Malama Katulwende
The killing of Muammar Gaddafi by the NTC rebels has left some observers flabbergasted by the manner in which the former Libyan head of state met his end.
According to reports from Sirte, courtesy of Aljazeerah, “Gaddafi and an escort of bodyguards had attempted to break out of the siege of the city, which had lasted for more than a month. Their convoy was struck by French fighter jets and a US Predator drone, and a wounded Gaddafi took cover in a drainage pipe with his surviving entourage. NATO… had struck 11 vehicles that were among 75 vehicles attempting to force their way out of Sirte, but said it was unaware that Gaddafi was travelling in the convoy. ‘The vehicles were carrying a substantial amount of weapons and ammunition posing a significant threat to the local civilian population,’ NATO said.
The report further said that, “Pursuing NTC fighters fired at the group as they fled, then fought and killed some of the men guarding Gaddafi and took him captive”.
Mahmoud Jibril, the NTC’s de facto prime minister, initially said Gaddafi had been killed in a “crossfire” and that it was of no consequence what happened to Gaddafi’s body “as long as he disappears”.
On the contrary, footage shows Gaddafi alive after his capture, though bleeding from the left side of his head. He also seems to have been beaten, taunted and his body dragged in the street. Gaddafi’s remains are being kept in a meat fridge in Mesrata.
A similar fate befell Abu Bakr Younus, Gaddafi’s defence minister, and Mutassim, one of Gaddafi’s sons and former national security adviser, who were summarily killed in Sirte.
The United Nations has, however, called for an international investigation into the death of Muammar Gaddafi. This is because under the Geneva Conventions, persons captured and held prisoners may not be executed willfully but should be accorded the dues process of a fair trial. If the contrary happened – that is, if they were executed, then this would be treated as a war crime, and the culprits be held responsible and tried.
In terms of a fundamental principle of international law, therefore, persons accused of serious crimes should, if possible, be tried first and not executed summarily. Summary executions are strictly forbidden and illegal. Truth and justice require that even those who have been accused of having committed certain crimes – no matter how grave – be granted the right to be heard.
Yet the drama in which Gaddafi’s capture and eventual end has played out raises serious questions about the ability of the rebel-government to be accountable to the illegal actions by some of their militias, the fear of reprisals of those who were associated with the old, Gaddafi regime, and casts a cloud of doubt over the very ideals of justice and democracy for which the Libyan uprising was first started.
The murder of Gaddafi also brings the hypocrisy of the Western countries into sharp relief. When was NATO, or indeed any European country, ever interested in the plight of civilians in Africa on moral grounds? The involvement of NATO in Libya “to protect civilians from the tyranny of Gaddafi” was, in our view, simply an excuse to worm their way into the acquisition of commercial contracts in the oil, gas, construction and tourism sectors in Libya.
France, Britain, Italy and NATO countries used their military might to topple an African government outside the confluence and jurisdiction of NATO and Europe, to gain access to the vast natural resources of the North Africa country. Just as the Americans used Saddam Hussein to gain access to oil in Iraq, so have these European countries used Gaddafi to wage a war on an African country for economic gain.
If, on the other hand, Europeans were very concerned about human rights and good governance on the planet, we have not seen any NATO military missions in the civil uprisings in Yemen, Syria and Iran where soldiers and the police loyal to the government kill civilian protestors in the streets almost every day. Why haven’t Europeans acted with the same zeal as they did in Libya to topple these regimes?
Now suppose some African governments decided to overthrow the governments of some Western countries on account of the manner in which the nationals of African descent are treated? Would that be wrong? If so, why?
In November 2005, for example, there were widespread riots in France. The disturbances were variously called the intifada of the suburbs, the revolt of the immigrants, the youth movement, the uprising of the underclass, or the jihad of Muslims against Europe.
The riots were geographically and socially circumscribed: they affected more than a hundred and fifty suburbs, or more precisely destitute neighborhoods known as “cités” or “quartiers difficiles.” In these estates, rioters who were mostly boys operating in groups of 20 to 200, consisted of second generation migrants who were mainly Africans. The causes of the riots were racial discrimination, unemployment, and the deep feeling of social, political and economic exclusion from their French society. Thus the riots of the underclass, despised, excluded and ignored is not only a classic phenomenon in France, but also in the rest of Western Europe.
