Hillary Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency


Hillary Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency

Hillary’s emails truly are the gifts that keep on giving. While France led the proponents of the UN Security Council Resolution that would create a no-fly zone in Libya, it claimed that its primary concern was the protection of Libyan civilians (considering the current state of affairs alone, one must rethink the authenticity of this concern). As many “conspiracy theorists” will claim, one of the real reasons to go to Libya was Gaddafi’s planned gold dinar.

One of the 3,000 Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department on New Year’s Eve (where real news is sent to die quietly) has revealed evidence that NATO’s plot to overthrow Gaddafi was fueled by first their desire to quash the gold-backed African currency, and second the Libyan oil reserves.

The email in question was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by her unofficial adviser Sydney Blumenthal titled “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold”.

From Foreign Policy Journal:

The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.
And here is the section of the email proving that NATO had ulterior motives for destroying Libya (UPDATE: The link has since been killed, but here is the web cache):

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues: 

a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

b. Increase French influence in North Africa, 

c. Improve his internal political situation in France, 

d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world, 

e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa)

Ergo as soon as French intel discovered Gaddafi’s dinar plans, they decided to spearhead the campaign against him- having accumulated enough good reasons to take over.

Sadly, Gaddafi had earlier warned Europe (in a “prophetic” phone conversations with Blair) that his fall would prompt the rise of Islamic extremism in the West. A warning that would go unheeded; what’s a few lives in France and Libya, if the larger goal lines the pockets of politicians and the elite so much better after all?

This Article (Hillary Emails: NATO Destroyed Libya To Prevent Gold-Backed Dinar) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author(CoNN) and AnonHQ.com.

Advertisements

The Obama Legacy Part VI: The Destruction of Libya and the US military Invasion of Africa


The Obama Legacy Part VI: The Destruction of Libya and the US military Invasion of Africa

 

by Danny Haiphong

In his two terms in office, President Obama has put nearly the whole of Africa under U.S. military sway. He was the first U.S. president to bomb an African country — Libya, whose “nationalized oil reserves and plans to use gold as the chief reserve currency in Africa threatened US capitalist penetration in Africa.” Obama rewrote international law, invoking “Responsibility to Protect” as “justification for the destruction of sovereign nations.”

“With the Libyan state destroyed, the US has been able to further expand militarily all over the continent.”

Endless war has been a staple of the Obama era. The first Black President’s imperialist record is so expansive that it could not possibly be fit into a singular piece on his legacy. Obama’s endless military incursions in Africa have been the least covered area of US foreign policy in the corporate media. From the outset of his selection in 2008, President Obama quietly militarized the African continent without the knowledge or consultation of the vast majority of the US population. In 2011, Obama’s policy of militarization exploded into full-scale war on the nation of Libya.

The US imperial campaign against Libya marked a watershed moment in the Obama legacy. The overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi by way of US-NATO sorties and jihadists made Obama the first Black President to bomb an African country. In addition, Obama became the first President to invoke the so-called R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine as a justification for what he called a “humanitarian intervention.” The Obama war doctrine rewrote the rules of war in the realm of international law.Humanitarian intervention” and the “Responsibility to Protect” provided a more effective justification for the destruction of sovereign nations.

“Obama became the first President to invoke the so-called R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine as a justification for what he called a ‘humanitarian intervention.’”

Obama’s promotion of racist, colonialist lies about Libya helped muster public support to destabilize the most prosperous nation on the continent. According to President Obama and the corporate media, Gaddafi was a genocidal butcher of his own people. So-called mercenaries loyal to Gaddafi were accused of committing genocide against “peaceful” protesters. The “Libyan Revolution” was thrown into the so-called Arab Spring against brutal tyrants in North Africa. Mythological tales of Gaddafi’s loyalists using Viagra to rape women and children were run around the clock by the corporate media and its masters in Washington.

