Gaddafi is gone; what are Africans mourning?
Many news reports liked to refer to the late Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi as “the maverick leader.” That obviously was some conscious editorial decision on the part of the media houses to be more diplomatic than would be the case if they used apt words, for instance: the stark raving lunatic of Tripoli.
The late Muammar Gaddafi. (Internet photo)
Gaddafi’s behaviour, especially in the later years of his rule, wasn’t that of a sane person. Far from it. And that fact became obvious for anyone who came in touch with him. The foreign affairs minister of Kenya Moses Wetangula for example, in a recent interview on the BBC told of his astonishment – and that of a number of other dignitaries at an African Union meet – when Gaddafi slapped his foreign affairs minister, Abdelati Obeid accrss the face in full view of everyone.
Reports of the man’s eccentricities are many. There was the all female guard of voluptuous brunettes who went everywhere with “the guide of the Libyan Revolution.” There were the camels they transported everywhere the guide went, to provide him the favourite ingredient of his breakfast – fresh camel milk. There were the numerous headaches he gave his hosts, with his insistence on pitching a tent in the middle of whatever city he visited, preferably in the main square; the man even tried to pitch a tent in a New York City square a year ago during the annual UN General Assembly.
Gaddafi was as disruptive as he was eccentric. I was a journalist in South Africa in 2002 and I remember news reports the week the African Union was inaugurated to take the place of the defunct OAU. That was to take place in the South African coastal city of Durban. Every other head of state observed the normal protocols: bringing in pre-agreed upon numbers of members of their entourages; proscribed numbers of personal bodyguards with agreed-upon amounts of small weapons, and so on. Well, Gaddafi wouldn’t have been Gaddafi if he instead didn’t see an opportunity to display a sample of the firepower at his command. Six Boeing jumbo jets flew into Durban from Tripoli, positively bristling with machine guns, SMGs, assault rifles, RPGs…, as well as several members of the Libyan military.
Gaddafi insisted on pitching a tent in the middle of whatever city he visited, such as here at Hôtel Marigny in Paris in 2007. (Internet photo)
It was a nightmare for the South African hosts. They were not about to allow someone to unload six jumbo jets full of weapons and fighting men and women on their soil of course. What ensued was a wild brawl at the airport between members of the South African army and the Libyans, with the former prevailing, confining the Libyans in their planes and compelling them to fly back. But that was not the end of the drama. Out in the Indian Ocean, a ship was bringing Gaddafi to the city, and it was laden with…AK 47 rifles and other assault weapons, rocket launchers, grenades, name it. And it also was carrying the food of the guide and his entourage, comprising of hundreds of frozen goat carcasses, among other delicacies on board, according to newspaper reports that interviewed port officials and other eye witnesses. The ship also presumably carried Gaddafi’s camel and tent, not to mention trunk loads of U.S. dollars, because later Gaddafi’s people were to cause a stampede in one of Durban’s poorer neighbourhood when the Guide, in one of his capricious fits of magnanimity, decided to dispense hundred dollar bills to anyone who dropped nearby his caravan.
Gaddafi’s oil dollars at work
The man was a raving lunatic. What fevered state of mind caused him to imagine he could bring what amounted to a military invasion force to another country? We were to learn that the intention was to take over the security arrangements for all the visiting African heads of state. He apparently never talked it over with his host Thabo Mbeki, but went ahead and attempted to deploy his military in South Africa anyway. That was Gaddafi for you, a madman who acted any way he liked because he was the head of state of an oil-gushing country whose earnings he treated as his personal piggy bank, with the spending habits of a drunken sailor.
How could this fellow ever be taken seriously? Because he put a lot of those oil dollars in the pockets of many of the world’s movers and shakers. Some news reports in Europe have intimated that French President Nicolas Sarkozy (before he was president) is only one of the numerous European officials to have taken Gaddafi’s money. When it came to Sub-Saharan Africa, with just a few exceptions, almost every one of the leaders was in his pockets. Some of them almost were like servants to Gaddafi, always doing his bidding in international affairs, like electing him to the UN’s Human Rights Council.