To take another example, there were widespread riots which erupted in London neighborhoods when youths protested against the police shooting of Tottenham resident, 29 year old Mark Duggan , black, on 4 August 2011, during an attempt to arrest him, on the Ferry Lane bridge, next to Tottenham Hale station. Though the police said Duggan opened fire, it was discovered that he was, in fact, unarmed. The shooting led friends and relatives of Duggan to call for a peaceful protest march to demand justice for the family. That was on 6th August. When the police failed to address these concerns of anxious crowds, rioting and looting, first in Tottenham and later in Tottenham Hale retail park. The spread of news and rumours about the previous evening’s disturbances in Tottenham sparked riots during the night of 7 August in the London districts of Brixton, Enfield, Islington and Wood Green and in Oxford Circus in the centre of London.
By 8th August areas across London were affected by widespread looting, arson and violence, with pockets of violence in parts of Battersea, Brixton, Bromley, Camden, Chingford Mount, Croydon, Ealing, East Ham, Hackney, Lewisham, Peckham, Stratford, Waltham Forest and Woolwich. There were casualties – a man was found shot and killed in Croydon, another who had been assaulted in Ealing died in hospital on 11 August. Localized outbreaks of copycat actions were reported outside London – notably in Birmingham, Bristol, Gloucester, Gillingham and Nottingham.
Commenting on the riots which were characterized by general rioting and opportunistic looting, British Prime Minister, David Cameron, said the riots were “criminality pure and simple.” This, though, is a very superficial explanation of the causes of the riots. Let us quote Stafford Scott, who published in the Guardian – “The Voices of Tottenham are being marginalized” – and said:
“Those who are able to speak about the real reasons Tottenham was set ablaze are now finding themselves ignored by the local authority. One well-known reverend, who used to virtually eat, drink and sleep with the council, is no longer invited into the same room after he had the temerity to state publicly that he believed an injustice was being done. The local authority should be listening to him: he has had a glimpse into the lives of those blighted by their policies.
These actions only add to the sense of isolation and marginalisations that some in Tottenham’s black community have endured for decades. It seems that these politicians have learned little from the expensive public inquiries that they paid for, such as Scarman, Gifford and Macpherson…Martin Luther King once said that riots gave a voice to the voiceless; but the voices of those who felt moved to take to the streets in August are still very much unheard. The lessons from the 80s should tell us that ignoring them will come at a cost. These people are the “already marginalised”, or the offspring of the “already marginalised”: the ones who were excluded from school in disproportionate numbers; who were arrested and convicted under “sus” laws in disproportionate numbers; who are being stopped and searched in disproportionate numbers. They see themselves as victims too: to further marginalise them will only make them feel squeezed between a rock and an even harder place. As far as they are concerned, they are being left with no alternative but to lash out. So telling them that sentences are going to increase is akin to telling someone strapped with a bomb, “Stop or I’ll shoot!”…Equality, fairness and justice must be on the table, for without this the regeneration of Tottenham High Road will be meaningless to many of its inhabitants, and the likelihood of another riot erupting will remain a distinct possibility.”
We have digressed a little to draw attention to the social problems in Europe in order to pause a question: Should African governments, therefore, use the force of arms to intervene in cases of injustice in Europe or, should we say, wield arms to “protect civilians of African origin” who run battles with the police for social equality, justice and freedom? Is this the world we should create?
These arguments do not, by any means, suggest that EU countries and America may not take interest in what’s happening in other parts of the world. Nor do we propose that dictatorships should be tolerated. On the contrary, we feel that the issue of Libya should, in the first place, have been left to African countries to resolve peacefully.
We found it tragic and ironic that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO,) which was first constituted to combat a military threat from the USSR during the Cold War, and not against Africans or an African government, has now become a tool in the service of the United Nations against an African government. We may not be surprised that African countries, for reasons of their natural resources, will now fall victim to military incursions by Western powers thanks to the blessing of some UN resolution authorizing the use of force.
To sum up, the murder of Gaddafi raises a number of questions. If the NTC and their militia were driven by the thirst for justice and democracy in Libya in their uprising against the rule of Muammah Gaddafi, why did they kill him without according him the right to be heard in the courts of law? It seem s to us that France, Italy, Britain and other NATO countries used the pretext of protecting civilians against forces loyal to Gaddafi, to gain access to the natural resources of Libya – namely oil and gas. On the other hand, the Western intervention in Libya presents an ethical dilemma for Europe and America: should Africa countries intervene militarily in European affairs?/END
My brother suggested I would possibly like this blog. He was once entirely right. This submit actually made my day. You can not consider simply how so much time I had spent for this info! Thanks!
