On Friday 26th August, my cousin called up the George Galloway show on Talksport to talk about the pleasure of the Libyan people at finally removing Gaddafi from power and how grateful he was in the role NATO played in this. Mr Galloway has been a vociferous critic of NATOs involvement in the Libya conflict, as he was similarly in the UKs involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He compared the situation in Libya to Iraq and Afghanistan, and though he said he supported the revolution, he is against NATO having any part to play.
Now, it should be noted at this point that Mr Galloway may well be right, that the future of Libya may not be as bright as most Libyans hope, but as muslims we always say that the result is in Allah's hands. For us it is but to do our duty and Allah knows best.
However, while speaking to my cousin, he made some inaccurate "truthful" statements that need to be corrected and his analogies with Iraq and Afghanistan are lazy and unexpected of someone with his undoubted intelligence. So, this is my attempt to reply to him, lacking as I do the opportunity to talk directly to him. Also, I am under no illusions that a debate with a orator as convincing and intelligent as Mr Galloway is a very different proposition to writing my thoughts on a blog. I have to be humble enough to accept that.
Before getting to some of the points that were made during the call with my cousin, I want to try to put pay to the lie that Libya is analogous to the situations of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. There are some very key differences that are brushed aside but are so significant to the issue. Now, again, I must stress that I don't know what will happen in Libya and that the likes of George Galloway may prove to be correct and my optimism for my country is mislaid. But the continued assertions of George Galloway and others like him that Libya will become another Iraq or Afghanistan are based upon weak foundations.
Firstly, the ethnic diversity of Libya does not in anyway compare to that of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is approx. 75-80% Arab, 15-20% Kurd and around 5% others. I won't go through all of Afghanistan's demographics, but suffice to say the largest ethnic group is the Pashtuns and they amount to around 42%. In Libya, the primary ethnicity is Arab and Arab-Berber mix, with about 3% other ethnicities including the Berbers. However, the Berbers have assimilated so strongly into the Arab life that my attempts to get an actual figure for just Arab or Berber has proven difficult, as they have mixed so readily and easily that it is hard to differentiate. So, essentially, Libya has the key advantage of ethnically being one people, making it very tough for factions to be drawn along ethnic lines, unlike those other two countries. But then, there is always religion that can differentiate between the people.
In Iraq, the issue of religion is well known. The actual figures splitting Shia and Sunni muslims is difficult to verify. However, what is clear is that Shia muslims are the majority, however, Sunni muslims are a large and significant minority. And doesn't include the christians and other religions in the country. Afghanistan is different insofar as it being largely made up of Sunni muslims, maybe 80-90%. Libya, on the other hand, is pretty much 100% Sunni muslim and so, as above, it is impossible to pick a side based on religion.
Lastly, Libya differs from the other two countries on a very important point. The uprising and removal of the despotic regimes in the aforementioned two countries were initiated and acted on by a foreign force that decided it was better for the people to remove that regime. Libya is very different in that this was without a doubt a popular people's revolution, begun by the people, and primarily fought by the people of Libya. This does not have an invading force and nor are the Libyans divided on this. In fact, the comparison with the "Arab Spring" uprisings with past revolutions are not entirely fair either. When Abdul Nasser and Hafiz al-Assad and our very own Muammer Gaddafi revolted against the regimes of the time, these were not revolutions of the people, but an uprising of an organised and small band of army officers who deemed it necessary to rid the people of the monarchies, but interestingly to install themselves as the indisputable dictators of the country. And so, when a revolution is motivated by the desire the hold and maintain power, as with the past Arab revolutions, dictatorship and corruptness will surely follow.
But as I said, maybe we will all prove to be wrong and Mr Galloway is proven correct despite those clear differences. Maybe NATOs involvement will harm us. But I repeat, the results of any action are in Allah's hands and it is just for us to do our best. Allah says in the Quran "And Allah does not change they situation of a people until the change the situation within themselves".
But now specifically to the conversation my cousin had with George Galloway.
My cousin started off by thanking NATO for their help in removing Gaddafi, recognising that without their help Gaddafi would still be in power. Mr Galloway was quick to say "Don't include me in that", as he "Does not support NATO and never will support NATO".
Then my cousin is asked a very important question "Do you think NATO did this out of the goodness of their heart". Obviously this is more rhetorical, with the implication that NATO and the west are doing this for the sake of Libya's vast oil supplies. As my cousin acknowledged, this may well be the case, but it should be recognised that the West and in particular the UK, had a strong hold of the oil in Libya and held many signifcant contracts under the Gaddafi regime. The UK will be no better off now with the removal of Gaddafi, the Libyan oil will continue to be sold to the West. Maybe, just maybe, their will be some form of "discount". I don't know. However, even with the discount the Libyan people will still see more of that oil wealth and less of it will enter the pockets of the mafia organisation that ran Libya with Gaddafi as the Godfather.
