
regional political organization, that would only fracture the central
governing authority. This is what Europe wanted and it is what
Africans did not understand by creating one after the other; COMESA,
UDEAC, SADC and the Greater Maghreb Union which never became
operational thanks in part to Kadhafi who understood the game all too
well.

4- KADHAFI, THE AFRICAN WHO WAS ABLE TO CLEANSE THE HUMILIATION OF APARTHEID
Kadhafi is in the hearts of almost every African as a very generous
humanitarian for his disinterested support in the fight against the
racist regime of South Africa. If Kadhafi had been a self-centered
man, nothing would have forced him to draw the ire of the West by
financially and militarily support the ANC in its battle against
apartheid. Which is why, shortly after being released from his 27
years in prison, Mandela decided to break with the United Nation’s
embargo against Libya in October 23rd of 1997. As a result of this
embargo which was also aerial, no plane had landed in Libya over five
long years. To go to Libya, one had to catch a plane into Tunisia; get
to Djerba and continue by car for 5 hours to Ben Gardane, crossing the
border and going another 3 hours by road across the desert to Tripoli.
On the other hand, one could go through Malta and then crossover by
night, using poorly fitted boats and reach the Libyan coast. A true
ordeal for an entire people, just to punish one man. Mandela decided
to breach this injustice and responded to the former American
president Bill Clinton, who had considered this visit «unfortunate»,
Mandela argued: «No nation can claim to itself the role of a global
policeman, and no nation can dictate to others what they must and must
not do». He added: «those who yesterday where friends of our enemies,
today have the temerity of demanding that I should not visit my
brother Kadhafi, they’re asking us to be ungrateful and to forget our
friends from the past». In fact, for the West, South African racists
where kindred whom they were trying to protect. It is for this reason
that members of the ANC had been branded dangerous terrorists,
including Nelson Mandela himself. It was only in July 2nd 2008 that
the American Congress passed a law erasing Nelson Mandela’s name and
those of his ANC comrades from this black list, not because they had
come to terms with the idiocy of such a list, but because they wanted
to make a gesture of goodwill to the 90-year-old Nelson Mandela. If
today the West has repented its support for Nelson Mandela’s enemies
and are truly sincere when streets and places are christened after
him, how do they justify waging war against the man who brought
victory to Nelson Mandela and to his people, Kadhafi?

B- THOSE WHO WISH TO EXPORT DEMOCRACY, ARE THEY THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS?

And if Kadhafi’s Libya was more democratic than the USA, France, Great
Britain and all of those who have a started a war to export democracy
to Libya? On March 19th 2003, President Georges Bush dropped bombs on
the heads of Iraqis under the pretext of exporting democracy to their
country. On March 19th 2011, eight years later and to the day, its is
the French President who was dropping bombs on the heads of Libyans
under the same pretext of bringing them democracy. Mister Obama, 2009
Nobel Prize winner and President of the United States of America, in
order to justify his decision to hurl cruise missiles from sub-marines
on the heads of Libyans, the tells us that he is trying to unseat a
dictators from power and to install a democracy in that country.

The question which ever human being gifted with the least in capacity
for intellectual judgment and reason cannot help but ask: these
countries like France, England, USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland
whose only legitimacy to go an bombard Libyans is only based of having
auto-declared themselves «democratic» are they truly democratic? If
yes, are they more democratic than Kadhafi’s Libya? The answer,
unequivocally is NO, for the sole and simple reason that democracy
doesn’t exist. Its not me asserting this, it is the very person whose
birthplace, Geneva, is home to the organs of the United Nations. That
person is of course Jean-Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 who
asserted in Chapter IV of Book III of his celebrated «Social Contract»
that *: «there has never been a true democracy, and there never will
be one»*. In order for a State to be truly democratic, Rousseau lays
down 4 conditions according to which Kadhafi’s Libya is by far more
democratic than the United States of America, France and all the
others who profess to export democracy into that country. These
include:

1- *Dimensions of the State*: the bigger any government gets, the less
it is democratic, according to Rousseau, the State should be very
small to allow its citizens find ways of gathering and to enable each
person to easily get to know the next. And so before sending people
off to vote, we should ensure that people know each other otherwise
voting for the sake of voting would be denuded of all democratic
underpinnings, it is a sham of a democracy to elect a dictator. The
organizing structure of the Libyan State is based on tribal groupings
which by definition involves people in small entities. The democratic
sentiment is more present within a tribe, in the village than in the
greater Nation, by virtue of the fact that everyone knows everyone
else and that communal life revolves around the same common interests
bring some kind of auto-regulation, auto censure is brought to bear at
each moment, the reactions or the counter-reaction of the other
members for or against the opinions which anyone may hold. Seen from
this perspective, it is Libya which better responds to the exigencies
of Rousseau, one cannot say as much of the United States of America,
France or Great Britain, societies which have become strongly
urbanized and where a majority of neighbors do not even say hello to
each other and hence do not even know each other, even after having
lived side-by-side for twenty years. In these countries, we have moved
directly into the following phase: «voting» which we have malignantly
sanctified so that many quickly forget that this vote is useless from
the moment when I start speaking voting on matters affecting the
nation’s future without knowing ones fellow citizens. We have thus
arrived at the stupidity of citizens voting from abroad. Knowing one
another and speaking to each other is the essential condition of
communication for the democratic debate which should precede all
elections.

