“Mentor” of political Islam dies in Turkey

By Seyfeddin Kara

While Muslims in the Islamic East and North Africa were going through great turmoil, in February, the Muslims of Turkey lost one of their greatest leaders. Professor Necmeddin Erbakan had been in hospital since early January for various problems and he finally died on February 27 of cardiac and respiratory failure at the age of 85.

Nicknamed “Khoca” (mentor), Erbakan was born on 29 October 1926 in the city of Sinop, on the Black Sea coast in Northern Turkey. He was an exceptionally bright student and excelled in his studies from an early age. After completing his high school education, he earned a degree in mechanical engineering in 1948 and pursued an academic career in Germany. He received a PhD in 1953 from the RWTH Aachen University there, and then participated in major military projects in the world famous Deutz factories in Germany. This period of his life was particularly important for young Erbakan as he was deeply impressed by the rapid revitalization of German industry, as well as the discipline and efficiency that Germans demonstrated during this process.

When he returned to Turkey, Erbakan wanted to implement his experiences in Turkey and achieve a similar level of industrial and technological progress. However, he did not wish to adopt the “German model” without major alterations. He was a deeply committed Muslim and thus wanted to create a synthesis between Islamic awakening and western technological and economic supremacy. This is what many Islamic thinkers and activists had been trying to achieve since the turn of the 19th century and had fallen short. Erbakan was a pragmatist who did not confine himself into a particular methodology and did what had to be done within the methodology of the Prophet (pbuh) to best achieve his goals. He was not Machiavellian in any sense: he adhered to strict Islamic principles and never compromised them, regardless of the heavy cost he was forced to pay.

Erbakan first wanted to work as an academic to realize his vision of Turkey. He was a celebrated engineer with revolutionary ideas. Erbakan presented many projects, which would boost Turkey’s economy, to the appropriate ministers of state at the time. The most important of these projects was to manufacture a car in Turkey, in a symbolic push to achieve an industrial revolution and eschew dependence on western technology. Erbakan’s vision was far beyond the comprehension of the 1960s Turkey, hence his projects were trashed without careful consideration.

He realized that he could not achieve his goals as an academic. The source of problems in Turkey was political and needed to be addressed by political means. A few years after becoming a professor in 1965, he decided to run as an independent candidate from Konya in 1969, winning in a landslide victory and becoming an MP. Soon after, he established the National Order Party which would later be known as the first “Islamic political party” of Turkey. Many believe that Erbakan was not alone in his struggle; his spiritual guidance came from Mehmet Zahid Kotku, a very influential Sufi (Naqshbandi) shaykh who reportedly encouraged Erbakan to set up a political party which would serve the needs of Muslims in Turkey. Although religious guidance came from Sheikh Kotku, Erbakan alone hatched the main political tenets of his political movement, which continued to be active for four decades in Turkey’s hostile political environment.

According to Ali Bulac, a renowned Muslim thinker in Turkey, Erbakan’s political discourse, known as National View or Turkish Islamism had three distinct characteristics:

1. It has always operated within a representative framework and never strayed outside of the law. Thus Turkish Islamism has strongly and clearly opposed using violence, terrorism and other drastic methods for political gains. Erbakan’s movement was considered to be “an opposition within the system”.

2. It embraced an anti-elitist discourse and political agenda. Turkish Islamism defended a heterogenic social structure in which various groups should be able to enjoy a social, cultural, economic and political existence. Erbakan’s movement was a vociferous critique of the domination of the bureaucracy, politics and economy by a “special” minority.

3. It aimed to create Muslim unity through regional integration in which Turkey plays an active role. The D-8 project, an economic organization founded by Erbakan in 1997, was a major step toward establishing economic, political and social unity among the Muslim countries.

We may add a fourth characteristic which Ali Bulac chooses to not to mention in his analyses, which would be, of course, Erbakan’s staunch opposition to Zionism. In fact this characteristic was at the core of his teachings, as Erbakan believed that Zionism has been the sole reason for the depleted and weak situation of the Muslims, and the only way to escape from the current situation is to eliminate Zionism.

