The West’s Assassination Of Libya’s Gaddafi Is An Example Of Why We should Always Question Authority.
I was hovering around the periphery of Medium, wondering whether I really wanted to get involved for quite a long time before deciding to give it a decent shot. The reason is not that I’m by nature indecisive, but that often when I browsed articles of the front page there seemed to be a lot of self indulgence and not much serious writing, the kind that gets to the real problems of the world.
Oh yeah, I know it’s tough being black, gay or a woman, with all those nasty men and all that white privilege to overcome. Well sorry, but life is tough whoever you are. And a hundred years ago it was tougher, yet our forebears seemed to be happier, or at least better at dealing with life than most of us.
I don’t spend much time in the front page now and slowly I am discovering there are others like me, who write not because they want someone in the comment thread to give them a hug and say, “There, there,” but to ask questions, raise IMPORTANT issues, (someone being a bit rude to you in a shop or restaurant is not an important issue, neither is your date being a tightwad or a gold digger,) and call those in authority to account.
Only people prepared to spend a lot of time and dig deep ever learn the real reasons that governments do the things they do. And when we reveal what we have discovered, and state quite clearly when we are speculating to fill the holes in an official narrative, we get called ‘conspiracy theorists’. It’s easy to say, “Oh it was all about wealth and power as usual,” and that is often broadly true, but learning the more nuanced reasons for actions that at the time seem illogical is a full-time job. That’s why it was until a couple of decades ago, done by well paid and experienced journalists.
It is natural, and frequently quite proper that Governments are reluctant to reveal their true motives. In spite of the irrational arguments we get from socialists and globalists in support of an authoritarian government, which they claim is the only way to tackle global problems, the world is a competitive place and nations have to compete to protect and advance the interests of their people, while resisting the efforts of global corporations and supra national bureauracies such as the United Nations or the European Union to extend their reach into every aspect of the lives of communities and individuals. Were governments totally transparent about their plans and the reasons for their actions it would hand an enormous advantage to agents working against them.
Thus when governments release their narrative on any situation, the only explanation you can safely rule out is the one they reveal via the media to the general public; — the one you will read in your newspaper, hear on TV and Radion and eventually find in that nation’s history books a few decades later.
Somebody who a few years ago regularly called me a conspiracy theorist once castigated a group of us for using the phrase ‘follow the money.’ apparently all politicians on the left were, in this person’s world view, completely altruistic and paragons of virtue. The Obama Administration was still in power at the time and, we were told, none of those pristine souls would ever do anything that was not for the greatest good of the greatest number. Yeah, right.
At around that time, a coalition of western powers, France, The UK and The USA (the FUKUS axis,) had deposed the Libyan dictator Muammar Gadaffi and turned Libya from the most prosperous and socially advanced nation on the African continent to a chaotic failed state with three rival factions, the Islamists, tribal warlords and gangsters all claiming to be the legitimate government. The propaganda released by — sorry, the official explanations for this action by the FUKUS axis, an action which did a lot to bring about the current deterioration in east — west relations, was that the brutal dictator Gaddafi was killing thousands of his own people.
We have recently learned through emails sent to then American Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, and leaked into the public domain via Wikileaks, that the driving force behind the bombing campaign that deposed Gadaffi, was something very different, something those of us who regularly are called conspiracy nuts suspected all along. Various things have been put forward as to what the west was frightened of, a plan to build a pipeline from the rain drenched hills of northern Uganda to move water to the oil rich deserts of southern Libya, or a move by Gaddafi to involve other African oil states in a scheme to create a gold backed alternative to the petrodollar and thus bypass US / Saudi domination of the oil market are among the most feasible.
The real trigger for air strikes on Libya however, was Gaddafi’s moral fight to release Africa from the financial rest raints of the west. The emails in question were sent to Clinton by her unofficial adviser Sydney Blumenthal titled France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold.
The communication, one of thousands of Hilary Clinton emails released by thr State Department on New Year’s Eve 2015, includes a lengthy section outlining the huge threat Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at ‘143 tons of gold and a similar amount in silver’ posed to the CFA (Central African France,) currency circulating as a prime African currency in countries where France is the former colonial power. The CFA is backed by the French national treasury.
The key passage reads:
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. The plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc. (source)
The same email identifies then French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya for five reasons — obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s domestic reputation, assert French military power and prevent Gaddafi extending his influence in what was considered ‘Francophone Africa.’ Had those reasons had been revealed in an official French press release how much support do you think there would have been for assassinating a leader of another nation?
At the time the United Nations Security Council was hoodwinked into authorising military intervention ‘to avert a humanitarian crisis’ although it later became clear that Gadaffi was only about to crush a small uprising by Muslim fanatics in Benghazi, a city in the east of Libya.
Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron commented on news of Gadaffi’s death: “We should also remember the man, many Libyans who died at the hands of this brutal dictator and his regime and that ‘people in Libya today have an even greater chance, after this news, of building themselves a strong and democratic future.”
Unfortunately Cameron, having failed to deliver the resounding majority in favour of staying in the EU he had stupidly promised his paymasters when he offered a referendum on continued membership, did a runner and is not around to explain why he went along with this war crime and why, as a result, Libya is even now, seven years later, descending into greater and greater chaos?
What could Cameron have done? Well the regime change in Libya was carried out with the support of a UN resolution, after Russia and China had been persuaded not to veto the action on the grounds that it was necessary for humanitarian reasons. Cameron could have blown the gaff on the lie and sided with Russia and China to veto the resolution and thwart perfidious Gaul.
Not for the first or the last time, a more aware reaction came from Russian leader and outspoken critic of the west’s financial system Vladimir Putin who said: “All the world saw him being killed, all bloodied. Is that democracy? Ans who did it? Drones, including American ones, delivered a strike on his motorcade. Their commandos, who were not supposed to be there, brought in so-called opposition and militants. And they killed him without trial.”
Well Putin is no angel as we all know, but he has a point. And as yet nobody has aked what happened to what happened to Libya’s gold? (sic) Where is it today? These are important questions that may be answered years after the crimes have been committed.
So although it may be expedient for governments to act in secrecy to protect our interests, in the majority of cases, for example on Libya, they have to stay schtumm about what they are up to because we, the punters would never accept it if we knew the real motives. This is why we should never simply accept the first explanation offered by any level of government, corporate business or anyone or thing presented as a source of authority.