There is always a subclass of people who display concrete thinking, their flawed ideology appears to be; ‘to be seen as a hero you must oppose anything the west does’. So the fact that NTC was helped by NATO to bring down Gadaffi means they have to oppose the NTC.Unfortunately this is done without weighing what sort of leader gadaffi was. When gadaffi was killed in the battlefront (like many others) their knee jerk response is to condemn the entire revolution, again without considering the freedom it has given the people of Libya.
Fwaka, unfortunately many of the pro Gaddaffi comments are being made from a misconstrued Pan African ideology podium. For the pro Gaddaffi commentators, this is about “us against the west”. Gaddaffi had numerous opportunities to surrender to the NTC but chose to go down in a blaze of glory. Gaddaffi’s fate was sealed when he was forced to surrender to a mob rather than an organized surrender to the NTC. Simple cause and effect in action.
Fwaka, there cant be any meaningful debate if you can’t read. I wrote, “These arguments do not, by any means, suggest that EU countries and America may not take interest in what’s happening in other parts of the world. Nor do we propose that dictatorships should be tolerated. On the contrary, we feel that the issue of Libya should, in the first place, have been left to African countries to resolve peacefully.”
Why do you suppose the U.S and U.N, who opposed Gaddafi, are very concerned at his killing? Wars don’t just happen in vacuums where international laws do not exist. There are minimum standards to be followed in respect of human rights and dignity. The question whether Gaddafi was a dictator or not is of no consequence; what is being debated here is the respect of human rights. This is what constitutes a “war crime”. I bet you might propose that rapping women in a war situation is a good thing on your enemies. Lastly, how does questioning something make you a hero? To question something is to want to induce truth – not heroism, in my view.
Fwaka, how does raising a moral and legal case against the killing of Gaddafi make you a hero? And, what do you mean by “entire revolution”? It remains to be assessed by historians whether or not the uprising in Libya, supported by the West, is a revolution. I dont think it is.
For those who think revolutions are walks in the park then read about the French Revolution…believe you me the guillotine is far worse than a shot between the eyes! Kaddafi got what he deserved! Had he left 6 months ago,he would now be a warm prison cell but alas he was found in a sewage pipe…like a rat…quite ironic for a man who dreamt of killing his people like killing rats
Gaddafi was a killer and as old saying says, those who live by the sworld die by the sworld.Good ridance of the mad man of Africa.A lesson to dictators who groom only their sons to succeed them.42years of one leader is crazy. Look at Zimbabwe! !!!
Peter, nobody is saying Gaddafi was not a killer. In law there are norms and precepts that ought to be followed. Its illegal to execute anyone, regardless of the offence allegedly committed, until they have been proven guilty. In the case of Gaddafi no such thing happened. Let’s stretch our imagination far. If we agree that killing humans is bad, might we not want to question how former U.S President George Bush ordered troops into Iraq and ended up murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians? What is the moral justification of the slaughter of innocent people? But George Bush is scot-free, and ordinary Iraqis have not been compensated.
Chali’s challenged thinking can be summed up in his last sentence…..’In my own perspective, the blacks had to die because their attackers were whites. Indeed we live in a divided world where laws are applied selectively.’…..He knows/makes exceptions to the rules/laws. So Gadaffi’s killing was illlegal but the killing of ordinary civilians is legal.
Who chooses when the laws have to be applied selectively?The west did not intervene soon enough in SA, says chali, so they should not have in Libya too. Can thinking get any more myopic than this?
They took 42 years,right?