“Zionism is the cause of all evil”

In Erbakan’s perception, Israel was considered to be a major threat against not only Muslim Arabs, but also Muslims of all persuasions in general. He believed Israel’s ambitions could not be contained within its current borders and sooner or later would threaten Turkish sovereignty. Erbakan based his anticipation on the common Jewish belief mentioned in the Old Testament and oft-repeated by Zionist forefathers. According to this belief the so-called “promised lands” include the area between the rivers Euphrates and Nile, which covers a significant portion of Turkish territory. Erbakan did not hesitate to express his views on the ambitious Israeli expansion project in 1996 in a high level government meeting while he was still prime minister:

There are two blue lines on the top and bottom of the star in the Israeli flag. These lines are symbols. The top line represents the Euphrates, the bottom line the Nile. According to Jewish belief these borders are the natural borders of the state of Israel.

Erbakan had always accused Israel of meddling in Turkish political affairs and held Zionism responsible for shedding the blood of fellow Turkish citizens, especially in the turmoil of the 1970s wherein rival factions from communists, nationalists and Islamists would kill each other on a daily basis. When Israel announced Jerusalem to be their capital in 1980, Erbakan stated:

Those who know Zionism compare it to an octopus. This octopus has numberless arms. Communism is one arm, capitalism another arm, freemasonry a side branch, racism another arm. Those who become part of these currents, without knowing, are serving Zionism, are fighting for Zionism — whatever they might call themselves.

Erbakan also pointed out the so-called “world domination of Zionism”. He believed that Zionism through economic and political dominance had enslaved not only Muslims but the world population. He was adept in using his anti-Zionist discourse in his domestic campaign to convince electors. He made a clear distinction between his movement and the other political movements operating in Turkey. He averred that anyone who is not part of his movement is intentionally or unintentionally taking side with Zionism:

Zionism, which has its centre in Wall Street of New York, is an ideological power. They believe that they are God’s chosen people and that other people are created to become their slaves. They believe that they will dominate the world and the more they exploit other people the more worship pleasure they take. Zionists have world imperialism under their control. They exploit all humanity with the capitalist system based on interest. They continue their political dominance of the world through imperialist states. In Turkey imperialism and Zionism support the “imitation parties” [all political parties other than Erbakan’s party] and these parties try by all means to rule the country.

A constant political struggle



Erbakan also believed that political dependence on the West, and Westernization of social life was a Zionist plot that Muslims in general should be aware of. It was their ultimate aim to destroy Islamic values and social life, so that the Muslim masses could be kept under control. Erbakan considered secularism to be a part of the Westernization project and criticized it tirelessly, a stand which worked against his political career at the very early stages. His first party, the National Order Party, established in 1970 was disqualified and shut down during the following year on charges of acting against secularism. After a brief hiatus, Erbakan founded the National Salvation Party in 1972. However, this party and the other two parties Erbakan founded were also forbidden from constitency development and participation in the electoral process.

The National Salvation Party was closed down by a military coup in 1980. Erbakan then established the Welfare Party in 1983 and waited for 13 years to come to power. His party finally won the 1996 elections and he became prime minister in coalition with the True Path Party, becoming the first Muslims with an Islamic program to hold office in the Republic of Turkey. However, due to its conservative mainstream background, the True Path Party was not aligned with Erbakan’s political vision. Nevertheless, Erbakan embarked upon developing Turkey’s relations with Muslim countries. He further implemented an economic welfare program, which did improve welfare among many sections of the society. Similar to policies implemented with the current AKP rule, Erbakan’s coalition government also tried to achieve rapprochement with the neighbouring countries.

Soon after, a military coup staged in February 1997, removed Erbakan from power. A constitutional court decision closed down the Welfare Party again on charges of acting against secularism, and banned him from politics. He finally got his remaining disciples to found the Felicity Party. Attacks against him and obstacles put before him only made him grow stronger in the eyes of the people.

But he could not avoid losing his brightest students during these difficult times. Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Abdullah Gul departed from Erbakan’s party in 1998 in a rift caused by difference of opinion between the “progressives” represented by Erdogan and Gul and the “conservatives” represented by Erbakan and his close followers. The “progressives” criticized Erbakan for not giving any space to the younger generation and most importantly for not being able to harvest policies to deal with the necessities of the time. Therefore, they established their own party to realize their own vision of Turkey. Despite the rift they always showed their respect to their “mentor” and were forgiven by Erbakan.



Admiration for Islamic Revolution in Iran



Erbakan’s opinion about Zionism differed slightly from that of the leader of the Islamic revolution in Iran, Imam Khomeini. According to Imam Khomeini it was the US that caused the trouble for Muslims and all other oppressed people around the world, which was formulated in his famous manifesto: “America is the greatest Satan”. Unlike Erbakan, Imam Khomeini believed that Zionism was merely one of the tools the US used to achieve its hegemony in the Islamic East. This variation in the appraisal of the world situation from his own never prevented Erbakan from admiring the Islamic Revolution and he always referred to Iran as a paragon for an ideal Islamic state.

