media madness in Libya should cease

removal from power of their respective leaders, the story has refused to die as it takes various dimensions on a daily basis – mutating in some cases at the speed of the deadly human immuno-deficiency virus.
Many schools of thought have been advanced on the reasons/motives behind the uprisings; those behind the unrests; the future and what this means in the geo-political sphere. Varying viewpoints indeed!
In the current Libyan crisis, objectivity has been very difficult especially after civilians continue to get seriously caught up in the fight between Libyan security forces and rebels in what now looks like a civil war.
To most of us these events are either a refresher course of African and Middle East history, vis-à-vis the imperial agenda or we are actually getting our beginners’ course in international relations.
For this writer, it has been another wake-up call to look at every nook, crane and crevice in each story, especially in this electronic age where everyone is now a “reporter” and where images are being blatantly abused to advance certain interest groups’ agendas.
It is also a wake-up call on the peoples of Africa and their leadership, especially the leadership that panders to the whims and caprices of the West at the people’s expense. It is also a wake-up call where ordinary people are realising that they are being used since most of what goes on in the geo-political sphere is done in the name of “the people”, not necessarily by the people themselves.
It is also important to interrogate the North African unrests, Libya in particular since Western media has claimed that the Government of Zimbabwe sent some troops to fight as mercenaries on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s side.
The same Western media is also alleging that Zimbabwe sent arms of war to Ivory Coast for use by Laurent Gbagbo.
Correspondent’s remarks
Two days ago, I spoke with someone who was in North Africa recently and he gave me his point of view after reading Commandant Fidel Castro’s reflections on the Libyan crisis.
“Correspondent”, as he preferred to be called, who is also a Zimbabwean resident wrote me a long e-mail, which I believed would add to the many voices on the events in Libya and other Arab states and the Middle East. This does not in any way end the thread.
Wrote “Correspondent”:
I was in Cairo when the Egyptian revolution broke out. Tunisia was the spark and now Egypt burns. Where next? We asked.
There was much talk – and still is – about the domino effect in relation to the Arab World.
However, everyone, including and especially the Western media, seems to have forgotten that Tunisia and Egypt – and now Libya – are, in addition to being Arab countries, African countries too, members of the African Union.
It should be noted that “Arab” in relation to the so-called Arab World is not a racial category. The North of Sudan, for instance, is said to be “Arab”. But as Hassan al-Turabi, leader of the opposition Popular Congress Party, put it in an interview published in the Egyptian English weekly, Al-Ahram (26 January): “Most Sudanese are Arabs by culture, not ethnicity”.
Gaddafi is himself a Berber. It is not even religion, Islam, that defines them as there are many other countries in Africa where Islam is the majority religion, including Ethiopia.
But the fact that these countries are not only “Arab” but African should by now be clear since a few days ago the African Union Security Council asserted its right to speak up on the situation in Libya.
It unequivocally adopted a “Hands off Africa” stance and affirmed that Gaddafi, whatever his failings, is within his rights to suppress an armed revolt against his government. Should be clear – but is it?
The media make much of Nato and the Arab League’s request to the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya but it would appear that they either turn their deaf ear to any voice from Africa that does not trumpet their views or they believe that Africa’s institutions are too insignificant and negligible to pay any attention to.
Taking a position on Libya, unlike in Egypt, has been difficult for many people. The situation there was simply being portrayed, unquestioningly, as a repeat of the Tunisia/Egypt scenario – the people, starved of democracy, rising up against a repressive tyrant.
No-one seemed to question this or the fact that Gaddafi was indeed a tyrant. Everywhere, even in Africa, people were saying Gaddafi must go.
However, gradually another story began to emerge. The South African daily, The Star, published – for once undistorted – comments by the South African Ambassador on his return from Libya. They confirmed various suspicions.
It became clear that the situation in Libya was not what it seemed or as it was being reported. One began to ask questions.
What makes Iraq, Sudan and Libya so alike? What makes Tunisia, Egypt and Libya so unalike?
The answer to the first question is “oil”. The answer to the second is that Libya is not a client of the West.
It has pursued an independent political and economic line. It is also a rich country with the highest average income in Africa
Perhaps the first lesson one has to learn over and over again is never to trust the images fabricated and then legitimated through saturation propaganda by the Western media.
All the time they were reporting on the turmoil in Egypt, they were careful not to vilify Mubarak but they do vilify Gaddafi. Why? That is significant.
Another fact that is not being clearly stated and analysed is the class character of these revolutions. By, ‘the people’ should one not understand the ‘povo’, the majority?
They are the ones who stand to suffer most from suppression and exploitation and benefit most from progressive change.
When the streets fill with people, they are not necessarily expressing the desires and needs of “the people” in that sense. There are many instances of middle-class street protests with middle class agendas – from those in Chile when the middle class came out in opposition to the socialist policies of Allende, to similar manifestations in Chavez’s Venezuela and now in Egypt and Tunisia.
The class character of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt was clear – largely middle class Facebookers, students and intellectuals.
It was largely a frustrated middle class that organised the protests and filled Tahrir Square in Cairo.
To a larger extent, the poor either did nothing or simply took advantage of the situation to loot.
This is not to say that the middle class cannot spearhead liberal and democratic reforms.
It is simply to warn that not every street demonstration is an expression of “the people’s will” or espouses a progressive and truly democratic agenda.
With all this in mind and given recent history and the geopolitics that now prevail, perhaps the following scenario might suggest itself as a way of interpreting the Libyan tragedy – for tragedy it is – no less than those of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The West has always regarded Gaddafi as a thorn in its side. The West has always wanted unfettered access to Libya’s oil.
With Gaddafi gone, might that not be a lot easier, especially if they support those who kicked him out?
Tunisia – right next door to Libya – had a Twitter revolution, followed by Egypt. The domino theory applies. Any Arab country – regardless of differences between them – is now up for grabs.
The West says – what an opportunity! Let’s help some people to get rid of Gaddafi in the name of democracy – for, as we all know by now, for the West “democracy” in the old Third World is just another name for “laissez faire” or unfettered exploitation of its wealth and resources.
Nothing seems to have changed since the European powers made war on China a century and a half ago to force her to permit the importation of drugs (opium) on a massive scale – all in the name of that lofty but hypocritical ideal, “free trade”.
Unfortunately, for this scenario, Gaddafi, not being their client in the first place and aware of their machinations, turns out not to be the pushover the West hoped for and expected.
He did not just give up and run away but determined to resist and he showed that he has the support and the power to resist. The result? The Civil War that rages in Libya right now and the vociferous support in the West for “The People”.
This is just a possible scenario. Who knows the real motivation in Libya for opposing or supporting Gaddafi? The truth will one day emerge. It always does. Then people will say, “I thought so”.
But, by then it is too late. By then, they have had their way and got what they wanted. They are not even discredited. For how can the vanquished discredit the victors?
Conclusion
We see, read, write and talk daily about these issues, but do we understand them? We tweet, facebook, and blog day and night, but do we have solutions?
Are we in agreement with the African Union Security Council’s position on non-interference in internal affairs of sovereign states? Despite the excessive force, is the Libyan leader correct to use force to quell the unrests?
[email protected]