The crimes that both former rulers had committed
during these transition phases are well known by most. They were simply
overlooked by the West while in the friendly phase and recognized while in the
hostile stage.
Nevertheless, Libya's relations with these powers began to improve in 1999
having gradually deteriorated following the 1969 coup in which Gaddafi came to
power. This was as he took a firm stance against Western imperialism during his
first years in power. But then, this stance slowly dissolved and left the
collective conscience, to the point where US Senator John McCain on a visit with
Gaddafi in 2009 tweeted, "late evening with Col. Gaddafi at his "ranch" in Libya
- interesting meeting with an interesting man."
Seemingly, Libyan diplomats killing Yvonne Fletcher, a British policewoman in
1984, the Libyan regime attacking a night club in West Berlin in 1986, killing
three and injuring 229 others, Gaddafi downing Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 and the
French UTA Flight 772 in 1989, killing 440 people, as well as all the domestic
atrocities the Gaddafi regime has committed, were all suddenly part of a
forgiven and long forgotten phase in history.
It is Worthy of mention, however, that Gaddafi had at the turn of the millennium
started to give in to the demands of the very same imperialists he had so
vehemently despised a decade earlier.
His regime paid compensation for the killing of Yvonne Fletcher and the bombing
of the West Berlin night club as well as to the families of the victims of Pan
Am Flight 103. In addition, he also announced that he would abandon his weapons
of mass destruction program.
Since Gaddafi was thereafter seen as a "good boy" in the eyes of Western powers,
his regime resumed diplomatic relations with the UK and five agreements were
signed in 2008 between the two countries. In the same year, he also signed an
agreement with Silvio Berlusconi, in which Italy would pay as much as $5 billion
in compensation for its military occupation of Libya decades earlier.
Then all of a sudden in the early days of 2011, a wave of democratic movement
emerged in the Middle East and North Africa. This wave hit both Libya and
Bahrain at almost at the same time. Both the Gaddafi regime as well as Bahrain's
Al Khalifa regime began to crackdown on their countries' pro-democracy
protesters, attempting to survive.
When the majority of a nation demands a set of rights, their wish should not be
denied, no matter who they are. Yet, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barak Obama's
approach to the bloody and brutal crackdown on people in Bahrain and Libya has
been totally different.
"For four decades, the Gaddafi regime ruled the Libyan people with an iron fist.
Basic human rights were denied. Innocent civilians were detained, beaten and
killed. And Libya's wealth was squandered. The enormous potential of the Libyan
people was suppressed, and terror was used as a political weapon. Today, we can
definitively say that the Gaddafi regime has come to an end. ... And one of the
world's longest-serving dictators is no more," said Obama on Thursday, shortly
after the death of Gaddafi had been announced.
"In Bahrain, steps have been taken toward reform and accountability. We're
pleased with that, but more is required. America is a close friend of Bahrain,
and we will continue to call on the government and the main opposition bloc, the
Wefaq, to pursue a meaningful dialogue that brings peaceful change that is
responsive to the people," said Obama as he addressed the UN General Assembly
last month, knowing that the Al Khalifa dynasty, which have also been in power
for more than four decades, have killed, tortured and systematically arrested
countless innocent Bahrainis.
Nonetheless, while signs of such reforms are yet to be seen in Bahrain, the
country is the home of US Navy's Fifth Fleet. So is the US a "close friend of
Bahrain" because of this fleet and other reasons which it feels are beneficial
for the moment? And if so, would it drop this friendship and launch a military
intervention in the country should it feel that Bahraini regime is no longer
beneficial to US interests?
After all, exactly the same thing happened to Saddam Hussein, one of the United
States' closest Middle East allies during the 1980s. During the presidencies of
both Ronald Reagan and George Bush senior, Saddam received chemical and
biological weapons technology, as well as financial aid. And it was during this
decade that Saddam waged an 8-year long war with Iran, killing hundreds of
thousands of Iranians in addition to thousands of Kurds in his own country.
But then in the 1990s, and increasingly more after the millennium, he came to be
known as the most dangerous man in the world by the West, and was presented as a
much bigger threat than he really was or had the recourses to become. In 2003,
the US invaded Iraq under the false pretext of locating and destroying the
country's weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was overthrown, captured and
executed by the same forces that had previously backed him.
Last year, Gaddafi delivered a speech in the Libyan city of Sirte on the 24th
anniversary of a US attack on the North African country. While he talked about
the attack, and the Libyan people's resistance against it, he also said "Now,
ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent,
from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined, that from Reagan
we would get to Barak Obama," adding that Obama "is someone I consider a
friend."
Evidently he wasn't such a good friend after all.
"For the region, today's events prove once more that the rule of an iron fist
inevitably comes to an end," said Obama after he praised the death of Gaddafi on
Thursday. While he surely did not direct his speech to the authoritarian rulers
of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia as they currently enjoy friendly ties, one wonders,
how long before the Al Khalifa and Al Saud dynasties turn into the new enemies
of the West and the world witnesses new occupations?
Should the moral of the story be to not side with the West?
Source:Islam Times