Fatih Erbakan, the son of Necmeddin Erbakan, noted this when he received a group of diplomats from the Iranian embassy after his father’s death. He pointed out the important position of Iran in the eyes of his father:

My father had always held Iran in high regard. When he became the prime minister, he paid his first visit to Iran and the last country he visited in his lifetime was Iran. When he was working on the Muslim Unity and G-8 project, he was pressured from inside and outside Turkey “to prioritize Arab countries”. They suggested that “Iran’s role should be secondary [in this project].” However, my father always asserted that “Iran is our closest brother. It is the country that struggles most bravely against world Zionism. Thus we first need to embrace them”. My late father had a famous expression “We are at opposition in Turkey but at power in Iran.”

The story goes that Erbakan’s admiration for Iran was one of the reasons for the split between him and his spiritual leader Sheikh Kotku in 1979. Coming from a conservative Sunni background Sheikh Kotku was troubled with Erbakan’s support for the Islamic Revolution achieved by Shi’is and his relations with the pro-revolutionary Turkish youth. Thus, he eventually asked Erbakan to leave the party leadership. Instead, Erbakan decided to depart from Sheikh Kotku’s Iskenderpasha movement and continue alone.

Erbakan and the global Islamic movement

Erbakan’s ideas were indeed echoed outside of Turkey. His teaching on “opposition within the system” was adopted by some other Islamic political movements. The leader of al-Nahdah, the Islamic movement of Tunisia, Rashid al-Ghannushi came to Istanbul to attend the funeral of the late Erbakan. When he was in Istanbul, al-Ghannushi gave a speech in an IHH event and he said: “Erbakan was not only my friend but also my mentor, he had a distinct reputation in the Arab world”.

Hamas Health Minister Bassam Naim issued a statement following Erbakan’s death. In his statement Naim referred to Erbakan as a “…leading figure and thinker of the Muslim world.” He then went on to say: “Turkey and the Muslim world have lost a major flag of contemporary Islam who devoted his entire life to Islamic issues, particularly those in Palestine and Jerusalem.” The Hamas leadership based in Damascus also issued a statement and conveyed their condolences to Turkey. Sheikh Kamil Khatib from the Islamic Movement in Occupied Palestine also sent separate messages to President Cul and Prime Minister Erdogan to express condolences.

Many important Muslims figures from around the world were present at Erbakan’s funeral, which made clear his position in the global Islamic movement: the former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akif; the head of the Islamic Party in Kashmir, Abdur Rasheed Turabi; the chairman of Indonesia’s Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), Lutfi Hasan Ishaq; and former Sudanese President Abdel Rahman Swar al-Dahab were some of those who were present at the funeral.

In accordance with Erbakan’s last will, no official ceremony was held for his funeral. Yet, in Istanbul where the ceremony was held around 1 million people gathered to bid farewell to Erbakan at the Fatih Masjid. His coffin was carried on the shoulders for 5km and buried in Zeytinburnu Merkezefendi Cemetery. The crowd chanted “Mujahid Erbakan” which was a symbolic nickname given to Erbakan and was often heard during his political campaigns. His most important disciples President Abdullah Gul, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Leader of HAS Party, Numan Kurtulmus along with many other significant figures joined in the crowd to offer the “mentor” their final du‘as.

Libya and Bahrain: contrasting Western attitudes

Zafar Bangash

The West’s hypocrisy stands exposed yet again in the contrasting policies toward uprisings in Libya and Bahrain. The US and allies Britain and France pressed the UN Security Council on March 17 to impose a no-fly zone on Libya. In Bahrain, on the other hand, 2,000 troops, mainly Saudis from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), were rushed in on March 13 where they promptly perpetrated a bloodbath against unarmed peaceful civilians. The Saudi, Bahraini and Emirati troops also invaded hospitals dragging the wounded from their beds and throwing them in the streets. Doctors were also beaten up. Despite such barbarism by Western-backed Middle Eastern tyrannies, the US and its allies remain unmoved. The lives of Bahrainis are clearly unimportant compared to their vested interests. The people of Bahrain are asking for the same rights as people elsewhere in the Middle East: dignity, freedom and fair elections.

