Colonel Maummar Gaddafi is dead.

[ChrisGeorge]

Clearly Gaddafi died in a situation of mob rule, something that could happen in any country when there is no control of the situation.

Then woe be the country where that is true!


The Transitional government, against that background, will take along time to gain control - or never manage it.

Phil

In a number of these countries, we will possibly see an era of weak government and turmoil until a strong man takes over, which of course was the sort of situation in which Gaddafi rose to power in the first place. Likely such cycles will occur in the wake of the Arab Spring despite our hopes for a peaceful democratic outcome in the countries in question.

[Archaic]

Hi everyone. I found this report on human rights- or the lack thereof- in Gadaffi's Libya, and thought it might help put the killing of Gadaffi in perspective.

Letter submitted by the Libyan League for Human Rights to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in September 1996:
http://www.libya-watanona.com/libya/hrightsc.htm

This passage especially struck me:
"The Libyan Government has been, throughout this period, known and even famous for its contempt of basic human rights as contained in the very instruments and conventions it has freely entered into. The Libyan President is the only chief of state on record to have called "on all people to throw the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the trash can of history." The Libyan Government is the only government in the world to have adopted, openly, "the physical liquidation" and the killing of its political opponents as official governmental policy. "

The vast majority of the rebel fighters are young men who were born and raised in Gadaffi's Libya. They have lived all their lives without even the most basic human rights. Gadaffi is the one who deliberately stripped them of all their rights and personally destroyed the concept of 'the rule of law' in Libya. The rebel fighters are not professional soldiers and Gaddafi was captured on an active battlefield littered with the dead and wounded from both sides. How can we expect the rebel fighters to behave other than as they did? Frankly, I'm amazed they didn't immediately tear him to pieces with their bare hands.

I'm not condoning the killing, and I do think there should be an official investigation. But the nations of the world had long called on Gadaffi to give himself up and face the charges against him in the World Court- a place where he would have been guaranteed the human rights he had denied the Libyan people for 42 years. He chose not to do so, because he didn't want to give up his totalitarian power or the $200 billion dollars he had stolen from the nation and squirreled away for himself.

Gadaffi had the opportunity to surrender and face trial at the Hague every single day for the last 9 months, but instead he chose to prolong the war and prolong the suffering of all Libyans. Thousand of human beings died as a direct result of his choice. In the end, on that dusty battlefield strewn with human carnage, he suddenly found himself invested with exactly the same human rights and legal protections that he had extended to the Libyan people- that is to say, none.

The same fate has befallen many a dictator before him... but as we all know, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Phil H]

But we should also not forget the lessons of history, lest we have to repeat them.

It seems to me:

REVOLUTION - WEAK OR DIVIDED GOVERNMENT - CHAOS - MASS KILLINGS - ANARCHY - MILITARY RULE - DICTATORSHIP - WAR.

French revolution 1789 and Russian revolution 1917 are cases in point. The first eventuated in Napoleon, the latter in Stalin.

When the Roman republic fell apart c 60 BCE, civil war ensued, with several dictatorships resulting in the principiate of Augustus.

The Iranian revolution replaced the Shah with the Ayatollahs.

The Afghan revolution - against the Russians, brought in the taliban.

The English revolution - 1642-60, resulted in the relative chaos of the Long Parliamant and Rump, Cromwell's protectorate and rule by Major Generals.

The fall of Napoleon III (1870) gave rise to the terror of the Commune.

The variations alter a bit but I fully expact mass genocide in Libya, as the tribes battle to fill the void.

in Egypt, I predict - either a quick military dictatorship (perhaps already in operation): or a weak liberal, "democratically elected" government, confronted by the Brotherhood and the fundamenatlists inMiddle Egypt - they crack down to try to regain control and either end up as Mubarak repeated, or a new military dictatorship. We are already seeing the "brave liberationists" turning on the Copts in Egypt.

None of these countries has any experience of democracy, any democratic tradition or practice, the people are relatively uneducated and the countries are divided, often tribally (Syria, Libya at least). The societies are deeply corrupt, as in Afghanistan, and only a master of the "game" of duplicity and tribal politics can hope to rule. So another Gaddafi, another Mubarak will rise.

If Karzai goes in Afghanistan because the US and UK say they don't like him, chaos will ensure because there is no one to replace him. It will be an almost willful tossing away of 10 years.

