Mohammad Gadhafi was undoubtedly an unpleasant despot — there are a few tyrants who are “nice” — , vengeful, not in the least enlightened. When I was a kid, in my History classes, I used to find the expression “enlightened despot” very funny. Full of whims, Gadhafi always gave a lot of work to the ceremonial and security services of the First World countries which he visited as an official guest. He demanded to sleep in tents, outdoors, even in cities like Rome, New York and Paris. He was not afraid to affront the representatives from the world´s biggest powers or the CEOs from very rich Western oil companies – even though he was fully conscious that money is power. And power gets everything it wants when it has, by itself, the privilege to mold the public opinion at will. Gadhafi dared – some say – to tear the United Nations Charter in half in the middle of the UN´s General Assembly. Notwithstanding the theatrics of such an act, he had his reasons, considering such Letter was not conceived to impose governing styles. It was made to force equally every nation, weak or strong, to respect the others, without interfering in their internal affairs.
As informed by the media, Gadhafi kept billions of dollars abroad, in accounts from the Libyan Central Bank and other governmental institutions. As his decisions could not be contested by anybody, the money deposited in such accounts could be – in theory – withdrawn by Gadhafi himself for his or his family´s personal use. On the other hand, as those accounts were under the name of governmental institutions, this fact ended up being beneficial to Libya, which was able to keep the money reserves deposited abroad. Had the money been deposited in banks located inside Libya, such wealth would have already been stolen during the many months of intense and confuse conflict.
As mere intuition from an amateur psychologist, I risk “diagnosing” — future biographers might say whether I am right or wrong — that Gadhafi took anphetamins, a kind of drug which, when used without restrictions, may cause a “persecution complex” once the initial euphoria fades away. In his case, by the way, the paranoia was highly recommendable because it kept him in constant alert against a plethora of enemies who wanted his place. Having taken hold of power illegally in 1969 at the age of 27, he knew he could only count on force and intimidation because it was through such components of the political fight — in a country with little alphabetizing — that he became Libya´s “strong man”. He achieved such status in September of 1969 through a “coup d’etat”. Leading a group of military officials, he took power while the king, Idris — the first and only Libyan king —, was away from the country. Idris, a religious monarch with a fragile health, was taken in by Egypt after his deposition, and lived in that country – apparently very comfortably – until he passed away in 1983. There was no drop of blood in the 1969 “coup”.
Notwithstanding his numerous bad qualities — not even the Devil himself is perfect in his evilness—, Gadhafi benefitted the Libyan people when, right after becoming the country´s “owner”, he demanded a higher share for the country in the profits derived from the oil extracted by the powerful Western companies as a counterpart for them to be able to continue operating in his land. He knew the companies had no other choice than to accept that condition, as it ended up happening – it would have been an economical suicide to abandon the profitable investment they had already done. And his boldness started being imitated in the other countries of the Middle East which were equally rich in oil and gas, which partly explains why Gadhafi was so hated by the rich countries from the West.
With the Arab nations unified in such interests – i.e., oil – the price of the barrel started increasing, which caused consternation among the Western countries which were, up to that point, used to giving Libya and the other Middle East countries only the crumbles of their profits. Such raises in prices seemed to the West as an authentic extortion, taking advantage of a source of energy which was impossible to replace. They swore that one day Gadhafi would pay for such stimulation to “blackmail”.
And he finally paid in October 20, 2011, even though it was stealthily through the hands of others: Libya´s own people, revolting against years of tyranny. To save the appearances it was necessary that the Libyan rebels, and not NATO, did the “dirty work”. It is important to notice that NATO pilots, aware or assuming that Gadhafi was in the car convoy which was fleeing the city, did not bomb nor shot the vehicles — as they had been constantly doing before — in order to avoid the risk of killing the dictator. The order to the pilots — or the flight controllers for that matter – was probably something like the following: “Just stop him from escaping! Do not kill him! Once the convoy is stopped, it will be reached by the rebels who will surely kill him, something much more practical than a public trial – after all, who knows what he would have said as his defense in a trial? If NATO planes kill him directly, we will be violating the Geneva Convention. That would be an act of war. And in this war it is a crime to kill an enemy who has surrendered. Legally, we are not “at war”, we are only favoring one of the sides, protecting Libyan population”. And so it happened. The rebels got hold of Gadhafi, lynched him and killed him. It would have sounded really bad, legally and politically, if foreign powers, NATO members, had killed a chief of state in his own country. Such a maneuver has a very popular metaphor: “pull the sardine with the cat´s hand” (or simply use someone else´s hand to do what you want to be done).
Analyzing the subject through an International Law angle, it is important to state that the United Nations Charter does not authorize the assassination of Chiefs of State on behalf of other States, be it under their own name or through military organizations such as NATO. And what happened in Libya was exactly the use of what is forbidden: foreign air force shooting and bombing the military forces of a country which was surrounded and was not accused of aggression. Gadhafi had attacked neither the US, nor the UK, nor France. An article written by a specialist in the subject, Roberto Godoy, published in “O Estado de S. Paulo” from last October 21, pg A-24, reveals that NATO was providing cover for the advancement of the rebels, “assured by intense and daily air bombings from the 180 airplanes provided by an international coalition”.