Libyans celebrate Gaddafi’s death in Tripoli. (photo AP)
Over time, the oil wealth must have done something to develop a god complex in the leader of the great Arab Jamahiriya. When one of his sons – the playboy Hannibal whose violent tendencies included domestic abuse – together with his wife beat up a maid in a Swiss hotel, police arrested the couple and locked them up for two days. Muammar al Gaddafi reacted with the petulance and rage of one who believes he owns the world, which, coupled with his wealth – i.e. the wealth of Libya which was the same as his personally – could have devastating results for those he directed his rage at. In this case the Swiss took it on the chin, even though very few even knew who Hannibal Gaddafi was, or what he had done. President Gaddafi first shut down the Libyan subsidiaries of Swiss companies Nestlé and ABB. Then he had two Swiss businessmen in Tripoli arrested for alleged visa irregularities. After that he had most commercial flights between Libya and Switzerland cancelled. He would show these rats! Who did they think they were, daring to arrest his son; did they not know he was entitled to doing absolutely anything he felt like, including battering the nationals of other people on their soil? Gaddafi was not done with the Swiss, far from it. He next withdrew up to US$ 5 billion from Swiss banks. Then he called for the dissolution of Switzerland and that its territory be divided between France, Italy and Germany. He squeezed until the Swiss cried uncle, apologizing profusely to Libya and saying they hoped “the misunderstanding” would never be repeated. By then of course they had long released Hannibal who was back in Tripoli, saying if he had nuclear weapons he would wipe Switzerland off the map. Such was the world of the Gaddafis.
By the time of his death last week at the hands of enraged captors, Gaddafi had long lost any last vestiges of rational thought his skull may ever have contained. The rebels had closed in on the man who took power in a coup in 1969, but he still was under the illusion that the Libyan population loved him and would fight to “to the last man”, to re-install him. Even at the last moment, when they found him in a drain pipe in his hometown of Sirte, he imagined he still was the ruler, and began to scold them for arresting him. Which is the time they began assaulting him, beating him up and shooting him, bringing a violent end to the life of a violent man, who among other favourite activities liked to plan terrorist attacks on the West, as well as on other people he did not like, anywhere.
What is Gaddafi’s legacy in Africa? Last week, news reports were talking of many people all over Sub Sahara mourning his fall (Sub Sahara, mark you, not the Arab north which was busy rejoicing the demise of an insufferable tyrant). This leaves one wondering about the thought processes of the average man and woman of these black African countries. What exactly are they mourning? The fellow who was one of the main sponsors of Idi Amin? Are they mourning the character who gave lots of money to rebels in Sierra Leone whose main modus operandi was amputating limbs or cutting off the noses, lips, ears or other body parts of any poor person unlucky enough to fall in their hands? Are these Africans mourning the ruthless tyrant who deployed fighter jets to begin bombing his own people in a bid to cling onto power when the people rose up to demand an end to his four-decade rule?
Obviously, the mourners will tell you Gaddafi was a generous man who built mosques and roads and other infrastructure projects all over the continent and gave away lots of money whenever and wherever he visited. Great. Just great! So, according to this reasoning, for his money Gaddafi had carte blanche to commit every atrocity he could think of, or to be bosom buddies with most of the continent’s butchers (which he himself was anyway)?
When you look at the reaction of most in Africa earlier this year when the effort to topple Gaddafi and his regime began (a good number interviewed in media reports were unhappy about it), and after the man’s demise, you see more reason to despair for this continent.
Related articles:
- Kagame defends his position on Libya
- Why is there such little African outrage about Gaddafi’s acts?
- Mr Gaddafi and his money
PDF 
Posted by Shyaka Kanuma
on Oct 24 2011. Filed under Features, Flash, Other News, Weekly Highlights.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
