Was the colllapse of Muammar Qaddafi's dictatorship caused by the western world, because of the benefits they would aquire from - Essay Example

The Reasons as to Why the Western World Wanted the Fall of Muammar Gaddafi It is undeniable that in the news cycle, things do come and go at the hurry thy came in. in a year's people ago, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was killed, to the downfall of his dictatorship. Gaddafi's death actually saw avalanches of camera-phone footages of his last minutes be played repeatedly in most of the channels of news. However, this stopped within no time and it can be argued out that Gaddafi only disappeared off into the dark. The only remains we can have about this once an African leader is the recorded footage of his forty year career as a worldwide weirdo. However, on a closer scrutiny of the same footage, and that which lies behind the same, one can start making a discovery of an anomalous tale that casts a rather unflattering light on a number of the elites in both American and British (Western world) establishments. Over these four decades reign, different individuals from the Western world got mixed up, in one way or the other, with Gaddafi and his form of leadership. There are those who were solely in pursuit of his money and as thus not only flattered, but also sneaked to him since they were pursuing friendship with him. On the other hand, there are those (and this formed the larger group) who saw him as their enemy. The latte even went a step further to avails their resources in turning Gaddafi into assort of a 2-dimensional cartoon-like worldwide villain (Curtis 1). Those who had taken active roles in ensuring that Gaddafi's leadership crumbles were not solely politicians, but also included spies and journalists from such agencies as M16 and CIA, public relations (PR) firms, members of Washington think tanks, humanitarian intervention philosophers, leaders of the IRA, academics and posh left wing revolutionaries. All these groups had varied aims and this made them use this African leader in different ways. Seemingly, almost all these groups were in fear in the sense that both power and influence were slipping away from them in a hurried manner and that they were hardly certain of what was to happen next. However, this paper is geared toward availing an in-depth understanding of how the Western world had instigated the collapse of Muammar's dictatorship and how the West would benefit from the same (Watson 1). Introduction Majority of the claims from the Western world have actually painted Muammar Gaddafi to be among the evil individuals to have ever existed. On the contrary however, and in my view, Gaddafi might not have been such evil. History has it that having been at some point a poor nomad, Gaddafi rose up strongly to overthrow a characteristically vicious pedophilic monarch. Additionally, he did fight for the rights of the poor as well as women in the Libyan society. In a global view, Muammar was on the forefront in fighting for the rights of the African continent against Western Imperialism (Roberts 1). It is even arguable that were it not for the Western propaganda machine- commonly known as the media- the accomplishments this African persona had made would have earned himself great prize including the Nobel Peace Prize, thus positioning him among the greatest leaders of the world of the century that has already had its sun setting. It is only that the media could hardly talk of the good things that Gaddafi had done, like being the very first head of state in the African continent to craft the very first true contemporary democracy as contrasted to a majority of the fake democracy representations in many other countries. Unlike the quoted democracy in nations, where only those with political say and the banks have the power and not the people, the Libyans truly had the power bestowed upon them. Muammar's Libya possessed a democracy superior to most of the countries in the world and this was annoying to almost all the Western nations- which could hardly bear the thought of a third world country having superior political system than that of their own. If dictatorship was anything to go by, the Western nations are the ones which were closer to it (Roberts 2). It was in the plan of Gaddafi to take his ideals a notch higher by ensuring equitable sharing of the wealth from oil among the nationals of Libya. This was notably one of the ideals that the rebels were against, since one of its implications was seeing a quantifiable number of the wealthier individuals in the society lose their jobs. It was also his plan that there be a unified Gold Dinar currency among the member countries if the African Union (AU), which would be measured directly in gold terms (CBS 1). With consideration of the large gold reserves in his country and in other parts of the African continent, the Westerners had perceived that their capitalistic imperialism in Africa would be brought to an end; thus making the way clearer for a better future for Africa. However, the same would have resulted in the disruption of the world economy, which is undeniably dollar-dominated and on which both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) thrive on (Salami 1). The Western World Drawing Benefits from the Fall of Gaddafi's Dictatorship As per the writings of Pougala, Jean-Paul, the inhabitants of the African continent ought to deeply think about the material reasons as to why the Western world had heatedly waged war on