What actually occurred in Libya was US-NATO sponsored genocide. Obama received plenty of help from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, which provided jihadist mercenaries with the necessary financial and military aid to wage war on Libya. Black Libyans were brutally lynched by jihadist mercenaries in Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte. Over 30,000 US-NATO bombs were dropped on Libya over the course of the six-month military invasion that began in March of 2011. Tens of thousands of Libyans died and the Libyan state was effectively dissolved.

When Gaddafi was illegally murdered by jihadists in October of 2011, Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cackled “we came, we saw, he died” in an interview with the corporate press. The imperial hubris of Secretary Clinton was completely supported by Obama. Not only did he destroy Libya, but also later in 2016 described the aftermath of the intervention as a “mistake.” Yet leaked emails from the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s server scandal have proven that the war against Libya was waged for economic and geopolitical reasons. Libya’s nationalized oil reserves and plans to use gold as the chief reserve currency in Africa threatened US capitalist penetration in Africa. So Obama led the charge to destroy this effort by sending Libya into a state of never ending chaos.

“AFRICOM has locked African nations into military subservience.”

Today, Libya remains in the control of terrorists. The Libya prior to 2011 that possessed free healthcare, education, and numerous subsidies to support the wellbeing of the Libyan people no longer exists. Libya’s role in supporting African liberation in South Africa, Namibia, and Angola has been, for now, relegated to the history books. Libya once was a proud state that rejected US military presence on the continent, seeing it as an obstacle to Pan-African unity. With the Libyan state destroyed, the US has been able to further expand militarily all over the continent.

And it has been President Obama, not George W. Bush, who has presided over the rapid neo-colonization of Africa through military means. Under Obama, the US African Command (AFRICOM) has penetrated every African country but Zimbabwe and Eritrea. AFRICOM has locked African nations into military subservience. In 2014, the US conducted 674 military operations in Africa. According to a recent Freedom of Information Act request by Intercept, the US currently has Special Forces deployed in more than twenty African nations. US imperialism supposedly sees “enemies” everywhere in the form of jihadist groups. Yet it was the US-NATO alliance that empowered the spread of jihadists throughout Africa by arming them to destroy Libya.

“The US currently has Special Forces deployed in more than twenty African nations.”

The US has fueled instability in Africa as the primary means to undermine Chinese investment in the resource-rich continent. In 2013, China’s investment in Africa was estimated to total 200 billion USD. Nations such as oil rich Nigeria and mineral rich Democratic Republic of Congo have found Chinese investment to be far more mutually beneficial than trade with US multinational corporations. This has threatened the capitalist class in control of the US imperialist system. When Obama was elected, he made it a point to subvert China with the only weapon left in its arsenal: military force.

However, China is a rising global power and the US is not. US imperialism is in crisis and its military policy in Africa is a reflection of decline. The militarization of Africa led by Obama has done nothing but spread chaos from North to South, East to West. China still leads the US by tens of billions of US dollars per year in terms of real investment in Africa. And the regional catastrophes that Obama’s Africa policy has created are not going away. The rise of Boko Haram and the international jihadist terrorist network threatens to make the continent ungovernable. This may not be what US corporations want, but its all US policy is going to give.

“Nations such as oil rich Nigeria and mineral rich Democratic Republic of Congo have found Chinese investment to be far more mutually beneficial than trade with US multinational corporations.”

President Obama’s staunch support for the US military takeover of Africa has not stopped him from claiming identification with African people. However, Obama’s identification with Africa has not stopped him from condemning the continent for homophobia or chastising African nations to forget about colonialism. Obama has yet to condemn Rwanda and Uganda for its support of proxies that have murdered over 6 million in the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1996. The Obama legacy in Africa should thus be characterized as the highest stage of hypocrisy. Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 only to intensify African dependency on US imperialism, especially militarily.

