Libya in a noose
Feb 11, 2004
THURSDAY POSTCARD<br><br>On Tuesday Feb 10, Libya’s foreign minister, Mohammed Chalgam, met with embattled Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Tory Blair in Downing Street. It is not usual for foreign ministers of small countries from the third world and even less so from Africa to be so received.
THURSDAY POSTCARD
By Abdul Rahim Tajudeen
On Tuesday Feb 10, Libya’s foreign minister, Mohammed Chalgam, met with embattled Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Tory Blair in Downing Street. It is not usual for foreign ministers of small countries from the third world and even less so from Africa to be so received.
Even some of our all powerful heads of state struggle hard to get a few minutes of photo opportunity in front of the Downing Street fireplace before they are huddled off to some Junior foreign office minister, or at best the beggars department otherwise known as the Department for International Development (DFID).
But Libya is not and has never been just another third world country.
Since the Al Fatah revolution of 1969 which overthrew feudal regime of the pro-Western King Idris Sanusi and brought the young Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his peers of Arab nationalists, Social revolutionaries and anti-imperialist regime into power, Libya has remained a thorn in the flesh for the West.
At the height of the Cold War, Libya was regarded as being in the Communist camp even though among the Soviet Union bloc countries, Libya was not a usual customer.
Unlike many hapless recruits into this ideological war between the East and West Europeans, Libya dared to thread a ‘third way’ through its ‘Green Book’ which sought to resolve the contradiction between capitalism and socialism and offer a new basis for ordering society.
Essentially, Libya’s ideological position centered on Arab nationalism, Islamist solidarity and anti-imperialist internationalism internationally and populist welfarism at home. Its oil resources gave it choices that were not readily available to many poorer nations.
The populist domestic agenda gave the regime a secured popular base that ensured that it could do whatever it pleases internationally.
The confrontation with the West became the defining character of the regime.
The more the West ostracised the regime, the more popular it became. Gaddafi’s ideological mentor, Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt, used to say that any day he woke up and did not hear, see or read the Western media insulting him, he wondered what he did wrong the previous night.
As long as they were calling him names, he knew he was on the right track! That was the mould of Libya and Gaddafi in the 70s through to the 90s. Libya became a Mecca for all kinds of revolutionaries from across the world seeking support for their causes.
It gave Libya an international presence that was disproportionately larger than its size and even that which its relatively considerable oil resources entitled it to.
The confrontation with the west has been the most consistent leit motif of the regime for more than three decades. That is why when the Soviet bloc collapsed, Libya still remained ideologically hostile to the West and America in particular.
Western opposition to Gaddafi rather than being a hindrance, has become a great ally to the Libyan regime in maintaining power. Now that Tripoli is playing chummy with the West, I am not sure how it will play out in the end.
There are objective reasons for this pragmatism. One, sanctions really affected Libyan society in many ways and they paid a very heavy price for it. On balance, the billions of dollar they agreed to pay for Lockerbie and related acts of international terrorism is nothing compared to what they have lost due to sanctions and will lose if it stays.
Two, the world has changed for the worse in terms of progressive internationalism in favour of reactionary forces and Libya is responding pragmatically.
Three, many governments and political groups associated with Libya whether in Africa, Latin America or the middle East are engaged in real politics with imperialism and Libya became tired of standing on its own.
Four, sanctions forced Libya to begin to cut its coat according to its size; it is not able to support global revolution on its own. Five, Libya started counting its gains against imperialism instead of losses. Many groups it supported are either ruling regimes or significant partners in government.
Take a sample of Libya associates: ANC/PAC; AZAPO (South Africa), SWAPO (Namibia), ZANU (PF) (Zimbabwe), NRA (Uganda), RPF (Rwanda), PNDC (Ghana) and others in Africa. In South America, you have FMLN in El Salvador, Lula in Brazil, Chavez in Venezuela, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, etc.
And in the Middle East and Asia, you have mainstream/factions of the PLO, various Arab nationalist/Islamist groups. In other parts of the world you have all kinds of nationalist and anti-capitalist groups such as the IRA, Basque Nationalist, Black separatist groups in America, etc.
The other side of this array of discontents and global revolutionism are the reactionary regimes supported by Libya such as Idi Amin in Uganda, Charles Taylor in Liberia and through him, Fodey Sankoh in Sierra Leone. However contradictory foreign policy positions are typical of many countries, big or small.
By the time the Pakistani Father of he Islamic Bomb sang and he was promptly ‘pardoned’ by president Musharaf, too many waters had passed under the bridge.
Libya confessed when it was clear that the secret would be outed anyway. It will no longer have any capacity to go ahead with its nuclear program. So its full disclosure did not amount to much. It would have been found out anyway.
Disclosures on WMD became the cheaper option politically and economically. I can see what is in it for both Washington and Tripoli for now, but in the long run, I do not know. But my guess is that Gaddafi has opened a window he can no longer close.
