Qaddafi — getting what he deserves

Muammar Qaddafi is not just another Mubarak or Ben Ali, both of whom were corrupt and tyrannical, he’s more in the class of Haiti’s Papa ‘doc’ Duvalier and Uganda’s Idi Amin Dada who were that, and also homicidal nutcases (take your pick).

Papa Doc had a fondness for voodoo and black magic. However, he did not merely stick pins into pin cushions to get back at his enemies, he stuck his ‘pins’ (nails) directly into them and watched with glee as they writhed in agony.

Idi Amin, folklore has it, allegedly ate his enemies. Incidentally, both Papa Doc and Amin died peacefully in their sleep — so much for justice eventually catching up with the wicked. In Idi Amin’s case, he died in exile in a splendid villa provided by the Saudis.

I had the misfortune of meeting Amin when tasked with recording minutes for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Lahore during the Islamic Summit in 1974. He arrived for a meeting on his police escort’s motorcycle, dressed in a white T-shirt, with his son perched on the handlebar. His first words to me were to “catch the deer” which were wandering in the lawns of the governor’s house. Fortunately, before I could say anything, ZAB arrived. The next 20 minutes — that’s how long it took ZAB to realise he was dealing with a loon — were farcical.

Also at the summit was Qaddafi, whose megalomaniacal propensities had by then not reached full bloom. However, Qaddafi made up for lost time soon enough, comparing himself to Jesus Christ and the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and naming himself King of Kings and Imam of All Muslims (International Herald Tribune, March 26). By then, he had published what he called the “new gospel”, his now notorious The Green Book. The book, which was compulsory reading for the population, had such profound truths in it as the discovery that women menstruate and men do not. Qaddafi had a predilection to be surrounded by women, preferably big buxom virgins, although one Ukrainian bodyguard who fled the country was clearly not a virgin, considering that her daughter awaited her arrival at Kiev airport, unless, of course, hers was another immaculate conception arranged by Qaddafi.

There are countless examples of Qaddafi’s madness, none of which would have mattered to the world, and especially the West, had Qaddafi not finally fallen foul of his long-suffering people. Their revolt provided an excuse for some form of humanitarian intervention, although not enough for military action. But Qaddafi stupidly created that pretext by slaughtering a hundred or so protesters in Tripoli and swearing not only to turn his guns against his opponents but “going from house to house” killing them “like vermin” for their disloyalty. That was excuse enough for the West — with Russia and China opportunistically abstaining — to get a UN Security Council resolution giving them a virtual carte blanche to deal with him. Needless to say, humanitarian concerns are fairly low down western priorities; the chance to get rid of Qaddafi and benefit from unimpeded access to Libyan oil is predictably more appealing.

So uniquely evil is Qaddafi that it was surprising that our Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and the foreign secretary, in their meeting on March 26, chose to announce that the UNSC Resolution 1973 authorising air strikes against him violated Libya’s sovereignty and complained that such “military actions undermine the Islamic world”. How a UN Security Council resolution can violate a country’s sovereignty, considering that all UN members undertake to abide by the UN Charter which specifically allows the UNSC to act on behalf of member states, regardless of whether or not they agree, is puzzling.

As for the resolution undermining the Islamic world, is it air strikes which undermine the Islamic world or loons like Qaddafi who invite such reaction by murdering and massacring their own people? Surely, it is time to admit that narrow and parochial definitions of ‘sovereignty’ and contrived legalese do not wash any more. They do not reflect either the ways of the world or the prevalent international morality. Such legalistic hair-splitting is best confined to academic discussions.

In any case, the Arab League, which is about as ‘Islamic’ an organisation as any, supported military intervention in a fellow Arab state, and hence our foreign secretary’s objections on behalf of the ‘Islamic world’ were unnecessary. Somehow, we just cannot avoid insinuating ourselves as champions of the ‘Islamic world’. We are prepared to speak up for and even die for Islam, but not live for it. When an American pastor desecrated the Holy Quran, it was the Pakistan president who called his Turkish counterpart to suggest a joint protest. Nobody called Zardari. Actually, no other head of a Muslim country thinks it worthwhile to burnish their credentials as a Muslim by doing what even the American president has condemned as an abominable act. Only Zardari thinks so, and obviously only because he thinks there is political kudos to be derived; and that’s because converts like us never seem to tire showing off how genuine has been our conversion.

On the other hand, there was not a squeak out of the Foreign Office as Qaddafi’s troops terrorised Pakistani labourers fleeing the fighting and divested them of the fruits of their labour. No hearings were scheduled by any Senate committee, presumably because that would reveal ‘Islamic unity’ for the pious fraud that it is. Neither has a hearing been scheduled on the murder of Pakistanis, merely because they were Pakistanis, by bloodthirsty Bahrainis; nor compensation demanded for their heirs like those obtained from the likes of those who paid up on behalf of Raymand Davis. It’s about time we realised that we will never succeed in convincing anyone, not even ourselves, that we are a different and a superior species of Muslims and that the trick is to stop trying. The fact is Qaddafi deserves all that lies in store for him.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 29^th, 2011.