Phil

[Robert]

I agree that periods of "chaos" tend to give rise to a "strong" government, but I don't want to overdo it. There is chaos under a dictator - e.g. because of government blunders, people have to queue for hours for bread. There is also the chaos of not knowing whether the police are going to knock on your door in the middle of the night. Dictatorship is more or less government by whim. And not very successful government at that. At the end of Stalin's decades of power, the doctors didn't know if they were going to be purged.

I always think that if you have a gifted dictator - or enlightened despot or whatever you want to call him - he can if he's lucky keep things on an even keel. But if you have an idiot, the damage can be incalculable.

[Phil H]

I always think that if you have a gifted dictator - or enlightened despot or whatever you want to call him - he can if he's lucky keep things on an even keel. But if you have an idiot, the damage can be incalculable.

As the histyory of the Roman Empire illustrates -

Good emperors: Augustus, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius...

Bad emperors - Gaius Caligula, Nero, Commodus...

Though I think things were actually a bit more complicated than that!

Actually, the empire functioned well despite who was at the top, because the structure and bureaucracy was effective.

My point about some dictatorships is that the countries involved have no history of democracy - only of autocracy. Hence Russia is still really an empire ruled by a tsar, even if the name has changed. Indeed Putin (the current Russian strong-man) can give the top job to Medvedev and stil retain the power, then take it back when it suits him. China the same - the Manchu Emperors have given place to men in suits who call themselves Chairman etc, but the reality remains rule by and from the Forbidden City.

Plus ca change.

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

But we should also not forget the lessons of history, lest we have to repeat them.

It seems to me:

REVOLUTION - WEAK OR DIVIDED GOVERNMENT - CHAOS - MASS KILLINGS - ANARCHY - MILITARY RULE - DICTATORSHIP - WAR.

French revolution 1789 and Russian revolution 1917 are cases in point. The first eventuated in Napoleon, the latter in Stalin.

When the Roman republic fell apart c 60 BCE, civil war ensued, with several dictatorships resulting in the principiate of Augustus.

The Iranian revolution replaced the Shah with the Ayatollahs.

The Afghan revolution - against the Russians, brought in the taliban.

The English revolution - 1642-60, resulted in the relative chaos of the Long Parliamant and Rump, Cromwell's protectorate and rule by Major Generals.

The fall of Napoleon III (1870) gave rise to the terror of the Commune.

The variations alter a bit but I fully expact mass genocide in Libya, as the tribes battle to fill the void.

in Egypt, I predict - either a quick military dictatorship (perhaps already in operation): or a weak liberal, "democratically elected" government, confronted by the Brotherhood and the fundamenatlists inMiddle Egypt - they crack down to try to regain control and either end up as Mubarak repeated, or a new military dictatorship. We are already seeing the "brave liberationists" turning on the Copts in Egypt.

None of these countries has any experience of democracy, any democratic tradition or practice, the people are relatively uneducated and the countries are divided, often tribally (Syria, Libya at least). The societies are deeply corrupt, as in Afghanistan, and only a master of the "game" of duplicity and tribal politics can hope to rule. So another Gaddafi, another Mubarak will rise.

If Karzai goes in Afghanistan because the US and UK say they don't like him, chaos will ensure because there is no one to replace him. It will be an almost willful tossing away of 10 years.

Phil

Straight from the book of the great Edmund Burke.

And, there's some truth in it.

The established institutions bind society.

Also:

1) Western countries have no place meddling across the world. 'Time to rein in the idea that the West should educate the world.

2) The ends do not justify the means. Ever.

3) If these people in Afghanistan and Libya and the like are still struggling to master fire and are running around with heads on sticks, then do they deserve democracy? Just leave 'em to it.

Edited to add:

Regarding point 2, in the event 'the ends justify the means' does take root, e.g. the fella was a tyrant and therefore he had to go, foul play or otherwise, then that is a very slippery slope which at the extreme end of the spectrum is reflected in Pol Pot: the Middle Classes just had to go for the benefit of Cambodia.

[Phil H]

Western countries have no place meddling across the world. 'Time to rein in the idea that the West should educate the world.

Except of course, that we need to protect our own national interests and the well-being of our own people.

Hence in failed states we made need to ensure that they cannot be used as bases for terrorism against us. That is basic defence.

So far as "educating the world" is concerned, it is in our interests to ensure literate and numerate populations, if only as markets for our high-technology exports and services.

All this is nothing new, of course. In the main the former empires (C15th-C20th) emerged for economic reasons and then because other states were invaded to ensure "security". We don't do the "colonisation" bit now (other than economic colonialism, PEPSI, brand names etc, of course) but the drivers and processes remain much the same. I don't think that will ever change.