This leads onto a point my cousin raised which was "Under the 42 years of Gaddafi we have not enjoyed the outcome of the oil". Mr Galloway then quickly disputes this statement. "Libya is the most developed country in Africa" he tells us, a statement that he backs up with statistics. However, these are simply facts that obfuscate the truth!!!! Is it really a boast that Libya is the most developed country in Africa? Is this really the evidence to claim that the Libyans have enjoyed the wealth that the oil has provided? And then in saying "I have said many time, Gaddafi should have made every Libyan a multi-millionaire", he misses the point. We don't care about being a multi-millionaire (though it would be nice), but Libya as a country has not been improved and has gone backwards over his 42 year reign.
"Libya has the highest literacy rate in Africa of 88%", a claim that is true and something Libyans should be proud of. It is true that Libyans have had a guaranteed free education until the age of 18. But again, this fact hides the truth. This fact allows Gaddafi apologists to claim that the education system in Libya is strong. Is this how a country judges it's educational success, on how many people can read and write. Why is it, after 42 years of multi-trillion dollar revenue, there is still not one Libyan who gained their PhD in Libya? Why is it that after 42 years of Gaddafi reign, Libya still sends it's students abroad to gain a Master's degree? Where is the investment in Libya???? Why is it that our best people, doctors, engineers and academics still feel the need to practice their expertise abroad and for the less talented to remain in the country?
And why is it that after 42 years, Libya has no public transport system, no quality infrastructure, a poor healthcare system? Why is it, 42 years after King Idris was deposed we have an unemployment level of 30%? No, the Libyan wealth has not been enjoyed by the Libyan people despite the "statistics". We cannot compare it the rest of Africa, which is far poorer in general and does not have our advantages. Why, Mr Galloway, should we as Libyans, compare ourselves to Africa, when I want to compare us to UK, Sweden, Canada and the US?
The confusing thing in the whole conversation is that Mr Galloway continues to say he supports the revolution and the removal of Gaddafi, but finds it difficult to understand that Libya could not have achieved the success it achieved without help. I am no supporter of NATO. I would have liked to say that we could have achieved the removal of Gaddafi without the help of NATO. However, after 42 years of repression, culturally, socially, educationally and economically, the Libyans could not have achieved it. Do I thank NATO for their assistance? Yes. Do I fear that those countries that invested so heavily in helping us will now expect more than their fair share of Libyan wealth? Yes! But do I have hope that Libya will see more of that wealth and that we can move the country forward finally? As a muslim I will always be an optimist and I can see it happening. If the only thing that comes out of this is that we can finally stop having to display a photo of an evil, despotic, tyrannical and downright ugly dictator upon the walls of our businesses then we have moved forward from where we were.
Finally, I want to stress that I still have a distinct respect for George Galloway, his backing of the Arab people especially in Palestine and his clear and deep understanding of the Islamic religion. I hope he understands that when you have lived under repression for so many years, sometimes the lesser of two evils is our best hope.
Reda
Now, it should be noted at this point that Mr Galloway may well be right, that the future of Libya may not be as bright as most Libyans hope, but as muslims we always say that the result is in Allah's hands. For us it is but to do our duty and Allah knows best.
However, while speaking to my cousin, he made some inaccurate "truthful" statements that need to be corrected and his analogies with Iraq and Afghanistan are lazy and unexpected of someone with his undoubted intelligence. So, this is my attempt to reply to him, lacking as I do the opportunity to talk directly to him. Also, I am under no illusions that a debate with a orator as convincing and intelligent as Mr Galloway is a very different proposition to writing my thoughts on a blog. I have to be humble enough to accept that.
Before getting to some of the points that were made during the call with my cousin, I want to try to put pay to the lie that Libya is analogous to the situations of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. There are some very key differences that are brushed aside but are so significant to the issue. Now, again, I must stress that I don't know what will happen in Libya and that the likes of George Galloway may prove to be correct and my optimism for my country is mislaid. But the continued assertions of George Galloway and others like him that Libya will become another Iraq or Afghanistan are based upon weak foundations.
Firstly, the ethnic diversity of Libya does not in anyway compare to that of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is approx. 75-80% Arab, 15-20% Kurd and around 5% others. I won't go through all of Afghanistan's demographics, but suffice to say the largest ethnic group is the Pashtuns and they amount to around 42%. In Libya, the primary ethnicity is Arab and Arab-Berber mix, with about 3% other ethnicities including the Berbers. However, the Berbers have assimilated so strongly into the Arab life that my attempts to get an actual figure for just Arab or Berber has proven difficult, as they have mixed so readily and easily that it is hard to differentiate. So, essentially, Libya has the key advantage of ethnically being one people, making it very tough for factions to be drawn along ethnic lines, unlike those other two countries. But then, there is always religion that can differentiate between the people.
In Iraq, the issue of religion is well known. The actual figures splitting Shia and Sunni muslims is difficult to verify. However, what is clear is that Shia muslims are the majority, however, Sunni muslims are a large and significant minority. And doesn't include the christians and other religions in the country. Afghanistan is different insofar as it being largely made up of Sunni muslims, maybe 80-90%. Libya, on the other hand, is pretty much 100% Sunni muslim and so, as above, it is impossible to pick a side based on religion.
