Gaddafi did some great things for Libya, but I don't think he was a particularly great Pan-African leader. This picture demonstrates why. He supported Idi Amin's invasion of Tanzania when Julius Nyerere was president. He also supported Eritrea against Ethiopia when Haile Selassie was in power, and then switched sides to support Ethiopia against Eritrea after Selassie was taken out of power. Yet here he is displaying the pictures of both men on his shirt as if he supported them when they were alive. Gaddafi never really had a consistent Pan-African policy or vision. Even his anti-imperialism was inconsistent. The CIA used to help him to capture and torture people before the US decided to turn on him.
Mu'ammar Al-Qadhdhāfī
Ghadafi, one of the greatest pan Africanist.
They brainwashed you and told you all the lies in the world to paint him bad.
Under Ghadafi, Libya was a prosperous and rich country and Ghadafi also ensured the stability of the whole region.
For standing for the unity of Africa and standing against imperialist,they killed him in cold blood.
They feasted on Tripoli and left the whole region in chaos.
The rest is history.
Ghadafi is an African hero.
After Colonel Gaddafi's death the UK parliament ruled out that all the evidence tabled by the (USA) Obama administration against Gaddafi was false and misleading. That he was a good patriotic man who wanted the best for Libyans and Africa.
Never forget why Gaddafi Was Killed
Mr. Gaddafi wanted to empower Africa. He had a plan to create a new African Union, based on a new African economic system. He had a plan to introduce the ‘Gold Dinar’ as backing for African currencies, so they could become free from the dollar-dominated western monetary system, that kept and keeps usurping Africa; Africa’s vast natural resources, especially oil and minerals. As a first step, he offered this lucrative and very beneficial alternative to other Muslim African states, but leaving it open for any other African countries to join.
At the time of Gaddafi’s atrocious murdering by Hillary Clinton, then Obama’s Secretary of State, and the French President Sarkozy, driven by NATO forces, on 20 October 2011 – Libya’s gold reserves were estimated at close to 150 tons, and about the same amount of silver. The estimated value at that time was $7 billion.
It’s your guess who may have stolen this enormous treasure from the people of Libya. As of this date, it is nowhere to be found.
Gaddafi also wanted to detach his oil sales from the dollar, i.e. no longer trading hydrocarbons in US dollars, as was the US/OPEC imposed rule since the early 1970s. Other African and Middle Eastern oil and gas producers would have followed. In fact, Iran had already in 2007, a plan to introduce the Tehran Oil Bourse, where anyone could trade hydrocarbons in currencies other than the US dollar. That idea came to a sudden halt, when Bush (George W) started accusing Iran of planning to build a nuclear bomb which was, of course, a fabricated lie, confirmed by the 16 most prominent US security agencies- and later also by the UN body for nuclear safety – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in Vienna. Washington needed a pretext to stop the Tehran Oil Bourse which would have decimated the need for dollars, and thereby most probably would have meant the end of the dollar hegemony.
Saddam Hussein had the same idea. He promised as soon as the murderous and criminal embargo imposed by the UN – of course dictated by Washington – would end in 2000, he would sell his petrol in euros. He was killed.
Gaddafi’s new plan for Africa would have meant an entirely new banking system for Africa, away from the now western (mainly France and UK) central banks dominated African currencies. It would have meant the collapse of the US dollar - or at least an enormous blow to this fake dollar based western monetary system.
So, the Gold Dinar was not to happen. Anybody – to this day- who threatens the dollar hegemony will have to die. That means anybody other than China and Russia, because they have already a few years ago largely detached their economy from the dollar, by implementing hydrocarbons as well as other international contracts in gold or the respective local currencies. That alone has already helped reducing dollar holdings in international reserve coffers from almost 90% some 20 years ago to a rate fluctuating between 50% and 60% today.
Also the Washington/CIA induced “Arab Spring” was to turn the entire Middle East into one huge chaos zone - which today, of course, it is. And there are no plans to secure it and to return it to normalcy, to what it was before. To the contrary, chaos allows to divide-and-conquer – to balkanize, as is the plan for Syria and Iraq. One of the Washington-led western goals of this chaos of constant conflict is to eventually install a system of private central banks in the Middle Eastern/North African countries controlled by Washington – privately owned central banks, à la Federal Reserve (FED), where the neocons, the Rothschilds and freemasonry would call the shots. That is expected to help stabilize the US dollar hegemony, as the hydrocarbons produced in this region generate trillions of dollars in trading per year.
Gaddafi also wanted to introduce, or had already started introducing into Africa, a wireless telephone system that would do away with the US/European monopolies, with the Alcatels and AT&Ts of this world, which dominate and usurp the African market without scruples.
Gaddafi was not only the leader of Libya, he had ambitions to free Africa from the nefarious fangs of the west. Despite being called a dictator and despot by the west – they do that to anyone who doesn’t submit to Washington’s rules – he was very much liked by Libyans, by his people.
