Б |
Uganda's President on the Gadhafi he knows By Yoweri Museweni |
||
|
Editor’s Note: Yoweri Museveni
has served as the President of Uganda for the past 25 years, during which
time he has interacted repeatedly with Col. Moammar
Gadhafi. For a profile of Museveni,
click here. The unedited article below
solely expresses the views of President Museveni. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
By the time
Col. Muammar al-Gadhafi 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
Col. Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt who had a
nationalist and pan-Arabist position. Soon, however,
problems cropped up with Gadhafi 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, Gadhafi, 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 extrajudicially, and Gadhafi
was identified with these mistakes. In 1972 and
1979, Gadhafi 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. We had already shot-down many of Amin's
MIGs using surface-to-air missiles. Our Tanzanian brothers and sisters were
doing much of this fighting. Many Libyan militias were captured and
repatriated to Libya by Tanzania. This was a big mistake by Gadhafi and a direct aggression against the people of
Uganda and East Africa. Pushing for a United States of Africa: The second big mistake by Gadhafi was his
position vis-ŕ-vis the African Union (AU), where he called for a continental
government "now." Since 1999, he has been pushing this position.
Black people are always polite. They, normally, do not want to offend other
people. This is called obufura in the Runyankore language, or mwolo
in Luo - handling, especially strangers, with care
and respect. It seems some of the non-African cultures do not haveobufura. You can witness a person talking to a
mature person as if he or she is talking to a kindergarten child. "You
should do this; you should do that; etc." We tried to politely point out
to Gadhafi 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 Gadhafi would not relent. He would not respect the rules
of the AU. Topics or discussions that had been covered by previous meetings
would be resurrected by Gadhafi. He would "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 has been the tendency by Gadhafi
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, Gadhafi, incredibly, thought
that he could bypass them and work with these kings to implement his wishes.
I warned Gadhafi 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 they had been invited there illegally by
Colonel Gadhafi. Ignoring the plight of Southern Sudan: The fourth big mistake was made by most of the Arab leaders, including Gadhafi 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 us and the Arabs.
However, I must salute Gadhafi 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 Gadhafi
and other Middle Eastern radicals do not distance themselves sufficiently
from terrorism, even when they are fighting for a just cause. Terrorism is
the use of indiscriminate violence - not distinguishing between military and
nonmilitary 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. Why bomb bars? People who go to
bars are normally merrymakers, not politically minded people. We were
together with the Arabs in the anticolonial
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 noncombatants. These
indiscriminate methods tend to isolate the struggles of the Middle East and
the Arab world. It would be good if the radicals in these areas could
streamline their work methods in this area of using violence
indiscriminately. These are some
of the negative points in connection to Gadhafi as
far as Uganda's patriots have been concerned over the years. Each of these
positions taken by Gadhafi have
been unfortunate and unnecessary. Nevertheless, Gadhafi has also had many positive points, objectively
speaking. These positive points have been for the good of Africa, Libya, and
the Third World. I will deal with them point by point: Gadhafi is a nationalist: Gadhafi has 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), China People's Republic
(Mao Tse Tung, Chou Enlai,
Deng Xiaoping, Marshal Yang Shangkun, Li Peng, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao), Malaysia (Dr. Mahthir Mohamad), Brazil (Luis Inacio 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. That is 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. Gadhafi, whatever his faults, is a true nationalist.
I prefer nationalists to puppets of foreign interests. Where have the puppets
caused the transformation of countries? I need some assistance with
information on this from those who are familiar with puppetry. By contrast,
the independent-minded Gadhafi 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 Feb. 6, 1981. Gadhafi 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. He raised the price of oil: Before Gadhafi 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. I think the price went up to $20 per barrel. When the
Arab-Israel war of 1973 broke out, the 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 Gadhafi on this issue. The huge
wealth many of these oil producers are enjoying was, at least in part, due to
Gadhafi's efforts. The Western countries have
continued to develop in spite of paying more for oil. It therefore means that
the pre-Gadhafi oil situation was characterized by
super exploitation of oil producing countries by the Western countries. Gadhafi built Libya: I have never taken the time to investigate socio-economic conditions
within Libya. When I was last there, I could see good roads, even from the
air. From the TV pictures, you can even see the rebels zooming up and down in
pick-up trucks on very good roads accompanied by Western journalists. Who
built these good roads? Who built the oil refineries in Brega
and those other places where the fighting has been taking place recently?