Lastly, Libya differs from the other two countries on a very important point. The uprising and removal of the despotic regimes in the aforementioned two countries were initiated and acted on by a foreign force that decided it was better for the people to remove that regime. Libya is very different in that this was without a doubt a popular people's revolution, begun by the people, and primarily fought by the people of Libya. This does not have an invading force and nor are the Libyans divided on this. In fact, the comparison with the "Arab Spring" uprisings with past revolutions are not entirely fair either. When Abdul Nasser and Hafiz al-Assad and our very own Muammer Gaddafi revolted against the regimes of the time, these were not revolutions of the people, but an uprising of an organised and small band of army officers who deemed it necessary to rid the people of the monarchies, but interestingly to install themselves as the indisputable dictators of the country. And so, when a revolution is motivated by the desire the hold and maintain power, as with the past Arab revolutions, dictatorship and corruptness will surely follow.
But as I said, maybe we will all prove to be wrong and Mr Galloway is proven correct despite those clear differences. Maybe NATOs involvement will harm us. But I repeat, the results of any action are in Allah's hands and it is just for us to do our best. Allah says in the Quran "And Allah does not change they situation of a people until the change the situation within themselves".
But now specifically to the conversation my cousin had with George Galloway.
My cousin started off by thanking NATO for their help in removing Gaddafi, recognising that without their help Gaddafi would still be in power. Mr Galloway was quick to say "Don't include me in that", as he "Does not support NATO and never will support NATO".
Then my cousin is asked a very important question "Do you think NATO did this out of the goodness of their heart". Obviously this is more rhetorical, with the implication that NATO and the west are doing this for the sake of Libya's vast oil supplies. As my cousin acknowledged, this may well be the case, but it should be recognised that the West and in particular the UK, had a strong hold of the oil in Libya and held many signifcant contracts under the Gaddafi regime. The UK will be no better off now with the removal of Gaddafi, the Libyan oil will continue to be sold to the West. Maybe, just maybe, their will be some form of "discount". I don't know. However, even with the discount the Libyan people will still see more of that oil wealth and less of it will enter the pockets of the mafia organisation that ran Libya with Gaddafi as the Godfather.
This leads onto a point my cousin raised which was "Under the 42 years of Gaddafi we have not enjoyed the outcome of the oil". Mr Galloway then quickly disputes this statement. "Libya is the most developed country in Africa" he tells us, a statement that he backs up with statistics. However, these are simply facts that obfuscate the truth!!!! Is it really a boast that Libya is the most developed country in Africa? Is this really the evidence to claim that the Libyans have enjoyed the wealth that the oil has provided? And then in saying "I have said many time, Gaddafi should have made every Libyan a multi-millionaire", he misses the point. We don't care about being a multi-millionaire (though it would be nice), but Libya as a country has not been improved and has gone backwards over his 42 year reign.
"Libya has the highest literacy rate in Africa of 88%", a claim that is true and something Libyans should be proud of. It is true that Libyans have had a guaranteed free education until the age of 18. But again, this fact hides the truth. This fact allows Gaddafi apologists to claim that the education system in Libya is strong. Is this how a country judges it's educational success, on how many people can read and write. Why is it, after 42 years of multi-trillion dollar revenue, there is still not one Libyan who gained their PhD in Libya? Why is it that after 42 years of Gaddafi reign, Libya still sends it's students abroad to gain a Master's degree? Where is the investment in Libya???? Why is it that our best people, doctors, engineers and academics still feel the need to practice their expertise abroad and for the less talented to remain in the country?
And why is it that after 42 years, Libya has no public transport system, no quality infrastructure, a poor healthcare system? Why is it, 42 years after King Idris was deposed we have an unemployment level of 30%? No, the Libyan wealth has not been enjoyed by the Libyan people despite the "statistics". We cannot compare it the rest of Africa, which is far poorer in general and does not have our advantages. Why, Mr Galloway, should we as Libyans, compare ourselves to Africa, when I want to compare us to UK, Sweden, Canada and the US?
The confusing thing in the whole conversation is that Mr Galloway continues to say he supports the revolution and the removal of Gaddafi, but finds it difficult to understand that Libya could not have achieved the success it achieved without help. I am no supporter of NATO. I would have liked to say that we could have achieved the removal of Gaddafi without the help of NATO. However, after 42 years of repression, culturally, socially, educationally and economically, the Libyans could not have achieved it. Do I thank NATO for their assistance? Yes. Do I fear that those countries that invested so heavily in helping us will now expect more than their fair share of Libyan wealth? Yes! But do I have hope that Libya will see more of that wealth and that we can move the country forward finally? As a muslim I will always be an optimist and I can see it happening. If the only thing that comes out of this is that we can finally stop having to display a photo of an evil, despotic, tyrannical and downright ugly dictator upon the walls of our businesses then we have moved forward from where we were.
Finally, I want to stress that I still have a distinct respect for George Galloway, his backing of the Arab people especially in Palestine and his clear and deep understanding of the Islamic religion. I hope he understands that when you have lived under repression for so many years, sometimes the lesser of two evils is our best hope.
Reda
No comments:
Post a Comment