Nato persecuting Gadaffi for his unwavering anti-imperialism

I HAVE learnt to my relief that the ANC Youth League is opposed to the bombardment of Libya under the pretext of protecting civilians.
It is also prudent that the President of South Africa Jacob Zuma has gone out of his way to explain the stance of the South African government regarding voting in support of resolution 1973.
I am pleased that the South African government understood the resolution to be limited to inhibiting the Libyan government from using air force bombardment against its own people.
Fair enough.
The International Criminal Court recently issued a warrant of arrest on Colonel Gadaffi for crimes against humanity.
The charges are even said to be continuing as long as the conflict in Libya rolls on.
Interesting about this stance coming from a justice system is that on several occasions the Libyan government has called for a ceasefire.
These calls have been rejected by both NATO and the UN.
Yet the Libyan government shall still be held responsible for the casualties resulting from attacks by both NATO and the TNC.
This is a travesty of justice, if you ask me.
What is happening in Libya is criminal and it is equally criminal for those who consider themselves revolutionaries and humanitarians to stand aside and just complain.
King Moshoeshoe I, the founder of the Basotho nation, observed in the 1800s already, that in European politics might is always right.
I also observe that those who have a clear ideological stance are organised in their efforts and act on time always make an impact.
We have a history of slavery, where more than 80 million Africans were exported to Europe and the Americas as slave labour.
A few hundred Caucasians jumping out of some fairly
unstable ships were able to catch more than 80 million strong African men and women, bound them and send them away.
How did this happen?
Those who had a clear vision were organised and acted on time, prevailed over the disorganised ones who did not have a clear understanding of what was happening  in the bigger scale of things, in this case the Africans.
Bitter as it may be, it is true that it was Africans who helped slavery to succeed to the proportions it reached.
And yes the black people are more to blame for both slavery and colonialism than white people.
Because instead of the African chiefs and kings coming together to form a front to defend their own people against the Europeans who had superior weapons, they continually bickered over trivial local politics.
And for a few trinkets and mirrors these leaders, yes our own ancestors, actually helped catch their own kindred for the European and American slave markets.
The same scenario is playing itself out again in Africa in a different time but same space.
We all know that the real reason the Western powers want Gadaffi out is that he has been an unwavering patron of the African liberation struggles.
He is a champion of the Pan African Economic order that is intended to liberate Africans from the new brand of colonialism romanticised as the global economic order, where Africa continues to supply the West with raw materials and buys finished products (made of the same raw materials) at disproportionate prices.
This is Gadaffi’s cardinal sin.
If this was not the case, the UN would have had resolutions by now directing military intervention in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen at least.
The issuing of  a warrant of arrest  for  Gadaffi by the International Criminal Court criminalises the leadership of Libya thereby effectively undermining an important partner to the peace process in Libya.
Rightly, President  Zuma finds this ICC warrant of arrest disappointing, stating that it thwarts all AU efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Libyan crisis.
I find the International Criminal Court biased.
And indeed as the Libyan government officials spokesperson says , the ICC surely looks like a European tool that tries Third World leaders that Europe and America do not like.
Otherwise if it was a fair set up,  how come President George Bush invaded Iraq against the UN vote and has not been called to answer before it?
And in the true style of African tradition some countries like Mauritania are taking a stance opposed to that of the AU finding it opportune to retaliate against Gadaffi for some past differences.
The case of local politics superseding the continent’s bigger interests.
On the other side my observation is that Africans are not doing enough to defend an African country as ordinary citizens.
What shall we say we did when the coming generations ask us what we did to defend our own?
Shall we answer: “We complained!”

Comments are closed.