Libya, and more specifically, Gaddafi's dictatorial form of governance. It is this form of governance that saw Africa, as a continent, in its very first revolution in this contemporary era- linking the entire of the continent by television, telephone, broadcasting via the radio and other modern technology applications, the likes of distance teaching and telemedicine. The most significant of them all was the WMAX Radio Bridge, whose connection cost was relative low, but available across the entire continents even the rural-most areas (Robert 3). During this time, telephone calls both to and from Africa were quite expensive, but this did not hinder the passing of information from the source (Libya) to various destinations across the globe. In terms of dollars, Europe was pocketing a total of USD 500 million from the use of the satellite for phone conversations. On the other hand, the African satellite only cost USD 400 million as onetime payment and the continent was bring to an end the paying of the earlier mentioned annual lease amounting to five hundred million dollars (Toone 1). With large figures like the ones mentioned in an earlier paragraph, any bank could invest in such a project. However, the teething problem was the how slaves, would have all through been desperately seeking to free themselves from the exploitation of their master, turn to the master for assistance so as to realize this freedom. For a period of fourteen years, the United State of America, the IMF, the World Bank and Europe at large have been making vague promises. it is these unyielding promises that compelled Gaddafi to put restriction geared towards bringing such a behavior to an end. It called for the African Development Bank and the West African Development Bank to dig deeper into their reserves- with each contributing USD 50 and USD 27 respectively, for the first communication satellite to be installed in Africa in 2007. Other stakeholder who chucked in included Russia and China, which through their technologies saw a number of African countries have satellites of their own (Stephen 1). The first ever satellite to be indigenously erected on the Africa soil was to be so set in 2020 in Algeria. It aim was to compete with the best satellites of the world, but at a relative lower cost (ten times lesser). This symbolizes how Gaddafi's three hundred million dollars transformed the entire life of the African continent. His country (Libya) had cost the West a great deal- not only the five hundred million dollars on an annual basis, but billions of dollars in interest and debt that the very initial loan would have generated for a couple of years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby availing sizeable assistance in maintaining a system that is occultist in nature thus plundering the continent. However, with the down fall of Gaddafi's dictatorship, it was crystal clear to the Western world regimes that their economies would not be adversely affected, since the continent will still have to be reliant on the West for communication based of satellites (Pougala 1). Arguably, one of the principal reasons as to why the Western wanted Gaddafi out is the fact that he had given the third world hopes for alternative remedies; where they would hardly be dependent on the Western democracy, which is capitalistic in nature. Following his demise, the West was quite sure that the African continent is going to be a victim of the extortionate loans from the IMF or the World Bank and not realize Gaddafi's dream for self-dependence and a straightforward democracy that sees the poor benefits over the rich in the society (Pougala 1). In the view of the West, through the IMF, NATO and/or the World Bank, it was also certain that the West would continue exploiting both the Middle East and Africa. This was a substantial reason that guaranteed the taking out of Muammar Gaddafi, while presenting uncountable lies and propaganda in efforts to justify it as was always the case with NATO (Pougala 1). The downfall of Muammar's dictatorship also saw nations of the Western world countries dominating over their counterparts in the third world. For instance, the president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, dis freeze thirty billion dollars belonging to the central bank of Libya even when this amount had been regarded to be the contribution from the Libyan government towards three of the principal projects presumed to have been the very final touches to the African federation (Pougala 1). These three projects comprised of the African Investment Bank- located in Syrte, Libya- the establishment of the African Monetary Fund ( whose base was to be Yaounde), with a capital fund totaling to USD 42 billion and lastly, the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria. This final project, the African Central Bank, was believed to- on kicking off its printing of the African money- bring to knees he CFA franc through which Paris had all through been well positioned in upholding its hold on a number of countries in Africa for the last five or so decades. This is a substantial reason as to why France could hardly be in defense of Colonel Gaddafi (Pougala 1). With the demise of Gaddafi's regime, the West was now certain that the African Monetary Fund will not perfectly supersede the African activities of the IMF which earlier on, with only twenty five million dollars, an entire continent down to its knees and thereafter make it gulp questionable privatization, the likes of coercing various