USA Africa Dialogue Series - The simplistic views of Mr. Kabaji on the Libyan question

Hello

 

Too often, people simplify the Libyan issue as support for Gaddafi or support for the rebels to promote democracy. These belie the salient premises and principles shaping "a new world order," which is beyond the question of a single African leader or country - or a report card on the African Union.

 

By the way, when Guinea and Niger had resounding free and fair elections, we did not see it on CNN, BBC, etc as headline news.  Regurgitating the negatives, we know. But what about information that may help provide a more balanced perspective?

 

1) Do Western powers have the moral and legitimate authority to bomb African nations and arm a fighting faction? Does the professor understand the ramifications? Would they be arming all rebels in Africa or just selective rebels for their interests? By the way, how does bombing places where no fighting is taking place protect anything, let alone human beings?

 

2) If this was a very popular uprising, how come CNN, BBC and all the Western broadcast are not showing the throngs of supporter like we saw in Egypt and Tunisia? Is it not strange that Libya is not manifesting the outpour when citizens are now protected by Western air forces?

 

3) Why are the Western bombing powers immediately on the subject of rebels exporting oil? How is this part of their manifested aim to  protect civilians? Does the UN give super powers the right to bomb a weaker nation and decide its trade?

 

4) Do Western powers have the moral and legitimate right to intervene for the purpose of installing their  preferred governments in Africa? How is this different from the colonial era and post colonial era where the Western powers sponsored coup d'etat or killed African liberation leaders?.

 

5) If  this sort of military intervention is a principled one, why did UN and NATO powers not pass a resolution to bomb China over Tiananmen Square or Russia over Chechnya when the same uprisings occurred with the same reactions?

 

6) If, in deed, the rights to protest is the honest issue, why did US, UK and France turn a blind eye in Bahrain even when Saudi Arabia sent soldiers to quell protests? Does the professor know that the US has a naval base in Bahrain?

 

7) Is the Professor aware of the fact that the AU position was undermined, especially by France and Britain? Why were the rebels not in Ethiopia for the negotiated cease fire?

 

8) How come the rebels cannot win unless the Western powers provide them with arms? Would they not be violating the arms embargo? How would the rebels pay for the arms and long term consultancy, military contractors, etc? LIBYAN OIL.

 

Are these the models of Western puppeteer governments that would be an improvement over the current African Union leaders?

 

I would not insult the intelligence of the professor by laughing. The professor needs to do more studies for his own enlightment. 

 

MsJoe

========================================================================

While serving as director of Public Affairs and Communication at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I came very close to understanding the paralysis that characterises the African Union when faced with grim situations on the continent.

It is this paralysis that has made the AU unable to solve political and economic problems facing Africa.

In my 10-month tenure at the ministry, I felt really frustrated while listening to the deliberations of African leaders. 

 It seems to me that the African Union is a club of men and one woman tied together by a common interest of helping one another to retain power.

The speeches at AU summits are spiced by what is commonly referred to as 'African brotherhood'.

None of the leaders is ready to look the other in the face and tell him that he has to open up democratic space and respect human rights in his country.

The most memorable moment when I really felt that AU is a talking shop is when the Somalia delegate presented a strong case in which he accused AU members of abandoning his country.

He argued that Al-Shabaab was appearing stronger because the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) was not well-supported to establish strong structures.

This view was supported by Kenya, not because we felt so much for Somalia, but because we bear the consequences of the anarchy in the country.

With the exception of Uganda and Burundi, countries that committed troops to Somalia, the session ended without a strong idea of how to support the TFG.

The ramifications of the anarchy in Somalia due to the inability of AU to solve the problem are out for us to see.

Another case in point is Côte d'Ivoire, which has been left to go to the dogs due to AU's inability to assert its authority and force Mr Laurent Gbagbo to relinquish power to the man who won elections.

The AU has fared badly in enforcing respect for human rights and democracy. With the exception of Botswana and to some extent, South Africa, the rest of African countries have no moral authority to admonish one another over human rights abuse.

As the crisis unfolds, AU and African countries individually have issued the most disheartening statements. Even before the air strikes started, AU asked the whole world to keep off Libya.

It would rather Gaddafi rains bombs on his people, maims and kills them to remain in power than cede some power. The AU is therefore supporting Muammar Gaddafi and not the people of Libya who are fighting for democracy.

Although the western countries may be having their own interests in pushing for regime change, they remain the only hope for Libyans fighting Gaddafi's tyranny.

Prof Kabaji is the director of Public Communication and Publishing at Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology. The views expressed here do not reflect the official position of the University.