Dear Editor,
With regard to your editorial, ‘Pressure on Libya’ (SN, Mar 2), the international community (through the UN) is forced to take action against despotic ruler Muammar Gaddafi because no global power has influence against the Libyan strongman to regulate his behaviour and/or do the right thing as Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak did. There is nothing that can be done in Libya to save the people from Muammar Gaddafi’s wave of terror, short of military intervention. However, I doubt whether China and Russia will agree to such actions. The Americans and Europeans may still try to force Gaddafi from office as should happen to rescue the nation from this erratic character.
Unlike Tunisia and Egypt where the US and the Europeans had strong influence and could pressure their leaders (whom they supported to deny the democratic aspirations of the Arabs) to leave town, Gaddafi is a different kettle of tea who will want to go down as a “martyr” not concerned how many of his countryfolk he takes down with him. Like most other dictators, he is selfish and is concerned only with perpetuating his self rule. Gaddafi is not easily influenced by any world leader (not even his friend Hugo Chávez or Fidel Castro, and they won’t encourage him to leave anyway) but he is quickly falling as he should because of the violence he has used against Libyans yearning for freedom from his four decades of oppression. The world is waiting for his day of reckoning – indeed the day of reckoning of so many other corrupt, despotic, dictators (monarchs) in the Arab world whose only goal in office is to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor.
When I was an undergraduate student at City College during the late 1970s, many of us as young activists were attracted to Colonel Gaddafi’s anti-imperialist rhetoric. He was supported by many on campus including faculty members, left-wing romanticists, and member students from the Arab students association. They supported Gaddafi’s coup against the oppressive monarch and his rantings against the West, viewing him as a progressive ruler who meant well for Arabs and Africans. The African students at City College backed Gaddafi’s call for a Pan-African state uniting all of Africa under one ruler (presumably Gaddafi). Gaddafi, as told by Arab students, did a lot for his country during his early years with the oil wealth. But as the years went by, students told me Libyans became increasingly disenchanted with him as he began to brutalize critics and opponents, not dissimilar to actions taken by dictators of other countries. Gaddafi betrayed the ideals of the coup against the feudal monarch. While anti-imperialist actions were noble and supported, Gaddafi began to behave erratically and his speeches at international forums were empty slogans that drew the ire of the West. Instead of further developing Libya, he frittered away wealth on lofty goals, seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and in perennially fighting the West. Supporting international terror was a serious blunder costing Libya billions as compensation for victims of bombing. This money could have been used for developmental projects. For a long time now, Libyans have become fed up with Gaddafi waiting for an opportunity to rebel and they have got it.
Gaddafi’s use of violence to quell the popular uprising is not working and won’t work because he has lost control of most of the country, and now governs only parts of Tripoli, the capital, and his home town of Sirte. As your editorial rightly suggests, the global community should increase the pressure on Gaddafi to end the violence and find a way to ease him out – quickly to save lives.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
