The recent events in Libya, right from when the insurgency began to the gruesome killing of former president Muammar Gaddafi, have elicited a range of peculiar responses.
What struck me most strongly was the reaction by mainly sub-Saharan Africans to the decision by Nato and its collaborators to lend a hand to the insurgents. A cursory survey of “Letters to the editor” in newspapers across the continent and careful listening to radio phone-in programmes, including international ones such as the BBC’s “Africa, have your say,” reveal a fairly consistent pattern.
Readers and listeners with the ability of self-expression through the written and spoken word have preferred to focus on Nato’s imperialism, designs on Libya’s oil by Western countries, and the NTC’s betrayal of “Africa’s cause,” which Gaddafi, for whom lavish praise was reserved, apparently fought so hard to advance.
For reasons one can only guess at, they showed no curiosity about why hundreds of thousands of ordinary Libyans, young and old, had opted to pick up arms, many before Nato intervened, and put their lives at risk in pursuit of a new Libya without Gaddafi.
Granted, there may be grounds for arguing that Nato got involved under false pretences, and that the UN allowed itself, yet again, to be used as a rubber stamp.
However, that was after a few Libyans had lit the fuse and set off events that saw others join in, and Gaddafi provide the Western alliance with the excuse it needed to intervene and help effect the regime change it had sought for years.
Rats and coackroaches
At the level of governments, only Botswana and Rwanda were early dissenters.
Breaking ranks with their AU counterparts, Presidents Ian Khama and Paul Kagame refused emphatically to side with a government bent on killing its own people or to buy into the canard that the African Union had the capacity to come up with an African solution to the fast-unfolding crisis.
Add a Comment



RSS