Certainly the wider British public seems strongly resistant to any moves to greater international integration, which seems to say that they expect their national interests to be defended - also jobs etc. Without the loss of national identity within larger blocks (EU, UN) the way the world works is unlikely to change.

There will be interference, involvement and action by the states who can do it.

Phil

[Limehouse]

The really sad thing about Gaddafi is that he started out with the best of intentions and introduced mass education and health care to his people, replacing an old system that cared nothing for the masses.

Where did it all go wrong and how could such a promising start end in such a long, horrific bloodbath?

[Mayerling]

The really sad thing about Gaddafi is that he started out with the best of intentions and introduced mass education and health care to his people, replacing an old system that cared nothing for the masses.

Where did it all go wrong and how could such a promising start end in such a long, horrific bloodbath?

Hi Limehouse and all,

I think it is that almost every despot claims for the favored in his (or her) dictatorship he is trying to do the best that the 'weak" or "confused" democracy never could accomplish. Witness the Perons in Argentina helping out the poor to a great extent while Evita as alive (Juan was less interested when he was alone after she died). Witness Robespierre using his gifts as an orator to destroy every government in the Revolution from 1789 - 1793, then (when he is the seeming strongman in the Reign of Terror) wasting his time trying to replace religion with a "cult of pure reason". Or Bonaparte trying to stabelize his conquests for decades but being unable to resist another military adventure that gave him more glory. And I am certain Stalin fully believed killing small farm owners to create huge farm complexes and forcing the state apparatus to accept "Five Year Plans" was his belief in organized Communist success. Similar to Mao with his Cultural Revolution. Sometimes a political power centalist like Bismarck does the same thing. That Kulterkamp was his attempt to eradicate a nasty set of critics (mostly southern, Catholic Germans) attacking his programs.

Jeff

[DVV]

It's a shame. That said, I won't shed tears for him. But rather for the Christians killed in Egypt and for those that will have to live under islamic law in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Western countries have no place meddling across the world. 'Time to rein in the idea that the West should educate the world.

Except of course, that we need to protect our own national interests and the well-being of our own people.

Hence in failed states we made need to ensure that they cannot be used as bases for terrorism against us. That is basic defence.

So far as "educating the world" is concerned, it is in our interests to ensure literate and numerate populations, if only as markets for our high-technology exports and services.

All this is nothing new, of course. In the main the former empires (C15th-C20th) emerged for economic reasons and then because other states were invaded to ensure "security". We don't do the "colonisation" bit now (other than economic colonialism, PEPSI, brand names etc, of course) but the drivers and processes remain much the same. I don't think that will ever change.

Certainly the wider British public seems strongly resistant to any moves to greater international integration, which seems to say that they expect their national interests to be defended - also jobs etc. Without the loss of national identity within larger blocks (EU, UN) the way the world works is unlikely to change.

There will be interference, involvement and action by the states who can do it.

Phil

Yes, that is the accepted wisdom, Phil.

It wasn't always thus.

The Americans had it right with their isolationist approach. Spend on R&D and the like, concentrate on manufacturing your own products etc, as opposed to spreading your values around the world and bringing along the Haliburtons and Bechtels for good measure (and theft of the local resources).

I believe it was Alexander (forgotten his surname) who stood up in American Parliament in the '70s and made a speech to the effect that as Americans they had a duty to people around the world, and that changed the course of US foreign policy. Pretty similar to Tony Blair's: "from the mountains of X, to the hills of Y, these people are our cause too".

The problem with that approach is whence these principles came. In the case of Blair it's certainly some christian missionary idea that most of us simply do not subscribe to. No problem with christians; big problem with a christian who uses his personal religious values to drive foreign policy.

We have absolutely no right to be in those countries. They're sovereign nations. And, if we're going to base foreign policy on economic gain and markets, then we're in a massive amount of trouble: can it ever be reined in? Whatever happened to principles and sovereignty?

In terms of terrorism, it's quite ridiculous really. Al-Quaeda is a loose association of religious zealots bound by an idea that can never be usurped by Western values. It's a losing battle, and we're stirring up the hornets nest by being in those countries.

And, a spread of ideas is healthy. You or I may not like some of them, but the world really does not need everyone conforming to the same form of government. Quite clearly, democracy is simply an idea; it certainly isn't the one true way to salvation. In the event a country wants a dictatorial government, then fine, leave 'em to it, let 'em sort out the problem for themselves with hundreds of years of social conflict and the like and arrive at whatever conclusion they see fit.