African countries to shift from public monopolies to private ones (Panwar 1). It is therefore not a wonder that in December 2010, vast numbers of African joined hands to rebel against efforts by the Western countries to be member countries of the African Monetary Fund; by being cheated on that the chance was solely open for nations within the African continent. With the downfall of Gaddafi's dictatorship, this move to have the African Monetary Fund displacing the International Monetary Fund never took place, meaning that the Western world still stands to reap from the exorbitant loans (Whitaker 1). In addition to the downfall of Gaddafi and Libya, the Western coalition has even gone a step further to pursue Algeria- another of the African countries. This will see the West not only be the primary beneficiary of the vast energy resources, but also enjoy Algeria's cash reserves, amounting to around a hundred and fifty billion dollars. These two are among the reasons that lured some of the countries to take active roles in the bombing of Libya so as to benefit from the country's resources (Pougala 1). The countries involved in Libya's attack and resultantly leading the demise of Gaddafi are practically bankrupt. For instance, the United States of America has a confounding debt of around USD 14000 billion, Great Britain and France each has a USD 2000 billion in public deficit as compared to African countries' combined public debt totaling to less that USD 400 billion. The incitement of bogus wars among African countries with the hopes of revitalizing the economies of these countries - which are already surviving on the sinking slope into the sluggishness-, played the role of hastening the decline of the Western world known to have kicked off back in 1884 in the time of the famous disreputable Berlin Conference (Roberts 5). The downfall of the Gaddafi's dictatorship also saw the West realize its pursuit of destabilizing and destroying the African Union, which had veering become dangerous for the West in the direction of a United States of Africa under the leadership of the Libyan leader. This was a success to the states of the West since some year ago, the European Union (EU) had made efforts of coming up with the Union for the Mediterranean, although the same did not succeed. This has also seen North Africa is some way, be separated from the rest of Africa via the employment of the old-fashioned racist truisms of both the 18th and 19th centuries, through the claim that Africans of the Arab origin were more civilized and evolved than other Africans. However, since Muammar Gaddafi hardly bought to this idea, this plan did fail. He, Gaddafi, had come to the clear understanding of the game that Westerners by welcome only a handful of the African states to join the Mediterranean grouping even without having reported the same to the larger African union, but at the same time inviting the whole of the European Union member states- twenty seven of them (Pougala 1). As a result of the propelling force behind African Federation, the Union for the Mediterranean (under the leadership of the French president) died out. Following the death of Muammar Gaddafi, Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, is making unrelenting efforts to re-launch this idea. What is seemingly unclear to majority of the African leaders is that with the continual funding of the African Union, status quo will still be present simply because real independence is an ingredient which is missing in these countries (CBS 1). This can also be argued out to be one of the core reasons as to why the European Union has tirelessly stimulated and funded regional groupings in Africa. Obviously, the West African Economic community, abbreviated as ECOWAS, it dependent of the bulk financing of the European Union on this basis, the ECOWAS has been termed as a strident enemy of the African Federation. This is the reason as to why President Lincoln fought in the United States war of secession, since in the event that a group of countries collaborate to form a regional political organization, the main group becomes weakened. This is what Europe has been pursuing for years. The most unfortunate thing is that the African have hardly come to the realization of the game that Europe has been playing by establishing a plethora of regional groupings such as the SADC, COMESA, the Great Maghreb and UDEAC, all of which never appreciated Gaddafi's efforts to rescue the continent from the secret plan of the EU (Pougala 1). In the view of the Western world countries, the demise of the Libyan president was not only a victory to the Libyan nationals, but also a graphic reminder to the Arab leaders that not a single leader in the Arab world who is immune to the wave of discontent, irrespective of the leader's power, resources and prestige. Moreover, the downfall of Gaddafi saw the intervention from the Western world introduce a foreign dimension into what was earlier known to be Arab-only grassroots (Walt 1). The intent behind the killing of the Libyan veteran leader still remains a puzzle especially when it is considered that military forces under the NATO umbrella are still roaming the country. The so called good intentions of the West, and more especially the United States, are solely lavished on the richness of the country in terms of oil resources. As contrasted to the bombing in Palestine, the United States is well aware of the developments in Africa, and more precisely, in the oil rich countries as is the case