Retweeted by Rafiki58 and 5 others
Most of the arguments regarding so-called ‘forced’ regime change, respecting a nation’s sovereignty and media lies and/or conspiracies can quite easily be turned on their heads to protect any oppressive regime, even our favourite whipping boys Malan, Botha et Al.
Consider the South African situation for a moment, an oppressive regime that lasted from 1948 to 1994 where racism was legalized.
When the ANC and then OAU protested against the west’s sanctions and isolation tactics, they used similar arguments that the AU uses today to defend Gaddafi. Let’s compare in point form some of the hallmarks of both regimes.
South Africa, under apartheid, destabilized the surrounding countries by assisting ‘friendly’ forces such as RENAMO in Mozambique and UNITA in Angola. There were South African military personnel in Southern Zimbabwe. South African operatives committed terror attacks in other countries to remove political opponents. Many bombs were planted.
Gaddafi sponsored and supported forces friendly to him, most notably sending troops to prop up Idi Amin in the Tanzania-Ugandan war.
Under Gaddafi, Libya also became involved in the conflict in Sierra-Leone and Gaddafi backed Charles Taylor, decrying Nigeria’s decision to hand him over to international authorities. Libya also assisted in terror attacks beyond its borders; the Lockerbie bombing being the most notorious, with providing a safe landing for a plane full of abducted passengers hi-jacked from France.
South Africa refused to allow a significant portion of the population to vote until 1994. Since 1969, there have been no elections in Libya. Botha and Malan were said to have had no legitimacy because 80% of the population could not choose who led them. In Libya, 100% of the population was refused the vote so, in a way, the Libyan government is even less ‘legitimate’ than the apartheid one.
Both the apartheid and Libyan regimes engaged in systemic purging of political opponents, operated a police state and imprisoned people without trial for extended periods. Some of the imprisoned individuals died under mysterious circumstances that later turned out to be the result of the actions of the security forces tasked with interrogating or charging them.
Attacks on civilians also found a place in both regimes. A low level civil war was occurring in the townships in the late 1980’s in South Africa. The 1976 student riots left hundreds of school children dead or wounded. The 1960 Sharpeville massacre also stands out as one of the attacks against civilians perpetrated by the apartheid police. Gaddafi sent tanks against his own people when the rebellion started.
There are a few other similarities between the two regimes, but the core of the matter is that the OAU and the ANC went crying to the west to put the screws on apartheid South Africa, took weapons from the Chinese and the Soviets to attack civilian targets in order to speed up ‘regime change’.
Personally, I don’t believe everything I read in the media about Libya, and I don’t believe everything I read in the media about apartheid South Africa, but we are talking in the context of what the OAU and AU has consistently found to be acceptable conditions for regime change. Rhodesia-Zimbabwe is another example that springs to mind.
From the 1960s, every effort was made to support revolutionary African forces in so-called ‘rogue regimes’ under the guise of ‘spreading democracy’, and ‘listening to the will of the people’.
However, these days the AU bends over backwards to favour the incumbents. In every single significant conflict over the last two decades, the record of history is crystal clear: The O/AU favours incumbency over democracy. It favours the status quo rather than changes.
It supported Idi Amin, Mabuto Sese Seko, Robert Mugabe, Mengistu Haile Miriam and countless others over the much-vaunted ‘will of the people’ that these dictators have oppressed, and continue to oppress.
Even if certain individuals face electoral defeat, the AU interferes and supports its members above the will of the people, as could be seen in the Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe. Is it any wonder, then, that true democracy has failed to take root in Africa? The political climate created by the AU has made it so that the only way to oust a leader is to force them out with violence.
It is as if the AU does not recognize any power save for that which comes from revolutions backed by military might.
It is, therefore, no surprise as to who the true hypocrites in the Libyan situation are; none other than the loudest protesters shouting about the sovereignty of nations. An oppressed people, unable to turn to anyone on the continent to hear their plea, were assisted by a collection of countries that did.
Now people can argue until the proverbial cows come home as to the reason the west assisted them, and there are many more besides the simplistic ‘grab for oil’ and personal dislike of Gaddafi that the AU seem to cling to. However, in the end it must be recognized that the track record of the AU leaves them morally bankrupt in the spheres of mediating conflict without bias to the incumbent, as well as accusing other nations of ‘forcing’ regime change.
What it boils down to is the AU attempting to claim that they have the sole monopoly on what is right and just. For the west to help bring down Botha and Smith is ok, because the OAU didn’t like them; but to bring down Mugabe and Gaddafi is wrong.
Why is it wrong? Because the AU says so! (Because the AU likes them, their policies and their money) Who could respect an organization with such a childish outlook on international relations? The AU has to ’grow up’ and behave in a consistent, mature and unbiased manner before it should be allowed to comment on such matters.
