From then on, call me mister the French President!
I watched the news last night and I could quite well understand the situation many African countries find themselves in today. The emergence of some of the formerly called developing countries as new economic powers seems to have changed the deal. “There is crisis when the exploited starts asking for his or her share,” used to say the Pan Africanist, President Thomas Sankara.
The north of the African continent commonly referred to as the Maghreb region has been marked with constant riots for more than two month now. If according to most Muslim scholars, up-risings against the leaders are not permitted in the Islamic culture, the last events of the Arab world in general are proofs of the Westernisation of these nations. The American values of democracy of the people by the people seem to have at last crossed seas and oceans.
“What a positive thing!” some might think. I do recognise that the question of revolution has the legitimacy of being asked when in a third world country the vast majority of the population has to starve for the sake of a minority whose living standard is higher than that of the most privileged ones in the most developed countries.
The billions of Euros found in the premises of the ex-Tunisian leader Ben Ali speak for themselves. As to the former Egyptian leader, Mubarak, the complete submission of his country to foreign powers was finally revealed through the fear the latter had of the possible arrival into power of less submissive leaders. If in most North African countries, the living standard of the vast majority of the population has been more than critical for decades, it seems that the case of Libya is however an exception. There is no doubt that the living standard of most Libyans is much higher than that of most West Europeans today. How to explain the so called revolution in Libya, then? A closer look at the grievances that led Libya to a situation of Civil War shows that, except for the more than 40 years he has spent in power, the reproaches against Khadafy are weak.
After getting their independence from Italy in 1951, and two decades under a monarchy led by Idris I, Libya entered another era of authoritarian regime. However, unlike most countries ruled for more than two decades by the same leader, the Muammar Khadafy Libya will be marked with an exceptional prosperity coped with a better redistribution of the wealth made from the oil exports.
Libyan financial exiled and refugees are to be found nowhere, which, again, testifies of an economic stability in the country.
By giving different tribes the control of some of the refineries in the country, Muammar
Khadafy managed for decades to quiet tribal wars, and conflicts. The twenty years embargo imposed on Libya did not really seem to have affected the country in its development when compared with other countries located in the same region; far from it, the Khadafy government is well known for looking after its citizens. More than a thousand euros is given every month to any Libyan studying in the United Kingdom, for example.
There is no doubt that the Western World, as it is used to, would have preferred to exploit the Libyan oil at the stake of the living standard of the Libyan population. All the oil companies have today been nationalised in Libya; hence, in some ways, the disinformation campaign regarding Muammar Khadafy’s Libya that we have been exposed to for more than four decades, in France and elsewhere in the Western World. Surprisingly, France, for example, has now recognised the nonelected opposition as the only legitimate government of Libya.
It is also important to mention that with the creation of the African Union in 2002, the Libyan president also created a united bloc in the African continent to better fight against European hegemony. As president of the African Union, he, also, auto-proclaimed himself King of all African Kings. The latter events, coped with his numerous investments in many Black African countries are what seem to have triggered animosity and hatred against him.
“The king of the monkeys,” as his Libyan opponents like to call him is said to have some Tuareg-Malian origins from his mother’s side. He is often compared to a Pharaoh and there is no doubt that extravagancy and the worship of personality he tried to impose, rather than starvation, unemployment and poor living conditions are what exasperated the Libyan population.
But what, indeed, if Khadafy was just paying back the consequences of his pro-African policy in a country and region that tends more and more to despise and reject its common heritance and legacy with Black Africa?
Unlike most anti-racist organisations and freedom fighters, these were facts I was well aware of. In France, the recent silence of some of the anti-imperialist organisations that had first brandished the flag of the revolution for Libya before realising the subterfuge that made them fight side by side for the interests of the genuine imperialists was another testimony of the power of miss-education and miss-information through mass media.
Having explained all these facts two hours earlier to my cousin living in a small village in Mali, by midnight on that same day, I was to receive a phone call from the Chief of the village of Tégué Coro located not far from the city of Kangaba in Mali. Ironically, because of my speaking the truth on the issue, the chief decided to make me the only French valid representative and authority recognised by his village.
So please from then on, call me Mr the French President!