The struggle for African liberation will continue long after Obama is out of the White House. His Africa policy will serve as the largest obstacle to efforts to rid the continent of neo-colonialism once and for all. The US military network currently operating in nearly every Africa country serves the purpose of arresting the ongoing process of self-determination. Solidarity efforts in the US mainland must recognize that the fate of Africa will determine the course of struggle worldwide. Obama expanded the US military state’s footprint in Africa. Africa’s liberation thus means the rejection of everything he has stood for.

De-Dollarization: The Story of Gaddafi’s Gold-Backed Currency is Not Over


De-Dollarization: The Story of Gaddafi’s Gold-Backed Currency is Not Over

 

 

A declassified email exchange between former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her adviser Sid Blumenthal shows that Clinton was up to her eyeballs in the Western conspiracy against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his Pan-African “Gold Dinar” currency, F. William Engdahl narrates.

A recently declassified email from the illegal private server used by ex-Secretary of State and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton during the Washington-orchestrated war against Muammar Gaddafi sheds some light on the US establishment’s genuine motivation.

“In a newly declassified Clinton email from Sid Blumenthal to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dated April 2, 2011, Blumenthal reveals the reason that Gaddafi must be eliminated,” F. William Engdahl, American author, researcher and risk strategic consultant, writes in his article for New Eastern Outlook.

“Using the pretext of citing an unidentified ‘high source’ Blumenthal writes to Clinton, ‘According to sensitive information available to this source, Gaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver… This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar,” the researcher exposes.

Clinton Emails: Adviser Accused France of Bombing Gaddafi for Libyan Oil
Gaddafi was not the only Arabian leader who sought to divert its oil revenues into state-controlled funds, rather than trusting it to New York and London bankers, following the US war on terror kicked off in the Middle East and Central Asia.

“By 2008 the prospect of sovereign control by a growing number of African and Arab oil states of their state oil and gas revenues was causing serious concern in Wall Street as well as the City of London. It was huge liquidity, in the trillions, they potentially no longer controlled,” Engdahl continues.

Meanwhile, in 2009 Gaddafi, then President of the African Union, offered the states of the continent to shift to a new currency, independent from the US dollar, the so-called “Gold Dinar.”

According to the researcher, the idea, voiced by the Libyan leader, received high praise from Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Mubarak’s Egypt.

Gaddafi called upon African nations to create a currency alliance making the gold dinar the primary means of payment for oil and other resources.

“Along with the Arab OPEC sovereign wealth funds for their oil, other African oil nations, specifically Angola and Nigeria, were moving to create their own national oil wealth funds at the time of the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya,” Engdahl writes, adding that those sovereign national funds were supposed to make Africa independent from colonial monetary control.

The dream of the African nations was at the same time a nightmare for Western financial elites.
In light of this it is hardly surprising that Wall Street and the City of London threw their weight behind the NATO-led campaign aimed against the “rebellious” Libyan leader.

Engdahl draws attention to the fact that there was something very fishy about the idea of the US-backed Libyan Islamists to create a Western-style central bank ‘in exile‘ (as well as its own oil company) amid the fierce fight against the Gaddafi government.

The researcher cites Robert Wenzel who wrote in the Economic Policy Journal that he has “never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising.”

“This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences,” Wenzel stressed.

The aforementioned “sophisticated interests” could have been tied to Wall Street moguls and the City of London bankers who sought to eliminate the very idea of a Pan-African currency.

“The Gaddafi dream of an Arabic and African gold system independent of the dollar, unfortunately, died with him,” Engdahl notes.

The story is not finished yet: a new gold-backed currency alliance is emerging in the East, threatening again the US dollar hegemony. This group, headed by China and Russia, poses an entirely new challenge to America’s monetary dominance, the researcher remarks.

Who killed Thomas Sankara the lion king?


Who killed Thomas Sankara the lion king?

There is actually no murder mystery:

ThomasSankara.jpg

When Thomas Sankara was killed after four years as President of Burkina Faso, it was at the orders – if not at the hands – of one of his oldest friends, now President Blaise Compaoré. Echoes of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar as much as Disney’s The Lion King. Why should we care about this particular African tragedy?