2- *It requires a simplicity of values and behaviors* to avoid that we
spend so much time talking about justice before courts and seeking
redress to the many arguments of societal interest which any complex
society naturally gives birth to. Westerner define themselves as
civilized people who have complex value systems and see Libyans a
nation of primitive people, who have simple value systems. From this
perspective, once again, it is Libya which better responds to
democratic criteria laid out by Rousseau than all those who pretend to
give them lessons in democracy. In a complex society, the manifold
conflicts are resolved by the law of the powerful, since the wealthier
party can avoid prison because he can afford a better attorney and
more so, turns the State’s repressive apparatus against the person who
steals a banana at a supermarket, instead of turning it against the
greedy financier who brings down a bank. In a city like New York where
75% of the population is White, 80% of the managerial positions are
held by White people and they only represent 20% of the prison
population.

3- *Equality in rank and in fortunes*. One only has to look at the
2010 FORBES rankings to see the names of the wealthiest people in each
of the countries which is throwing bombs on the heads of Libyans and
see the difference in salaries with the lowest ranking wage earners in
each of these countries and do the same with Libya to understand that
in terms of wealth distribution, Libya should be the one exporting its
know-how to those who are attacking her and not the other way around.
Even from this angle, according to Rousseau, Libya would be more
democratic than those who pompously want to export this supposed
democracy to that country. In the United States, 5% of the population
possesses 60% of the nation’s wealth. It is the most lopsided, unequal
country in the world.

4- *No luxuries*. According to Rousseau, for democracy to exist in a
country, there must be no luxuries because, luxury necessitates wealth
and this last becomes a virtue, the goal to be achieved at all cost is
the people’s wealth fare, «luxuries simultaneously corrupt both the
rich and the poor, the former by possession, the latter by coveting;
it sells the nation to listlessness, to vanity; if serves the citizens
up to the State for dinner, the former to meet the needs of the
latter, and each is happy in their role ». Is there more luxury in
France than in Libya? All those cautionary tales from employees who
have been pushed to suicide, even employees of public and para public
companies, for “reasons” of profitability and hence of possessions of
luxury items by one of the parties, are these more abundant in Libya
or in the West?

In 1956, the American sociologist C. Wright Mills described American
democracy as « a dictatorship of the elites». According to Mills, The
United States of America isn’t a democracy because in fact, it is
money which speaks at elections and not the people. The results of any
election there is an expression of the voice of money and not the
voice of the people. After Daddy Bush and Son Bush, for the Republic
primaries of 2012, there is already talk about Bush-Benjamin. In
addition, if political power rests on a bureaucracy, Max Weber has
noted that there are 43 millions civil servants and soldiers in the
United-States who essentially control the country, but who weren’t
elected by anyone and who do not respond directly to the people about
their activities. Only one person (a wealthy elite) is really elected
but real power on the ground is held by a caste of rich people who
arrive at those positions simply through appointments to positions
such as ambassadorships, army generals etc ….
How many people in these supposedly «democratic» countries know that
in Peru the constitution forbids a second consecutive mandate for the
incumbent president? How many of them are aware than in Guatemala, not
only can the incumbent NOT present himself as a candidate to that
position, but none of his/her kin, no member of his family could
aspire to that position? How many of them know that Rwanda is the
leading nation in the world that is most inclusive of women with 49%
of the parliamentarians being women? How many of them know that in the
2007 CIA ranking, of the top-ten best-governed countries in the world,
four are African? With the gold medal going to Equatorial Guinea whose
public debt represent only 1.14% of its GDP.

Civil war, revolts, and rebellions are the ingredients indicating the
telltale signs of an emerging democracy Rousseau argues. Democracy
isn’t an end result, it is a permanent process of re-affirming the
natural rights of human beings and all over the world (without
exception) a handful of men or women, should confiscate the people’s
power, and subvert it to help maintain themselves in power.
Everywhere, we find various forms of castes which subvert the very
idea of a «democracy» which should be an ideal towards which aspire
and not a label to appropriate or a refrain to be flaunted just
because we can shout louder than everyone else. When a nation is calm
like France or the United States that is devoid of any political
unrest for Rousseau all of this only means that the dictatorial system
is sufficiently repressive to prevent any attempts at rebellion. If
Libyans are revolting, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
It is when people around the world stoically accept the system which
is oppressing them that is very bad. Rousseau concludes: « /Malo
periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium -/translation: If there
were ever a godly people, they would govern themselves democratically.
Such a perfect system of government does not suit human beings».
Asserting that Libyans are being killed for their own good is a
delusion.

