The Gaddafi I Knew

Written by Yoweri Museveni
Wednesday, 14 December 2011 14:39

By the time Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi came to power in 1969, I was a third-year university student at Dar-es-Salaam in Tanzania. We welcomed his rise because he was a leader in the tradition of Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt who had a nationalist and pan-Arab position.

Soon, however, problems cropped up with Gaddafi as far as Uganda and black Africa were concerned:

Backing Idi Amin: Idi Amin came to power in 1971 with the support of Britain and Israel because they thought he was uneducated enough to be used by them. Amin, however, turned against his sponsors when they refused to sell him guns to fight Tanzania. Unfortunately, Gaddafi, without first getting enough information about Uganda, jumped in to support Idi Amin. He did this because Amin was a “Muslim” and Uganda was a “Muslim country” where Muslims were being “oppressed” by Christians. Amin killed a lot of people extra-judicially, and Gaddafi was identified with these mistakes.

In 1972 and 1979, Gaddafi sent Libyan troops to defend Amin when we [the Uganda National Liberation Front] attacked him. I remember a Libyan Tupolev Tu-22 bomber trying to bomb us in Mbarara in 1979. The bomb ended up in Nyarubanga, Burundi, because the pilots were scared. They could not come close to bombing their intended target properly. Many Libyan militias were captured and repatriated to Libya by Tanzania. This was a big mistake by Gaddafi and a direct aggression against the people of Uganda and East Africa.

Pushing for a United States of Africa: The second big mistake by Gaddafi was his position vis-à-vis the African Union (AU), where he called for a continental government “now.” Since 1999, he had been pushing this position. We tried to politely point out to Gaddafi that continental governance was difficult in the short and medium term. We should, instead, aim at the Economic Community of Africa and, where possible, also aim at regional federations. But Gaddafi would not relent. He would not respect the rules of the AU. Gaddafi would resurrect topics or discussions that had been covered by previous meetings and “overrule” a decision taken by all other African heads of state. Some of us were forced to come out and oppose his wrong position and, working with others, we repeatedly defeated his illogical position.

Proclaiming himself king of kings: The third mistake was Gaddafi’s tendency to interfere in the internal affairs of many African countries, using the little money Libya has compared to those countries. One blatant example was his involvement with cultural leaders of black Africa – kings, chiefs, etc. Since the political leaders of Africa had refused to back his project of an African government, Gaddafi, incredibly, thought that he could bypass them and work with these kings to implement his wishes. I warned Gaddafi in Addis Ababa that action would be taken against any Ugandan king who involved himself in politics, because it was against our constitution. I moved a motion in Addis Ababa to expunge from the records of the AU all references to kings (cultural leaders) who had made speeches in our forum, because Colonel Gaddafi had invited them there illegally.

Ignoring the plight of Southern Sudan: The fourth big mistake was made by most of the Arab leaders, including Gaddafi to some extent. This was in connection with the long-suffering people of southern Sudan. Many of the Arab leaders either supported or ignored the suffering of the black people in that country. This unfairness always created tension and friction between the Arabs and us. However, I must salute Gaddafi and President Hosni Mubarak for travelling to Khartoum just before the referendum in Sudan, during which time they advised President Omar al-Bashir to respect the results of that exercise.

Terrorism: Sometimes Gaddafi (and other Middle Eastern radicals) did not distance themselves sufficiently from terrorism, even when they were fighting for a just cause. Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence – not distinguishing between military and non-military targets. The Middle Eastern radicals, quite different from the revolutionaries of black Africa, seem to say that any means is acceptable as long as you are fighting the enemy. That is why they hijack planes, use assassinations, plant bombs in bars, etc. We were together with the Arabs in the anti-colonial struggle. The black African liberation movements, however, developed differently from the Arab ones. Where we used arms, we fought soldiers or sabotaged infrastructure but never targeted non-combatants. These indiscriminate methods tend to isolate the struggles of the Middle East and the Arab world.

These are some of the negative points in connection to Gaddafi as far as Uganda’s patriots have been concerned over the years. Each of the positions taken by Gaddafi was unfortunate and unnecessary.