In Libya’s case, the West’s wrath has been directed at Colonel Muammar Qaddafi. True, Qaddafi is neither a democrat nor loved by his people but the manner in which he has been targeted while ignoring the brutality unleashed by Saudi and Bahraini troops on unarmed civilians in Bahrain clearly exposes Western hypocrisy. Is Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain or Abdullah ibn Abdul Aziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia any less brutal or corrupt than Qaddafi?

Immediately after the Security Council vote, US President Barack Obama started issuing threats: Qaddafi must immediately comply; he must stop all attacks against civilians and he must withdraw his troops from areas recaptured from the rebels. Obama also borrowed language from his notorious predecessor George Bush: “these demands are not negotiable.” Obama, the president for change, has now surpassed even Bush in resorting to raw force despite US woes in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which have bankrupted the US economy.

Numerous targets were hit in the first cruise missile strikes on Libyan cities on March 19. The date coincides with the Western crusade launched against Iraq in 2003 resulting in 1.5 million deaths. Neither Obama nor his British and French counterparts are likely to lose any sleep over the killing of Arabs; they have honed their murderous skills over hundreds of years. The latest assault on Libya is merely a continuation of the colonial enterprise launched behind the veneer of a Security Council resolution. The crucial question is: what right do Western rulers have to decide who should rule in Libya or anywhere else?

There is mounting evidence that the Saudi invasion of Bahrain was part of a larger plan involving both Raymond Davis, the CIA undercover agent who murdered two Pakistanis at point blank range in Lahore, Pakistan on January 27, as well as an attempt to prevent their own shaky hold on power in Riyadh. The Saudis were permitted to invade and occupy another country in exchange for securing the release of Davis. The murders became a bone of contention between an irate Pakistani public already seething under US drone attacks that have killed hundreds of innocent people, and the US whose CIA operative shot dead two Pakistanis in broad daylight in a busy street in Lahore. The Saudis arranged for blood money to be paid to relatives of the deceased in exchange for Davis’s release. The much-maligned Shari‘ah law was invoked to get Davis off the hook. So, Shari‘ah is OK if it facilitates the release of an American murderer but not OK if Muslims want to apply it in their lives?

The other point is also significant. The Saudis do not want disturbances spreading to the kingdom, at least not in any significant way. There were demonstrations in al-Qatif on March 10 and in Riyadh and Jeddah on March 11 but these were ruthlessly suppressed. The Saudis would rather fight their battle for survival in the streets of Manama than shooting Saudis in the streets of Riyadh or Jeddah. The Saudis view any challenge to the status quo in the region as a threat to their hold on power. Any change is also seen as benefitting Islamic Iran whose growing influence the Saudis fear.

The uprising in Bahrain and now gathering momentum in Yemen sends shivers down the Saudis’ collective spine. They fear their grip on power becoming loose. But it is Bahrain that worries the Saudis the most. The tiny Gulf state has a Shi‘i majority ruled by the oppressive Khalifa family that is closely linked with the Americans whose naval Fifth Fleet prowls the Persian Gulf from there. This explains why the Americans have been so lukewarm in supporting the struggle of the Bahraini people.



Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

Closer look at the uprisings in the Islamic East

By Zafar Bangash

Since the first stirrings of revolt erupted in Tunisia on December 17, 2010, the entire Islamic East has been engulfed in civil uprisings. Two tyrants — General Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and General Hosni Mubarak — have been swept from power. Other dictators are feeling the heat to varying degrees. The uprisings have been described variously as “pro-democracy movements”, the “Arab Awakening” or even “revolution”. Absent from all these is mention of any Islamic movement. In the West this is greeted with much relief. While Muslims make up the overwhelming majority of Islamic East’s population, the West does not want Islam to have anything to do with shaping the socio-political order in these societies. Similarly, Islamic parties — al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon, al-Nahdah and others — are either banned or seldom mentioned as having played any role in the uprisings. This, however, is only one dimension of the problem.

The more important question is whether these uprisings can be characterized as revolutions. At one level, perhaps they could be, insofar as new methods of protest, such as twitter and facebook, are being utilized for mass mobilization. Additionally, in almost all countries, the youth are in the vanguard. This, too, is a new phenomenon but it would be simplistic to get carried away with this. The youth can and have offered great impetus to movements in all countries; they usually do but in the current uprisings, they are not following any particular leader or ideology. At one level this may be considered a blessing since an identifiable leader can be arrested and the movement dealt a blow but one should not fall for romanticism. In the real world, there are certain requirements that must be in place for a movement to succeed. It is not enough to get rid of a tyrant or be content with a change of faces. What follows next is equally, if not more important. Thus we need to have a better understanding of certain basic rules.