with Libya. Having had done away with the principal impediment, Muammar Gaddafi, the Western world is now better positioned to make use of the same as a shortcut way to realizing its concealed intent it has for years been harboring; getting its hands on the oil resources in Libya (Pougala 1). Notably, the value of the oil from Libya lies in its quality and not the quantity. As a matter of fact, Libya's oil is designated to be sweet crude oil, which calls for the least possible refinement. This is direct contrast of most of the oil from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East; which are known to be of a relatively lesser quality. It is thus arguable that nations from the West can now better invade and most likely take control over Libya's oil, which is line with the procrastination of Fidel Castro- Cuban Revolution leader. In his article, "NATO's Inevitable War", Castro had made a prediction that the US and NATO military campaign has been borne of the craving to get their hands on the oil in the North African countries (Dennis 1). In the eyes on many Africans, Gaddafi had been a generous person and a humanist- displaying his unselfish support for the struggle against racist regimes, as was the case in South Africa. Now that he is no longer, not only in power, but also not alive, the West can now carry on with their apartheid in the African continent in its various forms. For instance, the United States, Great Britain, France and other Western world countries can now take over export democracy in Libya. According to the Western world countries, their employment of cruise missiles from the submarines not only ousted Gaddafi's dictatorship, but also played a vital role in introducing democracy in the country- a one-sided democracy to ensure that only the West draw the benefits (Karon 1). Following the death of Gaddafi and his regime, the United States has refueled its campaigns to quietly navigate a labyrinth of foreign policy measures, which are considerably weighty. The West can now waive a number of foreign policy decisions owing to the fact that the challenge that they are presently facing has measurably lessened. Illustratively, Gaddafi's death occurs at a time when the United States is leading others countries to pressurize Iran into pulling out of its hunt for upgrading their weaponry to adopt the nuclear technology (Pougala 1). The United Nations-approved US-NATO intervention in Libya does much less to make stronger the rocky relationship existing between Iran and NATO as a result of NAO's missile shield disposition in Turkey. In addition to this, the intervention of the West and the resultant death of Muammar hardly work towards fostering trust between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEC). It can only be said that Gaddafi's death simply promoted further limiting Iran's cooperation with the international community. Another of the coincident occurring in line with the downfall of Gaddafi's regime is the announcement of the indispensability of the Iran's presidential position, as was announced by Ayatollah Khamene (Pougala 1). To the Westerners, having done away with Gaddafi was a positive contribution towards removing what would otherwise have been among the lawful targets for public dissatisfaction in Iran. On the basis of regional political arenas, Gaddafi's death takes place a time when the influence than Iran has in the Middle East has reached levels which are measurably unprecedented. Over the years, the influence that Iran has had on Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain and Iraq (the Shia's Crescent) as well as on Oman, Qatar and Gaza (the Sunni territory) has been strong. Having caused domestic unrest, the downfall of Muammar Gaddafi has seen the toppling of Iran's former foes (Pougala 1). As per the statements of the president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, the killing of the Libyan leader was an implication of the rebirth of the American leadership. This statement has however been noted to have been misunderstood by a majority of the Arabs. What is notable is that Gaddafi's death is a reinforcement of the long-held inclinations among the leaders of the Middle East that trusting Washington is in vain. Moreover, the olden regimes of have been noted to have become wary of Washington. For the Middle East leaders, Gaddafi's death stands as a persistent reminder that trying to cooperate with the West only guarantees less. With a reality of this nature, more doors have been opened up for Iran to influence the region the more and at the same time does very minimal to diffuse the snowballing tension between the country and Saudi Arabia (Abraham 1). Evidently, Gaddafi's leadership had prevented the United States from targeting those regimes that were seemingly less cooperative. This is clearly supported by Gaddafi's rebellion to take out hard stance of the administration of the Reagan. Through the video clips all over the world of the Libyan leader being harassed and abused by rebels, other leaders of Gaddafi's manner of leadership were undeniably threatened. However, the same played a crucial role in reinforcing the belief of these dictators that nuclear technology is deterrent to Western pressure. On the other hand, the same demise of this African long serving leader adds a number of frightening sand traps to the stifling par five being played by the United States policymakers in efforts to navigate their way out of the all the time-difficult course of the Middle East (Robert 6). The Western powers also greatly hail the killing of the Muammar Gaddafi by the rebels backed by the United States in collaboration with NATO not only because of the earlier discussion seizure of the oil-rich country, manned by the dubious patronages of the Arab Spring. On the contrary, through his death, Gaddafi has been kept off from exposing the western backing for the Al-Qaeda terrorists under the stare of the United Nations International Criminal Court (ICC). According to some of the reports, Gaddafi (prior encountering his death) had made attempts to flee from the town of Sirte, but NATO were successful in bombing his convey and later killed the leader (Pougala 1). Through this untimely death, this former African leader could not therefore been presented before the UN tribunal in The Hague (Watson 1). The Western powers had over the years learned their lesson of permitting alleged war criminals to stand trial as well as air their complains repetitively the hard way. They had resolved to carry out such assassinations so as to keep much of the information from public spotlight. For example, by letting Saddam Hussein live and standing trial, the administration of President Bush had pay for the cost of the five thousand word treaties about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the connection Bush administration had with the Al-Qaeda to launch an attack to Iran. The case was the same for the Western power to allow Slobodan Milosevic to stand trial (Watson 1). Likewise, had Gaddafi been offered a chance to stand in defense of himself before the international tribunal, it is likely that his testimony would be devastating on each and every single thing born of the Lockerbie false flag attack, the NATO and US slaughtering of his children, his secretive deals with Tony Blair (former heads of state) as well as a recent meeting he had held with President Barack Obama. More precisely, Gaddafi would have probably blown the whistle on the undeniable fact that his act of overthrowing the former Libyan leadership was so realized with the assistance of the Al-Qaeda troops, who caused the deaths of the British and United States troops in Iraq. All these illustrations depict that the death of Gaddafi saved both the Great Britain and the United States the embarrassments of the International Criminal Court (Watson 1). Conclusion It still remains unknown whether the introduction of foreign elements into the national liberation process of Libya has impacted the country politically, constitutionally and in terms of socioeconomic development. Nevertheless, one thing that remains to be factual is that the effects of the Western world intervention in the country, and the resultant death of Muammar Gaddafi will remain to be felt within the African continent and the Arab region. Factually, the adjoining danger linked with the military intervention in Libya and the subsequent death of Gaddafi is the fostering of the false impression among Arab protesters in a number of the Arab states, including Yemen, Syria and Bahrain that the efforts they are making is being appended by the Western force. Whether further western intervention is going to be present in the region or not, the truth still remains that the death of Muammar Gaddafi will remain pivotal in emboldening other leaders who have adopted his way of governance, not only in the Middle East but also elsewhere, as they pursue to remain in power (Grenier 1). The death of the former Libyan leader is being painted as liberation, but the truth of the matter is that this is a deception. Only the Western powers stand to benefit in the sense that the African society and more especially the society in Libya has been divided, and will remain to be so for a couple of years. The reasoning behind this is that any patch-up attempts coming from the outside world (the Western world) will always be short lived as contrasted to internally driven arrangements. The downfall of Muammar has opened a window for the Western world to take control of the North. This will imply that within not time, these westerners will be calling for changes in regimes across Africa with the support of the NATO (Pougala 1). Although there are those regarding the death of Gaddafi as a kick-off to the termination of dictatorship, the reality of the matter is that this marks a beginning of another colonial era and conquer of the less developed world. The Africans have been robbed off their king of the political and democracy jungle. Additionally, the same demise had led to the disheartening of other African leaders who were serious with uniting the continent, ultimately leading to the turning of Africa's unending misfortunes into fortunes as the case had started to be in Libya (Pougala 1). Works Cited Abraham, Isaiah. Gaddafi's Death: Shame on so-called Libyan Liberators. Sudan Tribune. 2011. Viewed on 1 November, 2012 from CBS. Libyan Rebels may Have Killed Gaddafi, Scores of Loyalists, Human Rights Activists Say. Viewed 1 November 2012 from < http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57533909/libyan-rebels-may-have-killed-qaddafi-scores-of-loyalists-human-rights-activists-say/> Curtis, Adam. How Colonel Gaddafi and the Western Establishment Created a Pantimine World. Information Clearing House. 2012. Viewed on 1 November 2012 from Dennis, Felix. Gaddafi's Death Lets the West off the Hook. Viewed 1 November 2012 from Grenier, Robert. Gaddafi: Death of an Era, Dawn of an Era. Aljazeera.2011. viewed on 1 November 2012 from Read More