Were these facilities built during the time of the king and his American and
British allies, or were they built by Gadhafi? In Tunisia and
Egypt, some youths immolated themselves because they failed to get jobs. Are
the Libyans without jobs also? If so, why are there hundreds of thousands of
foreign workers? Is Libya's policy of providing so many jobs to Third World
workers bad? Are all the children going to school in Libya? Was that the case
in the past - before Gadhafi? Is the conflict in
Libya economic or purely political? Possibly Libya could have transitioned
more if they encouraged the private sector further. However, this is
something the Libyans are better placed to judge. As it is, Libya is a middle
income country with a GDP of $62 billion. He's a moderate: Gadhafi is one of the few secular leaders
in the Arab world. He does not believe in Islamic fundamentalism, which is
why Libyan women have been able to go to school, to join the army, and so
forth. This is a positive point on Gadhafi's side. 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 coordinate 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 neutralize 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, that 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. Why should external
forces involve themselves? That is a vote of no confidence in the people
themselves. 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; the changes in Ukraine, Georgia, and so forth - all were
internal insurrections. 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. It is only recently that Africa is beginning
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. The wrong definition of
priorities in many African countries is, in many cases, imposed by external
groups. Failure to prioritize 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. External interests linked up, for instance, with bogus internal
groups to oppose energy projects for false reasons. How will an economy
develop without energy? Quislings and their external backers do not care
about all this. Second, if you promote foreign backed insurrections in small
countries like Libya, what will you do with the big ones like China, a
country with a system different from the Western system? Are you going to
impose a no-fly zone over China in case of some internal insurrections, as
happened in Tiananmen Square, in Tibet, or in Urumqi? Third, 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 September 11th,
killed Ugandans last July, 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 in Libya on account of Gadhafi's nationalist posture? Fourth, 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, Nasser, had ambitions to oversee
the transformation of Egypt. He wanted to build a dam not only to generate
electricity but also to help with the ancient irrigation system of Egypt. He
was denied money by the West because they did not believe that Egyptians
needed electricity. Nasser decided to raise that money by nationalizing the
Suez Canal. He was attacked by Israel, France, and Britain. To be fair to the
United States, President Eisenhower opposed that aggression that time. Of
course, there was also the firm stance of the Soviet Union at that time. How
much electricity was this dam supposed to produce? Just 2000 megawatts - for
a country like Egypt!! What moral right, then, do such people have to comment
on the affairs of these countries? Fifth, the by-now-entrenched habit of the Western countries over-using
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 emphasizing 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. Sixth, all this notwithstanding, Col. Gadhafi
should be ready to sit down with the opposition, under the mediation of the
AU, with the opposition cluster of groups which now includes individuals well
known to us. I know Gadhafi has his system of
elected committees that convene to form a National People's Conference.
Actually, Gadhafi thinks this is superior to our
multi-party systems. Of course, I have never had time to study how truly
competitive this system is. Anyway, even if it is competitive, there is now,
apparently, a significant number of Libyans who think that there is a problem
in their country's governance. Since there has not been internationally
observed elections in Libya, not even by the AU, we cannot know what is
correct and what is false. Therefore, a dialogue is the correct way forward. Seventh, the AU mission was unable to enter Libya because the
Western countries started bombing the day before they were supposed to
arrive. However, the mission will continue. My opinion is that, in addition
to what the AU mission is doing, it may be important to call an extraordinary
summit of the AU in Addis Ababa to discuss this grave situation. Eighth, regarding the Libyan opposition, I would feel
embarrassed to be backed by Western war planes. 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, particularly,
Uganda, the relations are good following the fair stand the West has taken on
the fate of the black people of southern Sudan. With the democratization of
South Africa and the 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 are beginning to
raise new problems. They should be resolved quickly. Ninth, if the Libyan opposition groups are patriots, they
should fight their war by themselves and conduct their affairs by themselves.
After all, they easily captured so much equipment from the Libyan Army, why
do they need foreign military support? I only had 27 rifles. To be puppets is
not good. Tenth, 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,
evolve more correct positions. Eleventh, 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. The
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 Gadhafi
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. Originally published at.: |
|
|