He had a more than 80% approval rate by the Libyan people. Libya’s oil fortune had allowed him to create a social system in his country where everybody would benefit from their land’s riches – free health care, free education, including scholarships abroad, modern infrastructure, top-notch technology in medicine, and more. See Less
The anniversary of Gaddafi’s death and the current reality in Libya
Libya since the fall of Gaddafi represents a tragic example of how a country that used to be stable, and which is rich in oil reserves, can be bled dry not only by outside intervention, but from internal conflict as well, writes Yury Zinin
‘SECURITY problems, political discord, oil blockades, corruption, and Libya’s foreign debt, which has reached 270 per cent of its GDP, all torpedo economic life,’ said Central Bank of Libya governor Sadiq al-Kabir. Oil revenues in Libya have plummeted, from $53 billion in 2012 to near zero this year, he added.
These words, spoken on the eve of another anniversary of the assassination of Libyan leader M Gaddafi on October 20, 2011, do in fact serve to illustrate what the country has come to over the past nine years of its history, since the collapse of the previous regime.
Having come to rule with massive outside support from NATO, the new forces, although they inherited huge financial reserves and the potential following the era of the previous leader, became dependent on the various militias that brought them to power. Along with that, these ‘brothers-in-arms’ soon turned into implacable enemies. The country fell into an abyss of civil strife and, since the summer of 2014, has been divided into two military and political camps, with one pole of power in Tripoli and the other in Tobruk. Because of this turmoil, Libya’s development has come to a standstill, and GDP is dropping. In comparison with previous times, it has slid backwards in many respects.
The oil sector has become hostage to conflicts in society, a source of funding for diverse groups that act in opposition to national interests. However, there is plainly a growing shadow economy, flourishing of currency fraud, the smuggling of goods, illegal emigrants, etc.
The dependence of the Libyan authorities on external forces, both regionally and globally, has increased. At the same time, the intra-Libyan conflict does not have a clearly defined bloc ‘tutelage’. The aspirations of the ‘stakeholder forces’ have many different thrusts. Their desire to resolve their differences by taking to the Libyan field is often seen, and that, among other things, is fraught with the likelihood of collisions occurring between them.
Since 2015, the UN has been initiating efforts to reconcile the opposing poles in Libya. Delegates from the warring parties participate nonstop in different series of negotiations, sometimes under the auspices of the UN, sometimes hosted by major powers, or as part of the efforts put forth by various neighbouring states and the African Union. These kinds of conferences and meetings, including those between the leaders of the two camps, were held in no less than a dozen cities on three continents, including Moscow.
It is encouraging that so far the opposing sides have been honouring the decision they made on August 21 this year for a ceasefire. A number of local and foreign observers have pinned their hopes on three tracks for the negotiation process, all of which are now going on simultaneously.
The efforts by various mediators have not turned the tide, or yielded any decisive results. No new constitution has been adopted, and no presidential elections, or elections for a new parliament have been held.
For example, at talks in the Moroccan city of Bouznika under the auspices of the UN Support Mission in Libya, they reached ‘a mutual understanding on the transparency of the standards and mechanisms’ used to allocate key positions in the government, and throughout other echelons.
In the Swiss city of Montreux, the participants agreed that for the duration of a comprehensive resolution of the intra-Libyan crisis, Sirte, which effectively divides the North African country, will become the seat of the executive and legislative bodies.
In the Egyptian city of Hurghada, Libyan representatives talked about building on the peaceful respite, and restructuring the armed forces.
Libyan experts note that there is a long distance between the decisions that were announced, and the mutual understanding that was reached, to realising them. From circles close to the governing bodies and military authorities in Tripoli and Tobruk, criticism is spilling forth about the agreements that are progressing on these tracks.
At the same time, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no ground for agreements or compromises. First, the balance of power in Libya does not allow either of the two poles to achieve final victory by military means.
These issues for the opposing sides can serve as a starting point for moving towards each other. Among everything else, the Libyan public is putting pressure on top officials. In August this year in Tripoli and Benghazi, the largest cities for both poles of power, there were demonstrations by residents who were tired of political instability and socioeconomic hardship.
Second, Libya today is divided by the parties into peculiar areas of responsibility, but along with that none of them is economically self-sufficient. For example, most of the fields, pipelines, and oil terminals are in the sphere of influence of the authorities in Tobruk. But normal operations for the entire economic infrastructure under its control are impossible without interacting with the other component present in the Libyan conflict. In matters concerning producing oil, selling it, and earning revenue from it, the key role is still played by the state acting as a rentier, and in which economics and politics are fused in a union of marriage.
Libya since the fall of Gaddafi represents a tragic example of how a country that used to be stable, and which is rich in oil reserves, can be bled dry not only by outside intervention, but from internal conflict as well.
Muammar Gaddafi's son suggests he may run for president in Libya.
The 49-year-old, who before 2011 had been seen as his father's presumed successor, said politicians in the decade since have brought Libyans "nothing but misery".
"It is time for a return to the past. The country is on its knees. There's no money, no security. There's no life here," Saif al-Islam said in his first appearance in years.