Ba Fwaka, do not interpret an article in isolation neither should you try to distort my response to Malama’s qualitative article. Try to make a comprehensive analysis before you bring your flawed argument to the floor. I am finding it difficulty to comprehend with your understanding and reasoning. It does appear to me that you are either fatigued or deeply depressed. Your analysis leaves one to think that you are highly medicated or suffering from insomnia. No one on this forum has supported criminality. If Gadhafi slaughtered his own people as the western media so alleges, why then dont we subject him to a legal process other than the mob deciding his fate? This is what every right thinking person is arguing. We are not in support of your theory which suggest “an eye for an eye.” We are also rejecting the law of the jungle. We are denouncing mob justice and summary execution of those who are destined to stand trial. We are appalled by inhumane treatment inflicted upon those we despise. What every right thinking person is calling for is justice, rule of the law, humane treatment and restraint in emotional behaviour. Even USA has joined in the calls for investigations into the brutal killing of Gadhafi. This is what obtains under the tenets of rules of natural justice. Even you Fwaka you deserve to be treated with dignity and be accorded a fair trial regardless of the magnitude of a crime you could have committed. We live in the 21 century in which era where all human beings regardless of race, creed, culture and ethnicity should be treated as equal before the law. Laws are made for all of us. We have competent people in competent institutions who are charged with the responsibility of executing justice. It is well known to all of us that Gadhafi was the primary suspect in the so called crimes against humanity. If he did commit these crimes, did he commit them alone? His government was not a one man show but was composed of several men and women, many of them have sought sanctuary in the NTC leadership possibly to cleanse themselves. For instance, the current head of the NTC was Gadhafi’s justice minister. Therefore he can not claim to be clean now just because he is on the other side of the group. If Gadhafi was allowed to stand trial, the world would have been stunned with his testimony that could have implicated many of those who are in NTC leadership. Now Gadhafi has gone to the grave with all the secrets which the world will never come to know about. In my response I did emphasis categorically the point of justice but you ba Fwaka you choose to lift my last part of argument in which I implied selective application of laws. I do not want to go any further in explaining what I meant by selective application of law. You seem to be the only one with a thick brain to learn whilst everyone finds this statement very easy to grasp. You need to consider getting some tutorials in literature. I am sure, it makes no meaning arguing with you because your thinking is seriously impaired and submerged in illusions. Therefore, your backwardness should not be our concern. Deal with it and be part of the new generation.
You are too annoyed to think in a rational manner Mr Chali if at all you are able to do so. Why wont you address the issue at hand? Your allegations that iam heavily medicated, i have insomnia and have a thick brain when we have never met point to your failure to articulate issue.
I dont think we can condemn the NTC without the full details of how your hero died basedn the same basic primciples of justice. NTC are not guilty untill proven, probably in a court of law. My imagination is that people tend to die in a war, especially when both parties have guns. Guns use an explosive gunpowder which dislodges a metal pellet usually copper. I suppose if gadaffi was anywhere in the general direction of such pellets, that could have been the cause of his death.
Ba Fwaka,
Nato has no interest in protecting anyone beyond its borders unless it sees commercial interest. In Darfour the Janjawids roam freely and do as they please and Nato knows. In case you dont know, your western friends want to continue living lavish life style by exploiting gullibles like Libyans. The Libyans will get a dose of canned democracy and will soon learn the cost of rent. Before long the proceeds from oil sales will be appropriated in London and Paris and no cent will hit any account in Tripoli or Benghazi. And that is the real deal.
Inhuman, yes he had blood on his hands but the way he died was nasty, and why is the world turning into a crazy violent place, it’s sickening !!!!!!
Gaddafi was cut from the same cloth as the rebels. Those are brutal lands and that is their way. How different from good old us, who only drop bombs from a great height that dismember and decapitate people.
I was in the process of submitting an article on the killing of Gadhafi. However, Malama’s article has answered virtually all my points which I wanted to discuss. I have thus rendered my support to Malama’s intelligent and critical analysis on the events in Libya. It is in this regard that I drop my article and submit to Malama’s article. However, I take note of Fwaka’s myopic argument. While Fwaka reserves every right to express his opinion, I find his argument irrelevant and at odds with the reality. Malama’s literary writing points to the fact that Gadhafi’s killing is illegal because it contravenes the Geneva Convention with respect to how prisoners of war should be treated. The international community is signatory to this convention therefore the best that should be done is to carryout an investigation and bring those who were responsible to justice. Whether Gadhafi was a dictator or not, his case should not be decided by an overzealous mob. The NTC leadership which wants to be praised as a beacon of governance, rule of law and peace has lauded the killing of Gadhafi while giving very contradictory statements on how the former leader met his brutal end. The rules of natural justice state that we are all innocent until proven guilty by the competent courts of law. If citizens begin to carry out instant justice, then the legal institutions will be undermined and rendered irrelevant. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov makes an intelligent argument short of asking why executing a captured prisoner of war? “the way his death happened poses an entire number of questions,” and called for a probe, he says.