We should care because the revolution Sankara led between 1983 and 1987 was one of the most creative and radical that Africa has produced in the decades since independence. He started to blaze a trail that other African countries might follow, a genuine alternative to Western-style modernization – and, like other radical African leaders such as Patrice Lumumba and Amilcar Cabral, was shot down as a result. Whereas his murderer, still in power eight now twenty years later, has pursued self-enrichment and politics as usual – and has been fêted by the West for his compliance.

An incorruptible man

  • A major anti-corruption drive began in 1987. The tribunal showed Captain Thomas Sankara to have a salary of only $450 a month and his most valuable possessions to be a car, four bikes, three guitars, a fridge and a broken freezer. He was the world’s poorest president.

  • Sankara refused to use the air conditioning in his office on the grounds that such luxury was not available to anyone but a handful of Burkinabes.

  • When asked why he had let it be known that he did not want his portrait hung in public places, as is the norm for other African leaders (and as Blaise Compaoré does now), Sankara said ‘There are seven million Thomas Sankaras’.

Chronicle of a revolution

Feb 1984 Tribute payments to and obligatory labour for the traditional village chiefs are outlawed.

4 Aug 1984 All land and mineral wealth are nationalized. The country’s name is changed from the colonial Upper Volta to Burkina Faso, words from two different local languages meaning ‘Land of the Incorruptible’.

22 Sept 1984 A day of solidarity: men are encouraged to go to market and prepare meals to experience for themselves the conditions faced by women.

Oct 1984 The rural poll tax is abolished.

Nov 1984 ‘Vaccination Commando’. In 15 days 2.5 million children are immunized against meningitis, yellow fever and measles.

3 Dec 1984 Top civil servants and military officers are required to give one month’s pay and other civil servants to give half a month to help fund social development projects.

31 Dec 1984 All domestic rents are suspended for 1985 and a massive public housing construction program begins.

1 Jan 1985 Launch of a campaign to plant 10 million trees to slow the Sahara’s advance.

4 Aug 1985 An all-women parade marks the anniversary of the Revolution.

10 Sep 1985 The mounting hostility of the region’s conservative regimes is revealed at a meeting in Yamoussoukro, Côte d’Ivoire.

Feb-Apr 1986 ‘Alpha Commando’. A literacy campaign in nine indigenous languages involves 35,000 people.

End of 1986 A UN-assisted program brings river blindness under control.

15 Oct 1987 Sankara is assassinated in a coup d’état along with 12 aides. His body is unceremoniously dumped in a makeshift grave which quickly becomes a shrine as for days thousands of people file past it to pay their respects. Popular feeling forces the new regime to give Sankara a decent grave.

A villager’s assessment of Sankara

‘I wasn’t surprised when he was killed – the Revolution took me by surprise but that didn’t. He had bad men around him, people who just wanted to get fat and drive around in big cars. Many things changed in the Revolution. Not always in the best way. But because of the Revolution we know a little more about the type of politicians we need. It taught us to work by ourselves for ourselves. But Sankara wanted everything to happen too quickly – he expected too much.

‘If I were President myself I would do just as Sankara did and send my ministers out to the villages to learn what it’s like there and give the peasants help. Sankara’s very best idea was to teach us that it wasn’t enough to live with what we get in wages each month – we should get by with the minimum and give the rest to the development of the country instead of always asking for aid from overseas.’


An eminently corruptible man

  • Captain Blaise Compaoré played a key part in the 1983 Revolution – he led the march on the capital that released Sankara from house arrest to become President. Compaoré himself served as Justice Minister and Sankara’s effective second-in-command.

  • Compaoré has garnered a considerable personal fortune from his position and allegations of corruption and nepotism under his regime now abound. One of his early acts was to buy a presidential plane to reflect his personal prestige.

  • Power from a major new hydro project has been diverted to electrify Compaoré’s home village, Ziniaré, while big towns have been ignored.

