The Mad Dog is Dead

There seems to be no doubt now that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has been killed by Libyan rebels in his hometown of Sirte. This is good news. Gaddafi was a thug, a terrorits, a tyrant and a traitor to his king and country. Does that mean what replaces him will be better? By no means. So far, the conduct of the rebel government has only reinforced my skepticism about them and their movement. It seems likely that Gadaffi's tyranny, which was dominated by his own bizarre personality cult and served his own selfish interests and megalomania, will be replaced by a more religiously-based tyranny in line with the worst elements sweeping the Islamic world today. I hope that some sanity will prevail and the monarchy will be restored, but I fear that hope will be in vain (I would be happy to be proven wrong in that regard) as mob uprisings seldom result in actual improvement. Nonetheless, Gaddafi was a bad guy, an enemy of the world, a man who terrorized his own people and others, who threatened foreign nations, launched terrorist attacks against other nations and blackmailed his neighbors as well as betraying and overthrowing his lawful monarch. The world is better off without him. Good riddance.

A Libyan Wet Blanket

Alright, rebels are now strutting around Tripoli wearing the clothes and jewelry of their former dictator, there is rejoicing all around the world, even the Red Chinese are looking to belatedly ‘make nice’ with the rebel government and with all of this happiness around me, I just have to go and upset everybody. There is a reason why even if the current rebellion succeeds (which it seems to have done) there are few expecting very much out of the new Libyan government. There is also, I think, a reason why Libya fell prey to the rule of a treasonous dictator like Gaddafi in the first place. (here it comes, get ready for the outrage) I don’t think Libya was ever prepared to be an independent country in the first place and what is more (yes, I am doubling down) it is far from being alone in that amongst the modern nations of the world. Putting aside for the moment that I am a monarchist, a simple bit of honest observation would make one assume that had the Kingdom of Libya managed to survive long enough to take hold and accomplish something things might have been much better. However, as we know, that did not happen. Why was that?

One thing I have never heard anyone say in all of the constant news coverage about Libya is anyone calling it an “artificial state”. They say that about the Kingdom of Belgium all the time (wrongly) and one or two promptly chastised souls even said it about Iraq but no one has ever said it about Libya. Yet, the fact is that before 1951 there had never, in all of human history, been an independent Libya. In fact, prior to 1934 there had not been a spot on the map called Libya since the days of ancient Rome. All that existed was three isolated and neglected Ottoman provinces, won by the Kingdom of Italy from the Turks in 1912. Wishing to call to mind the ancient presence of the Roman Empire in the region, in 1934 the Italian government lumped the provinces together and named the colony “Libia”. After that unpleasant episode known as World War II, the United Nations ruled that Libya should become independent and the former Emir of one of the provinces (Cyrenaica) became King Idris I of Libya.

Enemies of the Libyan monarchy will say that the people were poor and things were miserable during their brief stint as a kingdom before Colonel Gaddafi came along and gave them their bread and circuses. That is a very slanted picture of course, but in truth things were not ideal in Libya. They had never been an independent country before, never really had to work together before and while the new King had much in common with his native province, the others were not instantly faithful to him. One of the ways Gaddafi was able to gain support was by playing up the discontent from those outside of Cyrenaica and encouraging them to feel as if the King was favoring his native province (which the King had first declared independent, again giving no thought to the colonial entity known as Libya). Gaddafi also used the old tactic of class warfare, accusing the King of hoarding the oil wealth of the nation to the detriment of the people -fittingly the exact same thing the rebels today accuse Gaddafi of doing. It worked because things were unsettled in the country, everything was new and the public which had been fed a steady diet of propaganda to encourage the desire for independence from Italy, retained those same thoughts as they looked at how many British and Americans were setting up shop.

Gaddafi saw a chance and he seized it, though like a coward he did it while the King was not in Libya to be dealt with. He was able to maintain himself because of the mineral wealth of the country even though no one would have ever seen a dime of that money were it not for foreign investment and the infrastructure set up by British mining companies and Italian oil companies before whose time the vast resources had never been exploited. In essence, the British and Italians had tapped the keg and then Gaddafi grabbed control of the spigot. Virtually every road, every major facility, every airport and so on in Libya was not something built by the independent Libyan government, but were simply taken over after being built by someone else, usually the Italians. The government never had to do much of anything for the Libyan people, being able to get by mostly on seizing control of foreign companies and then by extorting money from their best customer. If the people got restless, there was always terrorism to take their minds off of things; that is until recently.

