LAST NIGHT NATO BOMBERS killed Colonel Gaddafi’s son, 29 year-old Sai al-Arab Gaddafi, as well as three of the Colonel’s grandchildren. Although there is only the word of the Libyan government that any member of the Gaddafi family were even in the building; if it proves to have been the case, then obviously the deaths of children are much to be regretted.
Apparently the same source also disclosed that the Colonel himself was in the house targeted by NATO but, along with his wife, escaped without injury. If all of these events prove correct, then it appears that NATO were indeed targeting the Colonel - something the Colonel must have believed was happening anyway. If he now feigns ignorance and surprise at NATO’s attempt on his life in order to capture some sympathy, particularly from China, Russia, as well as the Arab League, then he may have misjudged the likely reaction to last night’s events.
The fact is, Gaddafi knew what NATO had in store for him, despite what Resolution 1973 counselled. He knew that sooner or later he would be targeted, the only surprise is that it has taken NATO this long to make their first attempt.
Perhaps NATO waited until the time was right before they made their move. I believe the events in Misurata, where what amounts to the culling of human beings is taking place on behalf of the Gaddafi regime, will have silenced many of NATO’S critics regarding any censure over last night’s bombing. For whatever UN Resolution 1973 says, people have been shocked by what is happening in Misurata and will have little sympathy for Gadaffi’s survival, no matter what it takes to rid the Libyan people of him.
If I, like Gaddafi, knew I was being targeted in such a way as he obviously is, then the first thing I would do, would be to keep my family (especially the children) at arm’s length until my situation allowed a safe reunion.
It comes easy to the likes of Gaddafi, to use human shields to overcome an enemy; especially an enemy that has its hands’ tied by resolutions, political self-interest, and all the moral paraphernalia carried by a free and democratic society – a baggage that dictators can easily disregard.
What has surprised me is Gadaffi’s apparent willingness to keep his family almost tied to him, when he must have known of the threat he faced from NATO; especially after the slaughter carried out by his troops on the citizens in Misurata.
IT IS STILL early days, but I do not believe the backlash against last night’s airstrike on Tripoli will be as overwhelming as it would have been, had it taken place mush earlier in the conflict before the misery of Misurata happened.
Two days ago Colonel Gadaffi put in an appearance on state television where he once more offered terms of settlement beginning with a mutual ceasefire. His face looked drained and tired. It was not the same confident Gadaffi that railed against ‘imperialism’ at the outset of this drama. His provisos seemed almost like a plea; a plea which was dismissed by NATO just hours before they carried out last night’s events.
By carrying out such atrocities in Misurata and other cities (most of which have been filmed and downloaded onto the internet), the Gadaffi regime has grossly undermined any natural sympathy for what happened to his grandchildren. At least they were not deliberately targeted, unlike the children of Misurata who fell afoul of the premeditated accuracy of the sniper’s bullet.
If we are to defeat the likes of Gadaffi, then we cannot have our hands tied by resolutions. The United Nations, to site one example, has allowed both Libya and Syria to place representatives on its Human Rights Commission. The UN, from its inception, cast its nets too wide with regard to its membership. For nations can only be united if they share the same democratic values – for is this not what the UN was meant to support? If not, then those democracies that so qualify must set up their own United Democratic Nations open to all countries that pursue democratic values.
No doubt there will be many (particularly in the West) who will scream their opposition to such an ‘imperialistic venture’; but any organisation that perceives itself as being united must share a common democratic heritage in order to continue to be so.
Our present arrangement, as has been seen with Libya, causes as much disunity as it does unity. At least if we had an international body that shared its democratic values, there could never be such a mockery of a body called the Human Rights Commission, as was, and still is the case with the UN.
COLONEL GADAFFI has lost little opportunity to tickle the soft underbelly of NATO; and after last night’s events, his spokesmen will play up the ‘deliberate targeting’ not only of his beloved leader, but also, and more appealing to Western media, the targeting of his grandchildren.
There is a lesson the current generation of Western leaders are still failing to learn, even after Iraq and Afghanistan. If you are determined on a course of military action to resolve or play its part in resolving a particular problem, then you must do it by insuring that the young service men and women you send to ultimately further your political ambitions, do not have their hands tied regarding military action. Such bodies as the UN do exactly this, and in doing so they prolong and even add to the suffering within any conflict.
I do not know what the intelligence was regarding last night’s bombing mission over Tripoli, but if it comprised of reliable information regarding the Colonel’s presence in the building that was bombed, then he and only he became the target of NATO pilots. If he has chosen, as it appears he has, to keep vulnerable members of his family close by him at all times, then he must bear some culpability for his grandchildren’s deaths.
Many of the critics of last night’s NATO action over Tripoli, will not have made any contribution to the criticism of Gadaffi following his murderous ambitions in Misurata. These detractors will condemn the killing of Gadaffi’s innocent grandchildren by NATO without even a blush to incriminate them in their hypocrisy.
If the events in Libya turn into a protracted stale-mate were both sides constantly move to and depart from different positions, then Libya will become another Somalia.
This must not happen, and to avoid it the ancient regime of Gadaffi must be disposed of, and in his place a more acceptable presence in the form of an elected government must work to unite the country. It is the only way forward for Libya. The people of Libya, I believe and hope, want such an outcome. If they however elect a Islamist government (which is by no means certain), then we must come to terms with it and prepare ourselves for it as part of the unfolding events in North Africa and the Middle East.
Those that opposed our involvement in Libya will no doubt have a field day if Libya elects or adopts an Islamist government. But my answer would be this. What would have happened, if, earlier on in the conflict, we had stood aside and allowed Gadaffi to enter Benghazi and to do to those citizens what he has been hell bent on doing to those citizens of Misurata?
First of all there would have been a flight of Libyans from Libya to the toe of Italy and eventually into northern Europe including the UK. This scenario, I believe, captured the imagination of our politicians and determined them upon the path they eventually took in Libya.
WE HAVE RIGHTLY criticised our politicians for first of all allowing mass immigration, and then for not doing enough to stop it. Well the unfolding events in Libya quickly had an impact upon our politicians from a refugee point of view. If Gadaffi were to succeed in recovering his power; then this would have meant hundreds of thousands of refugees in all probability ending up on our shore to take advantage of our welfare state. A body which is currently undergoing much needed cutbacks.
So Libya is not some far off land of which we know little; but a potential contributor to our vast overcrowding which we are told will reach 70 million by the middle of this century - without any unforeseeable contribution from such countries as Libya.
The politicians had to act as they did over Libya: they did so for mixed reasons that included preventing further refugees into this country; and in doing so should carry the weight of the public behind them.
No comments:
Post a Comment