Chronicle of a ‘rectification’

15 Oct 1987 Blaise Compaoré assumes the Presidency, backed by Major Jean-Baptiste Lingani and Captain Henri Zongo.

Nov 1987 The Committees for the Defence of the Revolution, the local bodies which had replaced traditional élites, are abolished.

1988 Salaries of civil servants, reduced under Sankara, are increased and the special tax that forced them to contribute to health and education projects is scrapped.

Dec 1988 A World Bank report lauds the unusually high standards of financial management in Burkina Faso during the revolutionary years while noting the increasing incidence of corruption since Compaoré’s takeover.

Sept 1989 Lingani and Zongo attempt to oust Compaoré in a coup and are executed.

Dec 1989 31 Sankara supporters are detained without trial for over a year. Lecturer Guillaume Sessouma dies during torture.

Dec 1990 The draft constitution guarantees freedom of association and expression and property rights. It provides for an elected President and National Assembly.

Early 1991 A structural-adjustment package is agreed with the IMF, involving privatization and liberalization of the market.

May 1991 All political prisoners are released.

Dec 1991 Blaise Compaoré wins the presidential election. This is not surprising since he is the only candidate – 73 per cent of the electorate do not vote.

1993 The IMF lends Burkina $67m for 1993-5 on condition that it continues implementing free-market policies.

June 1993 An official presidential visit to Paris establishes Compaoré as France’s favourite ally in West Africa.

Jan 1994 The CFA franc is halved in value in relation to the French franc at the insistence of Paris and the IMF.

March 1994 Compaoré tightens his control, sacking the prime minister to install a loyalist.

A villager’s assessment of Compaoré

‘France gave Blaise money. I don’t know exactly how but they did. And when you have money in Africa you can do anything. The trade unions have been bought off, for example – the President gives them money so that they’ll shut their mouths. He’s our President, we agreed to that – but his policies come from France. Every order comes from France and he never asks the Assembly’s opinion.

‘There is no real opposition. Politics here means who will give money. People who want to become ministers or deputies look to develop themselves first and the country after – they all know the Western way of life, they want everything easy. Politics is just a means of becoming rich and giving you a big car. And Blaise gives money to opposition groups so they will divide and, voilà, no opposition. Another Sankara simply couldn’t arrive out of the current democratic landscape.’

Here is some more information:

Thomas Isidore Noël Sankara (December 21, 1949 – October 15, 1987) was a Burkinabé military captain, Marxist revolutionary, pan-Africanist theorist, feminist, and President of Burkina Faso from 1983 to 1987.[1][2] Viewed by supporters as a charismatic and iconic figure of revolution, he is commonly referred to as “Africa’s Che Guevara“.[1][3][4]

Sankara seized power in a 1983 popularly supported coup at the age of 33, with the goal of eliminating corruption and the dominance of the former French colonial power.[1][5] He immediately launched one of the most ambitious programmes for social and economic change ever attempted on the African continent.[5] To symbolize this new autonomy and rebirth, he even renamed the country from the French colonial Upper Volta to Burkina Faso (“Land of Upright Man”).[5] His foreign policies were centered on anti-imperialism, with his government eschewing all foreign aid, pushing for odious debt reduction, nationalizing all land and mineral wealth, and averting the power and influence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. His domestic policies were focused on preventing famine with agrarian self-sufficiency and land reform, prioritizing education with a nation-wide literacy campaign, and promoting public health by vaccinating 2.5 million children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles.[6] Other components of his national agenda included planting over ten million trees to halt the growing desertification of the Sahel, doubling wheat production by redistributing land from feudal landlords to peasants, suspending rural poll taxes and domestic rents, and establishing an ambitious road and rail construction program to “tie the nation together”.[5] On the localized level Sankara also called on every village to build a medical dispensary and had over 350 communities construct schools with their own labour. Moreover, his commitment to women’s rights led him to outlaw female genital mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy, while appointing women to high governmental positions and encouraging them to work outside the home and stay in school even if pregnant.[5]