This is not an effort to be harsh on Libya. However, almost every country in the Americas, Africa and Asia was at one point subject to one of the great colonial empires of history. I think history will show that those which have been the most successful as independent nations are those which gained independence slowly, one step and at a time, peacefully and naturally. Those which suddenly (and usually violently) broke away before they had any real experience in self-government have almost invariably failed. I am as glad as anyone to see Gaddafi gone, he was a traitor, a terrorist and a criminal of the worst order. However, I remain rather skeptical about how much of an improvement the government that succeeds him will be, partly because it looks less and less likely to be a traditional sort of monarchy but instead just more of the same sort of regimes that have led to other tyrants and the whole process starting all over again.

Let the outrage begin…

Rebels Take Tripoli

It has been all over the news tonight that Libyan rebels have taken Tripoli. The old flag of the Kingdom of Libya is flying in Green Square and there are crowds cheering in the streets of almost every major city in Libya. Rebel forces named the campaign, "Operation Mermaid Dawn" and although skirmishes are still going on, they seem to be in control. Colonel Gaddafi is nowhere to be seen but has been addressing the public by telephone, calling on all of his supporters in Tripoli to arm themselves and kill any rebels they can. There is already speculation that Gaddafi may not be in Libya at all but may have already slipped out of the city and fled to Algeria. Al Jazeera has reported that Gaddafi's son Al-Saadi Al-Gaddafi had been captured and Sky News has reported that the dictator's son Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi has also been captured. The situation is still up in the air, there is alot of confusion but it seems that Gaddafi is no longer in control of Libya, he's down, he may not be out, but many are now hopeful that his regime has come to an end with the rebel occupation of Tripoli. I remain rather skeptical about the chances for a royal restoration of the short-lived Senussi dynasty, though the downfall of the treasonous murderer Gaddafi is satisfying in any event. I did notice, in the video of the celebrations in Benghazi a very large French tricolor being waved amongst the sea of Libyan royal flags, probably as a mark of the early French recognition of the rebel government. That fact alone would make me less than optimistic about the chances for the Kingdom of Libya to return. We will have to see how the situation continues to develop. For now, it is enough that a very evil man is no longer in control.

A Note on Libya

As we seem to now be in something the President will not dare call a "war" with Libya, I thought I might, perhaps, comment on the recent turn of events. Frankly, I am not optimistic. These days any royal restoration will be a long-shot but, while I may have been slightly optimistic at the outset I am much less so now. The rebellion did start in the area with the strongest Senussi support, the royal flag did reappear and rebels were holding pictures of King Idris -all very good signs. They were advancing constantly and seemed on the brink of taking Tripoli and toppling the illegitimate Qaddahfi regime. However, they were then beaten back, almost to where they started from, before the international community could stir itself to get involved -and then only in half-measures.

Had the rebels been able to rush to success quickly and on their own I think there might have been at least a fair chance of a restoration. However, as that did not happen, various disreputable groups have now attached themselves to the rebel cause and the UN and NATO have gotten involved. There is always hope, and even if there is only the slightest chance of a restoration under the rebels that will still be more of a chance than existed under Qaddafhi -a man who betrayed his monarch and who cannot meet a sorry end fast enough for me. However, whenever the UN, the USA, France & sadly the UK get involved what hope I had for a royal restoration mostly evaporated. It does not help my opinion that the leading 'hawk' on this issue for the USA is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton whose husband's administration famously said on the issue of Eastern Europe, "We don't do kings".

Some UN-lovers out there (why they would be reading this blog I don't know) might point to the case of Cambodia but that was a totally different kettle of fish from Libya. In that case you had a former monarch still alive and engaged in the process and one who had clearly shown a talent for survival few politicians could ever match. You also had a country where the monarchy had been long established before the communist takeover whereas in Libya the monarchy barely had a chance to firmly establish itself between the time that the Allies ripped Libya away from the Italians and when the treasonous Colonel Qaddafhi overthrew his lawful king. To reiterate, I continue to hope for the Colonel to meet an ugly demise, however, I am much less optimistic than I ever was for the succeeding regime to be much better. Some would surely cry "imperialism" if ground troops are deployed but, frankly, I have never considered that a bad word and Libya would probably be better off if that were actually the case -but it is not. Unfortunately, with Obama and the European ruling clique in charge of things I cannot realistically see much improvement on the horizon for Libya other than the possibility of being rid of the bizarre, butcherous presence of Qaddafhi.

At least Switzerland will finally be able to sleep soundly once again...