C- WHAT LESSONS FOR AFRICA?

After 500 years of master-servant relations with the West, there is no
room to doubt that we have different criteria for judging good and
bad. We have profoundly divergent interests. How could one not decry
the “yes” vote by three African countries from Sub-Saharan Africa,
Nigeria2, South-Africa and Gabon for resolution 1973 authorizing the
new form of colonialism called «protecting the people», validating the
racist theories which Europeans have been peddling since the 18th
century that North African has nothing in common with Sub-Saharan
Africa, North Africa is more evolved, more civilized and more
cultivated than the rest of Africa.
Events are unfolding as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Algeria weren’t part
of Africa3. Even the United Nations appears to be ignoring the
legitimacy of the African Union over its member States.
The goal is to isolate the nations of Sub-Saharan African and to
further fragment them and keep them under control. In fact, for the
startup capital of the new African Monetary Fund (AMF), Algeria
contributed 16 billion dollars and Libya 10 billion dollars which
together represented 62% of the 42 billion Dollar capitalization
needed. Africa’s most populous nation, Nigeria followed by South
Africa came in far behind with 3 billion dollars each.

It is very troubling that this is the first time in the history of the
United Nations that it has declared war on a people without first
exploring any path of peaceful resolution to address the problem.

Does Africa still have a place in such an organization? Nigeria South
Africa are disposed to voting “Yes” to any demands from the West,
because the naively believe in the promises made to them by this or
that nation to award them a place as a permanent member of the
Security Council with equal veto rights. They forget that France has
no power to grant such a position. If France did, Mitterrand would
have done this long ago for Germany’s Helmut Kohl. United Nations’
reform is not on the agenda. The only way to counter this is through
the Chinese option: all 50 African countries should quit the United
Nations. They’d have to return another day, and only after they have
been granted something they’ve always wanted, a position for the
African Union, nothing less.

This method of non-violence is the only weapon of justice that the
poor and weak people like us have. We simply have to quit the United
Nations, since this organization by its very structure, and via its
hierarchy serves the interest of the most powerful members.

We have to quit the United Nations to signal our disapproval of this
conception of the world based solely on the crushing of the weaker
nations. At the very least, they’d be at liberty to continue doing it
as before, but without our endorsement, and not having to suggest that
were have endorsed it even though they know well that we were never
consulted. And after we have made our point, as we did during the
meeting on Saturday 19/3 in Nouakchott through the declaration of
opposition to military action, all of which was quietly ignored in
order to proceed with the bombardment of an African people.

What is unfolding today is the same scenario already witnessed before
vis-à-vis China. Today, they are recognizing the legitimacy of the
Ouattara government; they also are recognizing the legitimacy of the
insurgents in Libya. It is the same thing which happened at the end of
the Second World War with China. The so-called international community
had chosen Taiwan as the sole representative of the Chinese people in
place of Mao Tse Tung’s China. It took 26 years, that is until October
25th 1971 and resolution 2758 which ALL Africans must read, to put an
end to this human absurdity. China was admitted, only after it
demanded and obtained permanent membership [on the Security Council]
and with vetoing rights, if not, she would not join. Once these
requirement were met and the admission resolutions were in force, it
took another year until November 29th 1972, for the Chinese foreign
Minister to issues his response in a letter to the Secretary General
at the United Nations no to say “Yes” or “Thank You”, but to dispel
any misunderstandings, in guarantees about China’s dignity and
respectability. What can Africans expect from the United Nations
without taking strong actions which insist on their respectability? In
Cote d’Ivoire we saw an official from the United Nations acting as if
he was above the constitutional institutions of that country. We have
entered into this organization under conditions that we would be serfs
and them believing that we would be invited to the table to eat with
other nation on plates which we had to wash is simply wishful
thinking, worse, stupid. When the AU recognized Ouattara’s victory
without taking into account the contrary conclusions of its own
observers on the ground, only to please their former masters, how
could we possibly expect any respect? When South-African President
Zuma declares that Ouattara had not won the elections and then changed
his mind 180° after visiting Paris, we must begin to question what
these leaders are worth who represent us and who speak on behalf of
one billion Africans.

Africa will achieve strength and real freedom through its capacity to
act after thoughtful consideration; and when it takes responsibility
for the consequences of its actions. Dignity and respectability come
at a price. Are we prepared to pay that price? If not, then our place
will continue to be in the kitchen, in the bathrooms, working to
ensure the comfort of others.

Geneva March 28, 2011

Jean-Paul Pougala
pougala@gmail.com