Oleh: ZULKIFLI SALLEH
Kira-kira dua bulan selepas kejatuhan Tripoli, namun Muammar Gaddafi masih bersemangat untuk berjuang hingga ke titisan yang akhir. Pada hari Khamis 20 Oktober, Perdana Menteri Libya, Mahmoud Jibril mengumumkan bahawa bekas diktator itu mati dibunuh di bandar kelahirannya, Sirte yang diserang oleh pejuang, selepas lapan bulan berlakunya pemberontakan di negara itu.
Beliau dilaporkan mati akibat luka di kepala dan kakinya, tetapi tidak jelas, sama ada beliau terkorban dalam serangan udara Nato terhadap konvoi yang meninggalkan Sirte, pertempuran di darat, atau di dalam terowong konkrit di bandar itu sendiri. Walau bagaimanapun, pegawai Majlis Peralihan Kebangsaan, dipetik sebagai berkata, "Gaddafi mati selepas ditembak di kepala dan kaki cuba melarikan diri dari Sirte dalam konvoi yang menjadi sasaran pesawat Nato. Juga dilaporkan wujud laporan yang bercanggah tentang penangkapan dan pembunuhan Gaddafi.
Dalam sidang akhbar di Tripoli itu, Perdana Menteri sementara berkata, "Kami menunggu detik begitu lama. Muammar Gaddafi dibunuh."
Pegawai Amerika Syarikat berkata para pemimpin Libya mengesahkan kematian Gaddafi kepada pihak Washington, pada pukul 3.15 petang, waktu United Kingdom. Sebelum ini, gambar menunjukkan apa yang dikatakan mayat dan Gaddafi yang berdarah muncul di kaca televisyen ketika pegawai Nato dan Amerika Syarikat cuba mengesahkan kematiannya. Sesetengah menunjukkan mayat itu diheret di seluruh jalan di Sirte. Anaknya, Muatassim juga dilaporkan dibunuh atau ditawan di Sirte, manakala seorang lagi anaknya, Saif al-Islam dikatakan melarikan diri.
Dengan kematian itu, berakhirnya pemimpin autokrat yang paling lama, dan yang digambarkan melakukan pelbagai kekejaman. Beliau memerintah lebih 40 tahun dan mengheret negaranya yang kaya dengan minyak kepada status paria. Tulis Caryle Murphy dan Tara Bahrampour dalam The Washington Post sebaik-baik sahaja Gaddafi diumumkan mati dibunuh.
Dengan kematian Gaddafi, adakah zaman berlumuran darah akan berakhir?
Dengan kematian Gaddafi, adakah zaman berlumuran darah akan berakhir?
The world wanted an end to Gaddafi’s rule. Gaddafi has finally fallen on his own sword. Is the Arab world pleased?
ReplyDeleteOne battle is over. Gaddafi is gone. But the multiple battles are going to start. Conflicts between NATO's men and the fighters and their supporters on the ground, and conflicts between the foreign forces that have spent billions in the war on Gaddafi:
The vacuum created by Gaddafi's departure is now filled by a sharp polarisation between the rival Libyan camps between pro-Gaddafi and anti Gaddafi Libyans
It is a contest between an independent Libyan economic nationalism and one dominated as we see in all Arab lands by the West. Will the west allow this?
These conflicts are part of the wider scene in the region, which is characterised by polarisation between the internal dynamics of the revolution and the foreign powers' logic of containment and calculated economic control and political domination as we see in KSA
These foreign powers' strategy is to change the old players with new ones. The neo-colonisation game rules are intact. The West will as usual initiate proxy wars manned via allied local elites, thus packing the same wine in a new bottle as they have been doing in Tunisia and Egypt.
In the end the people of Libya are the losers. The masses should never support a regime change that is backed by Western powers as it does not create the necessary change from the point of independent economic nationalism.
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has clearly lost power, it is not certain who has gained it. The anti-regime militiamen that are now streaming into the capital were united by a common enemy in Gaddafi but not much else. How is Nato going to do arm twisting?
ReplyDeleteThe question remains open as to how the rebels can peaceably convert their foreign-assisted victory on the battlefield into a stable peace acceptable to all parties in Libya. Or will they ruin the nation as it was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq?
What happened in Afghanistan? The anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan won military success by foreign air support but destroyed the nation due to tribal wars.
In Iraq, the Americans were over-confident after the easy defeat of Saddam Hussein. Most Iraqis were glad to see the end of Saddam Hussein, but the struggle to replace him destroyed the country.
Will the same thing happen in Libya? In Tripoli, as in most oil states, the government provides most jobs and many Libyans did well under the old regime.
How will they now pay for being on the losing side? The air was thick yesterday with calls from the TNC for their fighters to avoid acts of retaliation.
It is far too early to know if this is a piece of foreign-inspired wishful thinking or will have some beneficial effect on developments. Will Libya get better or join the tragedy of Afghanistan and Iraq due to vested interests?”
The way a leader was brutally killed was most unbecoming of Libyan rebels and their backers
ReplyDeleteIt is far too early to know if Libyan foreign-inspired liberation will have some beneficial effect on real social and economic developments. Will Libya get better or join the tragedy of Afghanistan and Iraq due to vested American interests?
For the purpose of public relation exercises the West prefer submissive democracies that toe the American lines but it loves tyrants who ally with Washington
There are certainly external pressures and there could also be marginal plots instigated and supplied from outside with a big plan for a "profitable" future.
It is terribly sad that the ME rulers and OIC do not work hard in sorting out the political and economic problems of their people. As long as they depend on the West in manufacturing, industrial and economic development, this game as we have witnessed in Iraq will go on, benefiting the MIC of the West not the local Arabs.