If this does not represent a disrespect to the free determination of the people, a clear act of war, there is no way to know what is a war. In order to be characterized as such, an aggression doesn´t have to be made with troops marching on land. If that was the case, strong nations would be able to throw nuclear bombs to crush any country without being accused of aggression. A single plane could do the “job”, much more devastatingly than millions of soldiers on foot. And in Libya there were tens of planes attacking the governmental forces. It is too much innocence, or else interpretative malice, to say that the presence of foot soldiers is indispensable to characterize the use of force under an International Law perspective. The use of air force is decisive to win wars nowadays. There was, in the Libyan case, a powerful and lethal interference from other countries, NATO members, to depose a governor. And this is without mentioning the presence, on land, of tens of foreign advisors guiding the rebels on how to articulate the attacks against the tyrant – as well as the supply of weapons.
About tyrannies, International Law has not reached yet the point of allowing countries to invade others in order to remove governors which they deem as tyrants, with reason or not. If the people are sovereign, as doctrine says, they can support a dictator which seems beneficial to them, even fairer than paper democracies. It is certain that democracy, in theory, is better than a dictatorship, but that does not authorize nations or coalitions to invade countries in order to remove non-democratic governors.
Someone could say that NATO interfered with the aerial attacks for a noble reason, defending human rights, because the dictator had been killing rebels, his own citizens — who, it is fair to say, were also willing to spank and kill the tyrant.
If the argument of “nobility” is worth anything in theory, let´s imagine the following scenario: suppose a million Americans meet in front of the White House, in Washington D.C., protesting against Barack Obama´s economical policies. Over-excited, the rioters threaten to invade the gardens of the White House. The police intervenes with tear gas and rubber bullets. Two rioters die and the even angrier crowd tries to enter the building. The police starts shooting real bullets. Then there is a massacre. If the conflict spreads to other cities, we can ask: would China, for example, have the “humanitarian” right to give aerial support to the “massacred population”, bombing the White House and the Pentagon? Wouldn´t this hypothetical Chinese attitude be a distortion on the “human rights protection”? Economical and diplomatic sanctions are acceptable under the international human rights perspective, but intense bombings mean a clear bellicose interference in other countries´ internal affairs, which is something forbidden – at least in theory. Therefore, Gadhafi had his rights when he allegedly tore the United Nations Charter in half.
A detail to which public opinion must remain alert in the future – in order to find out the real motivations behind the bellicose aerial support against Gadhafi — is whether the new Libyan government will owe money to the NATO countries or not. I reckon that the “oil factor” is at the top of the reasons for the aerial invasion and the lynching —“ by proxy”— of the tyrant.
Here´s an important question: will, by any chance, the new Libyan government have to pay for the weapons received from the Americans, French and British? Will NATO´s expenses with airplanes, bombs, ammunition and military assistance on land be reimbursed? If that occurs – which would be extremely cynical — the hidden intentions for the aerial and tactical support to the rebels will be proved: oil! And with Libya´s finances as unorganized as they currently are after months of anarchy, the country will probably only be able to pay such debts with oil drilling grants. In addition to oil, what other way would Libya have to pay the debt? It is still unknown whether Libyan´s deposited money abroad would be enough to pay for the expenses incurred by the NATO countries.
Chinese companies (as well as companies from other non-NATO countries) also drill the Libyan oil. Will they be able to resume their operations in Libya when the country is under a new government – or will only the USA, France and the UK be able to handle Libyan oil? This detail is very important to verify if the fall of Gadhafi was motivated only by the defense of the human rights or if there are any “oily” political ambitions behind it.
Murder – whether it is direct or by Power-of-Attorney – still impregnate international politics, a practice that was imagined to be “out-of-fashion”. On the other hand, Gadhafi´s assassination is an alert for tyrants that they are no longer able to defend themselves with the old day´s efficiency.
The exercise of power is pleasant. And when power is absolute — as in Kadhafi´s case — it is extremely pleasant. Which explains why every governor — even presidents of Western democracies — wants to remain in power till he dies. And sometimes even after that, through a son or other successor, which proves that the “monarchy gene” still impregnates the human genetic code.
Every governor would like to be the founder of an infinite dynasty. “Never for the love of power, of course. I love my people when they praise me!” It is very rare for a president not to want to return to power. Even Barack Obama himself wants to keep his job for as long as the law allows him to, which explains his sudden change of mentality regarding international situations. In a matter of weeks he changed from a “pigeon” into a “falcon”. If the electors want more toughness, let´s be “really tough”, “otherwise I might lose the election”. Putin left when it was impossible for him to continue in power, but his intention is to get it back as soon as he can. The same is true in the whole planet. And tyrants have no longer the luxury of leaving, because the chances of being murdered are really high. That is one of the reasons why democracy - even when corrupted – are superior to dictatorships. In the latter, whoever gets to a power position doesn´t want and can´t leave, at a risk of death. In democracies, no one wants to leave, but at least they can do that.
To the Libyans, in a long term, Gadhafi´s demise was beneficial, but things will get worse before improving, for months or even years. People of normal sensibility did not enjoy the brutality in which the fall of the tyrant happened. It would have been better if his demise had happened in a more civilized way. In a court of Law, he might have revealed more interesting things, scaring other Chiefs of State.
This article´s considerations also have the aim to suggest that readers in general are fully aware of the clever maneuvers of international politics, which deems itself smarter than it really is.
(October 23, 2011)