Nevertheless, Gaddafi also had had many positive points, objectively speaking. These positive points have been for the good of Africa, Libya, and the third world. Included in these is the fact that Gaddafi was a nationalist. He conducted an independent foreign policy and, of course, also independent internal policies. I am not able to understand the position of Western countries, which appear to resent independent-minded leaders and seem to prefer puppets. Puppets are not good for any country. Most of the countries that have transitioned from third world to first world status since 1945 have had independent-minded leaders: South Korea (Park Chung-hee), Singapore (Lee Kuan Yew), People’s Republic of China (Mao Tse Tung, Chou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Marshal Yang Shangkun, Li Peng, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao), Malaysia (D Mahthir Mohamad), Brazil (Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva), Iran (the Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei), etc.

Between World War I and World War II the Soviet Union transitioned into an industrial country, propelled by the dictatorial but independent-minded Joseph Stalin. In Africa, we have also benefited from a number of independent-minded leaders: Colonel Nasser of Egypt, Mwalimu Nyerere of Tanzania, Samora Machel of Mozambique, and others. That is how southern Africa was liberated and how we got rid of Idi Amin. The stopping of genocide in Rwanda and the overthrow of Mobutu Sese-Seko in the Democratic Republic of the Congo were as a result of efforts of independent-minded African leaders.

Gaddafi, whatever his faults, was a true nationalist. I prefer nationalists to puppets of foreign interests. Where have the puppets caused the transformation of countries? By contrast, the independent-minded Gaddafi had some positive contributions to Libya, I believe, as well as Africa and the third world. Take just one example: at the time we were fighting the criminal dictatorships here in Uganda, we had a problem arising of a complication caused by our failure to capture enough guns at Kabamba on 6 Feb 1981. Gaddafi gave us a small consignment of 96 rifles, 100 anti-tank mines, etc., that was very useful. He did not consult Washington or Moscow before he did this. This was good for Libya, for Africa, and for the Middle East. We should also remember as part of that independent-mindedness the fact that he expelled British and American military bases from Libya.

Gaddafi also raised the price of oil. Before he came to power in 1969, a barrel of oil was 40 American cents. He launched a campaign to withhold Arab oil unless the West paid more for it. When the Arab-Israel war of 1973 broke out, the price of a barrel of oil went up to $40. I am, therefore, surprised to hear that many oil producers in the world, including the Gulf countries, do not appreciate the historical role played by Gaddafi on this issue. The huge wealth many of these oil producers are enjoying was, at least in part, due to Gaddafi’s efforts. The Western countries have continued to develop in spite of paying more for oil. It therefore means that the pre-Gaddafi oil situation was characterised by super exploitation by the Western countries of oil-producing countries.

Coming to the present crisis, therefore, I need to point out some issues:

First, we must distinguish between demonstrations and insurrections. Peaceful demonstrations should not be fired upon with live bullets. Of course, even peaceful demonstrations should be coordinated with the police to ensure that they do not interfere with the rights of other citizens. However, when rioters are attacking police stations and army barracks with the aim of taking power, then they are no longer demonstrators – they are insurrectionists. They will have to be treated as such. A responsible government would have to use reasonable force to neutralise them. Of course, the ideal responsible government should also be one that is elected by the people at periodic intervals. If there is a doubt about the legitimacy of a government, and the people decide to launch an insurrection, this should be the decision of the internal forces. It should not be for external forces to arrogate themselves that role; often, they do not have enough knowledge to decide rightly.

Excessive external involvement always brings terrible distortions. When external forces get involved, that is a vote of no confidence in the local people. A legitimate internal insurrection, if that is the strategy chosen by the leaders of that effort, can succeed. The Shah of Iran was defeated by an internal insurrection; the Russian Revolution in 1917 was an internal insurrection; the revolution in Zanzibar in 1964 was an internal insurrection. It should be for the leaders of the resistance in a given country to decide their strategy, not for foreigners to sponsor insurrection groups in sovereign countries.

I am totally allergic to foreign, political, and military involvement in sovereign countries, especially the African countries. If foreign intervention is good, then African countries should be the most prosperous countries in the world, because we have had the greatest dosages of that: the slave trade, colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, etc. But all those foreign-imposed phenomena have been disastrous. Africa has only recently begun to come up, partly because we are rejecting external meddling. External meddling and the acquiescence by Africans into that meddling have been responsible for the stagnation on our continent. External groups in many cases impose the wrong definition of priorities in many African countries. Failure to prioritise infrastructure, for instance, especially energy, is, in part, due to some of these pressures. Instead, consumption is promoted. I have witnessed this wrong definition of priorities even here in Uganda.