In order to achieve this radical transformation of society, he increasingly exerted authoritarian control over the nation, eventually banning unions and a free press, which he believed could stand in the way of his plans.[5] To counter his opposition in towns and workplaces around the country, he also tried corrupt officials, “counter-revolutionaries” and “lazy workers” in Popular Revolutionary Tribunals.[5] Additionally, as an admirer of Fidel Castro‘s Cuban Revolution, Sankara set up Cuban-style Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDRs).[1]

His revolutionary programs for African self-reliance made him an icon to many of Africa’s poor.[5] Sankara remained popular with most of his country’s impoverished citizens. However his policies alienated and antagonised the vested interests of an array of groups, which included the small but powerful Burkinabé middle class, the tribal leaders whom he stripped of the long-held traditional right to forced labour and tribute payments, and France and its ally the Ivory Coast.[1][7] As a result, he was overthrown and assassinated in a coup d’état led by the French-backed Blaise Compaoré on October 15, 1987. A week before his murder, he declared: “While revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill ideas.”[1]

Western propaganda and Libya revolution


Western propaganda and Libya revolution

Libyan fighters drive through a destroyed military base used by Muammar Gaddafi’s army and subsequently bombed by NATO, southeast of Tripoli, September 2, 2011.

Libyan fighters drive through a destroyed military base used by Muammar Gaddafi’s army and subsequently bombed by NATO, southeast of Tripoli, September 2, 2011.

In memory of Col. Muammar Qaddafi was that of a Libyan revolutionary and socialist politician who does not beat around the bush, telling it straight to your face and of course such attitude can be perceived by some as dictatorial.

If we look around Africa Continent, the closest to Col. Qaddafi is late Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana who identified that African Continent is partially free politically and most definitely not economically and that Africans need to “emancipate itself from mental slavery and that none but ourselves can free our mind” (Pan-African).

Some of my readers may wonder why the comparison of Gaddafi and Nkrumah? It was what they stood for and not who they are and by that I mean they stood for the unity of Africa as a continent through economic empowerment such as increased trades between countries in the continent as well as political and technological cooperation.

Qaddafi focused on key areas that can help prolong average life span of Libyans such as good road network; good healthcare facilities, better housing so that Libyans will not sleep rough, and he eliminated poverty focusing on those Libyans who are unable to work due to disability or ill health.

Qaddafi’s effort to stabilize Libya by bringing all different tribes together and also working with poverty-stricken West African nations did not gain popularity in the West (news blackout) because it was distorting their (West) plan for Africa and Middle East, hence incitement of tribal unrest and counter coup in Libya in the past.

They (West) use their propaganda machine (Western Media) to turn Gaddafi into Mr. Jekyll and Hyde (man with two faces) in the eyes of his neighbors as well as around the world portraying him (Gaddafi) as a tyrant/dictator/terrorist hated by his own people and the world over.

In their “War against Terrorism,” they finally succeeded to get behind Qaddafi’s skin particularly after 9/11 because he started working with them behind the scenes hence made him more enemies than friends within the Arab community because he allowed them (West) access to Libya and its facilities (marking the beginning of his downfall).

However, the financial and technical cooperation enjoyed by many West African countries under the government of Qaddafi must be acknowledged, – countries such as Sierra Leone, Guinea-Conakry, Chad, Niger, Mali, Senegal, and Burkina Faso – because it shows the other side of Qaddafi that the world did not see.

The West also enjoyed financial support from him and his family and without a doubt it was a subject on the lips of many European and West African leaders, either they like it or not, and there were individuals who had benefited from different educational funds he supported around the world.

I was fortunate to know Libyans from Benghazi and Tripoli who acknowledged that the government of Qaddafi gave them the chance to be true Libyans because they had peace and were able to move freely as a citizen without fear – unlike now after his demise.

The awakening that gripped Tunisia and Egypt was to the West’s detriment but perfect timing to incite regime change in Libya, because they already had their agents on the ground in Libya, making it easy for them to hijack the awakening and turning it into regime change in Libya.