Lastly, I'm not convinced those people are as dangerous as our government would have us believe: it's been a long time since I was hit in the face by an Iranian bomb.

[Phil H]

FM - a thoughtful reply which deserves a thoughtful reply.

The Americans had it right with their isolationist approach.

But in the 20s and 30s that was disastrous in world terms. It led -in part - to the failure of the League of Nations and may have contributed to the onset of WW2.

We have absolutely no right to be in those countries. They're sovereign nations. And, if we're going to base foreign policy on economic gain and markets, then we're in a massive amount of trouble: can it ever be reined in? Whatever happened to principles and sovereignty?

There is and can ever only be one principle to international relations - national self-interest. Basically there is no way you can trust anyone else. Wider organisations like the EU can be developed but the internal members will all fight their own corners. (Look at the USA - when members wished to leave, Lincoln went to war. Will the EU ever have to do the same?)

More powerful nations will always seek to have their way over smaller, less powerful ones - hence the need to maintain a place at the top table for all the movers and shakers. Those who don't move and shake are at the prey of those who do.

In terms of terrorism, it's quite ridiculous really. Al-Quaeda is a loose association of religious zealots bound by an idea that can never be usurped by Western values. It's a losing battle, and we're stirring up the hornets nest by being in those countries.

Butthey exist and are dangerous as 9/11 shows. What would a population do to their Government if a terrorist outrage took place and it was demonstrated that the Government had done nothing to prevent it?

And, a spread of ideas is healthy. You or I may not like some of them, but the world really does not need everyone conforming to the same form of government.

My point about national self-interest - but with that goes the right of self-defence.

Quite clearly, democracy is simply an idea; it certainly isn't the one true way to salvation. In the event a country wants a dictatorial government, then fine, leave 'em to it, let 'em sort out the problem for themselves with hundreds of years of social conflict and the like and arrive at whatever conclusion they see fit.

I agree. As in WW2 Britain did not go to war until Hitler became a threat internationally (Czechoslovakia and Poland). We did not go to war because we disliked his internal methods.

Lastly, I'm not convinced those people are as dangerous as our government would have us believe: it's been a long time since I was hit in the face by an Iranian bomb.

But too late to object or do anything if you are!


Phil

[Natalie Severn]

In the name of Oil

Not 24 hours after Gadaffi's death , Britain had presented the National Transitional council a request to drill for oil..............

Christof Haynes,the UN special rapporteur:
The Geneva Conventions are very clear that when prisoners are taken they may not be executed wilfully and if that was the case then we are dealing with a war crime,something that should be tried.
One eye witness stated: he was being beaten,kicked with rifle butts,boots.
Channel Four showed video evidence of him being sexually assaulted with a metal rod or stick - apparently being pushed into the sewer-[ further accounts say he first appeared with his hands up in surrender and was then made to crawl into the sewer and as he emerged was kicked and beaten ---]

Mrs Clinton said on her visit to Libya the week before stated "We hope he can be captured or killed soon"and on on CBS ,was seen punching the air ,roaring with laughter as Gadaffi was being dragged along before being executed, and later announced ,"We came we saw , he died!"
Libya's interim rulers meanwhile have declared the country liberated -while announcing their intention to reverse Gadaffi-era legislation that served to boost gender inequality.

Hey-lets hope the 'liberation' was worth it. Gadaffi WAS brutal - no denial.But so are a dozen or so other dictators who the West seem happy to do business with..-human rights organisations have quite a bit to say about what has gone on and continues to go on in Saudi Arabia for a kick off let alone Burma Uzbekistan etc
Meanwhile Mustafa Abdul-jalil said yesterday;We look forward to Nato continuing its operations until the end of the year! Well if the blast of Sirte --- mile after mile of it that is-- extends further ----some parts of oil rich Libya have alreadybeen blasted back to the Dark Ages ---maybe they intend turning LIbya into an oil field for Qatar and the West to plunder?.......

[Heinrich]

BP announced on October 25th that its third-quarter profits more than doubled as a result of high oil prices, earning them $4.9 billion, and bringing their total profits earned in 2011 to nearly $16 billion.
This is considered by the English government as "our interests".

[Limehouse]

BP announced on October 25th that its third-quarter profits more than doubled as a result of high oil prices, earning them $4.9 billion, and bringing their total profits earned in 2011 to nearly $16 billion.
This is considered by the English government as "our interests".

Absolutely Heinrich.