Second, Western countries always use double standards. In Libya, they are very eager to impose a no-fly zone. In Bahrain and other areas where there are pro-Western regimes, they turn a blind eye to the very same or even worse conditions. We have been appealing to the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone over Somalia – so as to impede the free movement of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda, which killed Americans on 11 September 2001, killed Ugandans in July 2010, and have caused so much damage to the Somalis – without success. Why? Are there no human beings in Somalia, as there are in Benghazi? Or is it because Somalia does not have oil that is not fully controlled by the Western oil companies, as was the case in Libya, on account of Gaddafi’s nationalist posture?

Third, the Western countries are always very prompt in commenting on every problem in the third world – Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. Yet, some of these very countries were the ones impeding growth in those countries. There was a military coup d’état that slowly became a revolution in backward Egypt in 1952. The new leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein, had ambitions to oversee the transformation of Egypt. He wanted to build a dam not only to generate electricity but also to help with Egypt’s ancient irrigation system. The West denied him money because they did not believe that Egyptians needed electricity. Nasser decided to raise that money by nationalising the Suez Canal. Israel, France, and Britain attacked him. To be fair to the United States, US President Eisenhower opposed that aggression at the time. Of course, there was also the firm stance of the Soviet Union at the time. How much electricity was this dam supposed to produce? Just 2 000 megawatts – for a country of Egypt’s size! What moral right do foreigners have to comment on the affairs of these countries?

Fourth, the by-now-entrenched habit of Western countries to overuse their technological superiority to impose war on less developed societies, without impeachable logic, will ignite an arms race in the world. The actions of the Western countries in Iraq and now Libya are emphasising that might is “right.” I am quite sure that many countries that are able to will scale up their military research, and in a few decades, we may have a more armed world. Weapons science is not magic. A small country like Israel is now a superpower in terms of military technology. Yet 60 years ago, Israel had to buy second-hand Fouga Magister planes from France. There are many countries that can become small Israels if this trend of Western countries overusing military means continues.

Fifth, the AU mission was unable to enter Libya because the Western countries started bombing the day before they were supposed to arrive.

Sixth, regarding the Libyan opposition, I would feel embarrassed to be backed by Western warplanes. Quislings of foreign interests have never helped Africa. We have had a copious supply of them in the last 50 years: Mobutu Sese-Seko, Houphouet Boigny, Kamuzu Banda, etc. The West has made a lot of mistakes in Africa and in the Middle East in the past. Apart from the slave trade and colonialism, they participated in the killing of Patrice Lumumba, until recently the only elected leader of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the poisoning of Cameroonian political leader Felix Moummie, and the assassination of prime minister Bartholomew Boganda of the Central African Republic. The West supported Unita in Angola, Idi Amin – at the beginning of his regime – in Uganda, and the counter-revolutionaries in Iran in 1953. Recently, there has been some improvement in the arrogant attitudes of some of these Western countries. Certainly with black Africa, and with Uganda in particular, the relations are good following the fair stand the West has taken on the fate of the black people of southern Sudan. With the democratisation of South Africa and freedom of the black people in southern Sudan, the difference between the patriots of Uganda and the Western governments had disappeared. Unfortunately, these rash actions on Libya raised new problems. They should be resolved quickly.

Seventh, as to the international community, the African members of the Security Council voted for this resolution on Libya. This was contrary to what the Africa Peace and Security Council had decided in Addis Ababa recently. This is something that only the extraordinary AU summit can resolve. It was good that certain big countries in the Security Council – Russia, China, Brazil, and India – abstained on this resolution. This shows that there are balanced forces in the world that will, with more consultations, adopt more correct positions.

Eighth, and finally, being members of the United Nations, we are bound by the resolution that was passed, however rushed the process. Nevertheless, there is a mechanism for review. Western countries, which are most active in these rushed actions, should consider that route. It may be one way of extricating all of us from possible nasty complications. What if the Libyans loyal to Gaddafi decide to fight on? Using tanks and planes that are easily targeted by French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s planes is not the only way of fighting. Who will be responsible for such a protracted war? It is high time we did more careful thinking.

Reproduced with permission from Foreign Policy www.foreignpolicy.com <http://www.foreignpolicy.com> ©The Washington Post