“The images we saw on television show that he was taken prisoner while wounded, and then later, once already a prisoner, his life was taken away.” he adds. I do agree with Malama’s critical analysis on the role on NATO in Libya. NATO sought the approval of UN Security Council to intervene in the Libyan skirmishes under the guise of protecting civilians. We do all know that this mission was aimed at deposing Gadhafi and impose a friendly government that will give them access to the abundant resources of Libya. NATO gave the rebels financial, material, military and logistical support to effectively carry out an onslaught on Gadhafi’s regime. NATO’s air power support went beyond the UN mandate to which it was agreed to be only limited to a no fly-zone. But we saw NATO getting actively involved in military strikes against the legitimate soldiers of Libya. In the process, NATO’s air strikes killed civilians, Gadhafi’s son and his grand child at his former compound. NATO’s air-power was carried out in order to weaken Gadhafi’s regime and boost the rebels’ military advance on Tripoli to out Gadhafi from power.
The Libyan crisis that has ended with the brutal execution of Gadhafi provides good lessons to the rest of the world. In part, the role of NATO in Libya is a direct indictment of the western nations. I do accuse the western nations of having caused more deaths in seven months of their campaign than those that are thought to have died in 42 years under the reign of Gadhafi. To add to Nick’s observation, Russia and China who hold a veto power should reflect critically on their convenient absence from the UN Security Council during which time the vote was put to the floor to allow foreign intervention in Libya under the guise of protecting civilians. Russia and China are no strangers to the double standards of the west. The western nations are so much in love with oil and lucrative natural resources in the developing world. For this reason, they can do anything within their powers even if it means killing just to rest their hands on oil. As rightly observed by Malama, we should have expected the same zeal on the part of the western nations to protect the Burmese people who have lived under an autocratic and brutal regime for years. We should have seen the same zeal by the western nations to protect the civilians of black South Africans when they were under a notorious apartheid regime. Suffice to say, there was no need on the part of the western nations to intervene in South Africa because the party that was in power at that time had a white skin. Moreover, the white regime still had direct trading links with the western nations. In fact Britain is on record to have refused to impose crippling sanctions against the white regime of South Africa. There was enough evidence that the white regime of South Africa was a serious threat to the black civilians. The indiscriminate killings of back activists such as Steve Bantu Biko, Oliver Tambo and many others was good reason for UN to use military force against the South African regime. The amount of blood that was shed in South Africa at the hands of the white regime did not warrant a significant vote by the UN Security Council to protect the black civilians. In my own perspective, the blacks had to die because their attackers were whites. Indeed we live in a divided world where laws are applied selectively.
Hi Chali, you have spoken very well. One can even give an example of Israel and she has killed Palestinians. There have several UN resolutions condemning the Israel government attack on Arab civilians. But in which European or American capital did you see people agitating for a regime change in Israel, or simply surrendering Palestinian lands back to the Arabs? There is nowhere. Why, if the West are so passionate about civil rights? Its a divided world: its all about race, and whether you are poor or not. These are facts as I see them. Back to Libya, the British media are already excited about prospects of oil and gas deals in Libya…
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. There is the matter of over 150, 000 people whose death Ghaddafi was responsible for direct and indirectly.. supporting rebels in Sierra Leone, Liberia.. PAN-AM, Germany…. London..the list is endless. No one knows if he even gave them dignity in death.. Or did he? Difference is all these lives didn’t have his prominence and that is why we don’t even know their names. To the rest of the world, there are just numbers.
I totally agree the west are in Libya for OIL and nothing else but for me thats not enough to make Gadaffi a saint. He ruled for 42 years and he was not a monarch, and some people find that acceptable in this modern world, disgusting.
Really, and was he a democrat? Did he do any tribal cleansing (as in killing people from the ‘wrong’ tribe)?
Anyone with a soft spot for Gaddafi, Sata etc raises my eyebrows quite a little bit.
Gaddafi was hero to revolutionaries around the world. He stood alone against the globalists. He had the courage to fight the CIA, to die fighting the CIA. He died fighting the mass murdering forces of NATO.
I’m sure Russia, China and indeed RSA are regretting that they voted at the UN for the imposition of a no-fly zone and other measures purportedly to protect civilians. The result – demolition of the whole country,unsitting of a legitimate govt and erasing Gadaffi by killing him to settle scores!!
Read between lines when dealing with the West and their interests.