The people of Benghazi under the supervision of the West seemed to be ideal to start the revolution for regime change; after all they had an old score to settle with Qaddafi even though majority from that part of the nation could vouch for political, economic and social peace enjoyed under Qaddafi and even Qaddafi had a home in Benghazi.

Some Western countries feared that allowing Qaddafi to continue as Libyan leader meant they had a lot to lose and one of such fears was over their financial indebtedness to Qaddafi, his family and people of Libya because repaying this money could deal a bigger blow to their own economy.

Also, deposing him would leave a power vacuum considering the volatile tribal division in Libya and an opportunity for them to have a say in Libya’s oil distribution network, which would in turn help sustain their businesses and economy through the period of Western economic crunch.

Like the situation with Mali, France took the lead and of course there was more than just political undertone for former French president’s involvement in Libya, some of which came out in French press while others did not make it to the print (News blackout?).

It was obvious that Qaddafi had made many enemies in the Middle East, hence not much support came from that direction to help bring political solution, and of course Qaddafi had himself to blame because becoming Mr. Jekyll and Hyde for the West always end in regret.

In the heat of it all, even Libya’s strong ally, Russia, could not do much to resuscitate his government because by this time there had been promises and counter promises made to Qaddafi’s aides who were breaking ranks more than he anticipated and Western media were splashing news of defection daily, hence his government was doomed.

Qaddafi losing grip on power was a combination of many factors, amongst which was his close ties forged with West during Iraq war when he allowed Libya to be used strategically against al-Qaeda, and by conniving with the West he carved enemies for himself within the Arab community, hence West collaborating to oust him seemed imminent because he lacked popular support. It doesn’t matter if he did it to get out of the embargo done to Libya for over 10 years.

The Western media news blackout on turn of events during the Libya revolution and news propaganda about atrocities purported to have been committed by Qaddafi’s supporters did not favour him, hence common conversation in public places around the world was that he must go.

  Africa may not have a voice, but comparing news heard from mainstream Western media and online news, it was obvious that the continent is well aware of the Western double standard.

Africa and the Middle East have been creating awareness in the mind of their younger generations that there is double standard in news reporting by the Western media, and one of the ways to identify existence of such double standard is for this younger audience to compare online reporting with mainstream Western media before forming opinion.

The Western leaders censor Western media to only report news they want the world to hear and Western media knows how to put it across nations of the earth fancifully and convincingly with no regards for psychological damage to listeners, and those networks that did not join the bandwagon suffered a witch hunt.

Qaddafi was a victim of such Western news propaganda and spreading lies is a continuous process of reporting by Western media and most recent is the reporting by a Western media showing a picture of mass killings to have been carried out by Syrian soldiers, but it was later proved to be untrue because picture from previous reporting were used.

People from Africa and the Middle East are more aware now that accusation made by the West against activities of leaders or nations may be untrue, hence they now use news comparison for verification before forming opinion.

       The Western media have lost its popularity amongst many individuals from Africa and the Middle East, because it has become apparent that Western media through its satellite channels has been feeding them with propaganda and lies, hence they are switching from mainstream satellite stations onto the Internet for latest news and update.

It is ironic to see that Qaddafi, who was a dictator/tyrant hated by his people, could lend money to Western nations and yet they did not refuse to accept the money neither did they decline to use Libya as a base to torture individuals accused of terrorism.

Muammar Qaddafi is dead. Saif al-Islam Qaddafi is incarcerated, hence another news blackout on the real truth behind why the West sped up regime change in Libya using military force and under the disguise of the United Nation Security Council.

The West claimed that Libya is now a free nation with peace and stability after Qaddafi’s death, but there is no stable unity government that includes all tribes in Libya and moreover the United State suffers its first casualty in Libya in 2012.

Libya has been politically volatile since the awakening and while Western media only touch on it after the death of the US diplomat.