The term “dictator” seems to be quite tender and mild for describing someone who has been ruling a country for more than 41 years and 178 days without assuming any responsibility before the international community for the felonies which he had been committing during these years.
The uncompromising tyrant of Libya Muammar Gaddafi who has just staged an all-out bloodbath in the big and small cities of his country, relentlessly opened fire against the defenseless citizens and unarmed civilians of Libya and killed more than 1,000 people in less than one week is seemingly approaching the ending days of his uncontested monarchy.
Muammar Gaddafi has just set the record of the longest serving non-royal leader of the world, followed by Cameroon’s Paul Biya and Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh; however, it seems that the flamboyant dictator will not be able to celebrate the 42nd year of his government without trouble.
The American journalist Melissa Bell recently allude to an interesting point regarding Gaddafi’s controversial and dishonorable life which may connotatively reveal the West’s disagreement on how to deal with this notorious leader. “The Washington Post uses “Mammar Gaddafi.” The Associated Press opts for “Gadhafi.” The New York Times uses “Qaddafi.” In 2009, ABC News reported 112 variations on [the spelling of his] name.” And the Associated Press’ Tom Breen hits the point, “will the Libyan leader lose power before the West agrees on how to spell his name?”
Disagreement over the spelling of Gaddafi’s name is not a simple lingual barricade caused by the phonological differences of Arabic and English. Despite the fact that the United States and its main European allies, namely the United Kingdom and France, unanimously imposed a new round of financial sanctions against Libya and froze the foreign assets of Colonel Gaddafi, the 21st century has been the turning point of Libya’s relation with the West. Italy, under the premiership of Silvio Berlusconi, who is the European counterpart of Muammar Gaddafi in terms of unsavory reputation, signed an agreement to pay Libya $5 billion over 25 years in compensation for the damages which the African nation underwent as a result of Italy’s colonial administration.
This movement was described by Berlusconi as a “complete and moral acknowledgement of the damage inflicted on Libya by Italy during the colonial era.” In September 2008, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Gaddafi and announced the commencement of a “new phase” in the bilateral relations between the two countries.
On the eve of the 21st century, Libya began to pursue a policy of the so-called Western-Libyan détente and mutually received significant financial and diplomatic support from the West. On November 17, 2008 UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office minister Bill Rammell signed five agreements with Libya, expressing satisfaction over the conclusion of these agreements, “I will today sign four bilateral agreements with my Libyan counterpart, Abdulatti al-Obidi, which will strengthen our judicial ties, as agreed during Tony Blair’s visit to Libya in May last year. In addition, we are signing today a Double Taxation Convention which will bring benefits to British business in Libya and Libyan investors in the UK – benefits in terms of certainty, clarity and transparency and reducing tax compliance burdens. We are also in the final stages of negotiating an agreement to protect and promote investment.”
Moreover, Gaddafi improved relations with Italy under the premiership of Silvio Berlusconi and met several high-ranking officials of the European nation, including President Giorgio Napolitano, during his February 6, 2009 visit to Rome.
However and so forth, the world today witnesses the unambiguous violation of human rights by the “mad dog of the Middle East” who has vowed to fight until dying as a “martyr” and has come to the conclusion that this terrorist should not be supported and held up anymore.
The United Nations Security Council is about to convene on the recent uprising in Libya to adopt measures to end the state-sanctioned violence and relentless massacre of the Libyan pro-democracy protesters by the mercenaries of Muammar Gaddafi. The measures would include an arms embargo on the sale or purchase of all types of weapons to and from Libya and would refer the reported cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Astonishing figures and statistics are leaking out of Libya. The United States has closed its embassy in Tripoli and 16,000 Chinese have been evacuated from the war-stricken country. Canada has suspended its diplomatic presence in Libya and started to push out its citizens from the Gaddafi-manufactured hell. Libyan ambassador to UN Mohamed Shalgham who just described Gaddafi as his “friend” three days ago is now asking the international community to take action against the old-hand dictator and save the country from the violence he has unleashed on the pro-democracy protesters and demonstrators.
News media reported that Bangladesh, the UK, Egypt, India, Nigeria, the Philippines and South Korea which have the largest communities in Libya are helping their citizens to abscond the war-torn Libya as soon as possible. They are dispatching charter flights and vessels to Libya to help their citizens flee Tripoli, Benghazi and other large cities where the violence is culminating to a humanitarian crisis.
Shalgham was widely embraced by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and other diplomats residing in New York as he denounced the atrocities of Gaddafi’s regime and went on to appeal to the international community to come to the help of Libyan people. He hugged Libya’s Deputy Ambassador to UN Ibrahim Dabbashi as he was shedding tears at the end of his speech to the Security Council.
At any rate and despite the fact that Gaddafi has called his opponents a bunch of “addicts and hooligans” and although his son has pledged to fight until the last bullet, it sounds that the 42-year-old autocracy in Libya is coming to an end and the popular uprising of the Libyan nation is going to bear fruits. Perhaps the destiny of Gaddafi and Mubarak will alarm the dictators who think that they can remain in power by trampling the bloods of their citizens.