Tajudeen28@yahoo.com 0r Tajudeen@padeap.net
By Abdul Rahim Tajudeen
On Tuesday Feb 10, Libya’s foreign minister, Mohammed Chalgam, met with embattled Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Tory Blair in Downing Street. It is not usual for foreign ministers of small countries from the third world and even less so from Africa to be so received.
Even some of our all powerful heads of state struggle hard to get a few minutes of photo opportunity in front of the Downing Street fireplace before they are huddled off to some Junior foreign office minister, or at best the beggars department otherwise known as the Department for International Development (DFID).
But Libya is not and has never been just another third world country.
Since the Al Fatah revolution of 1969 which overthrew feudal regime of the pro-Western King Idris Sanusi and brought the young Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his peers of Arab nationalists, Social revolutionaries and anti-imperialist regime into power, Libya has remained a thorn in the flesh for the West.
At the height of the Cold War, Libya was regarded as being in the Communist camp even though among the Soviet Union bloc countries, Libya was not a usual customer.
Unlike many hapless recruits into this ideological war between the East and West Europeans, Libya dared to thread a ‘third way’ through its ‘Green Book’ which sought to resolve the contradiction between capitalism and socialism and offer a new basis for ordering society.
Essentially, Libya’s ideological position centered on Arab nationalism, Islamist solidarity and anti-imperialist internationalism internationally and populist welfarism at home. Its oil resources gave it choices that were not readily available to many poorer nations.
The populist domestic agenda gave the regime a secured popular base that ensured that it could do whatever it pleases internationally.
The confrontation with the West became the defining character of the regime.
The more the West ostracised the regime, the more popular it became. Gaddafi’s ideological mentor, Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt, used to say that any day he woke up and did not hear, see or read the Western media insulting him, he wondered what he did wrong the previous night.
As long as they were calling him names, he knew he was on the right track! That was the mould of Libya and Gaddafi in the 70s through to the 90s. Libya became a Mecca for all kinds of revolutionaries from across the world seeking support for their causes.
It gave Libya an international presence that was disproportionately larger than its size and even that which its relatively considerable oil resources entitled it to.
The confrontation with the west has been the most consistent leit motif of the regime for more than three decades. That is why when the Soviet bloc collapsed, Libya still remained ideologically hostile to the West and America in particular.
Western opposition to Gaddafi rather than being a hindrance, has become a great ally to the Libyan regime in maintaining power. Now that Tripoli is playing chummy with the West, I am not sure how it will play out in the end.
There are objective reasons for this pragmatism. One, sanctions really affected Libyan society in many ways and they paid a very heavy price for it. On balance, the billions of dollar they agreed to pay for Lockerbie and related acts of international terrorism is nothing compared to what they have lost due to sanctions and will lose if it stays.
Two, the world has changed for the worse in terms of progressive internationalism in favour of reactionary forces and Libya is responding pragmatically.
Three, many governments and political groups associated with Libya whether in Africa, Latin America or the middle East are engaged in real politics with imperialism and Libya became tired of standing on its own.
Four, sanctions forced Libya to begin to cut its coat according to its size; it is not able to support global revolution on its own. Five, Libya started counting its gains against imperialism instead of losses. Many groups it supported are either ruling regimes or significant partners in government.
Take a sample of Libya associates: ANC/PAC; AZAPO (South Africa), SWAPO (Namibia), ZANU (PF) (Zimbabwe), NRA (Uganda), RPF (Rwanda), PNDC (Ghana) and others in Africa. In South America, you have FMLN in El Salvador, Lula in Brazil, Chavez in Venezuela, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, etc.
And in the Middle East and Asia, you have mainstream/factions of the PLO, various Arab nationalist/Islamist groups. In other parts of the world you have all kinds of nationalist and anti-capitalist groups such as the IRA, Basque Nationalist, Black separatist groups in America, etc.
The other side of this array of discontents and global revolutionism are the reactionary regimes supported by Libya such as Idi Amin in Uganda, Charles Taylor in Liberia and through him, Fodey Sankoh in Sierra Leone. However contradictory foreign policy positions are typical of many countries, big or small.
By the time the Pakistani Father of he Islamic Bomb sang and he was promptly ‘pardoned’ by president Musharaf, too many waters had passed under the bridge.
Libya confessed when it was clear that the secret would be outed anyway. It will no longer have any capacity to go ahead with its nuclear program. So its full disclosure did not amount to much. It would have been found out anyway.
Disclosures on WMD became the cheaper option politically and economically. I can see what is in it for both Washington and Tripoli for now, but in the long run, I do not know. But my guess is that Gaddafi has opened a window he can no longer close.
Tajudeen28@yahoo.com 0r Tajudeen@padeap.net