First, let us be clear about the phenomenon of revolution. While the word revolution has great romantic appeal, the minimum requirement for any movement to be called revolutionary is that it overthrows the existing order and replaces it with a new, radically different one. This has not happened either in Tunisia or Egypt where old-time dictators have been removed from power but the old order is still in place and does not appear to be in any danger of collapse. The Egyptian military, an important pillar of the old regime, is fully in control. The newly appointed foreign minister, Nabil al-Araby, endorsed the Saudi invasion and occupation of Bahrain in order to crush the people’s uprising there. The state of emergency remains in place; the border with Gaza remains sealed and even the old pharaoh, Hosni Mubarak, who presided over decades of torture, is living comfortably in his opulent villa in Sharm al-Shaikh. So what has changed in Egypt?

The same is true of other countries — Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria — where uprisings are underway. With the exception of Bahrain and Jordan, there are no identifiable leaders or movements leading these protests. In Bahrain, the movement is led by the ‘ulama while in Jordan, the Islamic Action Front (IAF) is in the lead but its demands are modest. The IAF has not demanded abolition of the monarchy; it is only calling for resignation of the prime minister and curtailment of some of the king’s vast powers. These can hardly qualify as revolutionary demands much less leading to any revolutionary change.

Muslims must understand that the systems in their societies are constructs imposed by colonial occupiers. These are not designed to serve the interests of the people. The ruling elites in every Muslim society barring Islamic Iran are all subservient to the West. Unless Muslims strive to dismantle these systems completely as happened in Iran in 1979, their desire for change will not be realized. For change to occur, certain conditions must be met. There must be an Islamic movement led by charismatic muttaqi leadership that will give a directional course to the movement. All energies of the people must be channeled toward the goal of not only overthrowing the old order but also replacing it with an Islamic order. Such a movement can have no parochial, tribal or national interests. Further, the movement and leadership must not be dependent on any outside powers, such as the US, Britain, France etc. In Egypt, for instance, the new regime is still pursuing old policies and the movement that forced the removal of Mubarak is too consumed by internal, purely nationalistic issues to worry about the plight of the Palestinians. This nationalistic trend is worrying. Similarly, the rebels in Libya want the West to help them against Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s forces. Since when has the West supported people’s yearning for freedom and fundamental rights? If Qaddafi is overthrown, the Libyan people may find themselves entering a period of direct colonialism once again.

While one must applaud the courage and dedication of the youth and other segments of society in the Islamic East for rising up against their tyrannical rulers, there is still a long way to go before they will taste true freedom. This will not come about by espousing nationalistic slogans or accepting servitude to the West, regardless of how much they may hate their present rulers. The ruling oligarchies in the West are not their friends; they are nobody’s friends, not even their own people whom they oppress and exploit. No amount of wishful thinking can change this reality.

Muslims struggling for dignity and freedom must have a much clearer understanding of the reality both in their own societies and of the global setup if they are to achieve success in their undoubtedly genuine struggles. Nothing comes easy. This is what we learn from the Sunnah and Sirah of the noble Messenger of Allah (pbuh). Muslims should not harbor any illusions about the price that freedom demands.

A new Western crusade: this time against Libya

By Zafar Bangash

The West’s attack on Libya is yet another crusade launched against a Muslim country on the pretext of protecting its people. Pope Urban II would be pleased to learn that his disciples are still marching on as good “Christian soldiers” against another group of “heathens” in the Muslim world nearly a thousand years after his sermon on Mount Clermont. Colonel Muammar Qaddafi does not have to be our favourite tyrant but like Saddam Husain of Iraq, he has enjoyed Western support for decades. Western multinationals salivate at the prospect of consuming his sweet crude. Now they can have their belly full.

Interestingly, too, the UN Security Council was pressed into service to pass a resolution (#1973), imposing a “no-fly zone” over Libya on March 17, ostensibly to “protect” the Libyan people. Twenty years ago, a similar no-fly zone was imposed on Iraq but without even the formality of going through the motion of a Security Council resolution. An estimated 1.5 million Iraqis were killed as a result of sanctions and the Western-imposed no fly zone. On May 12, 1996, when Leslie Stahl of CBS 60 Minutes program asked Madeleine Albright, then US ambassador to the UN, whether the death of 560,000 children was worth the price for ousting Saddam from power, the latter, without hesitation, said it was! Would it be any different in Libya?

Let us look at the lineup of countries attacking Libya: the US, Britain, France, Italy and Canada. Italy repudiated its friendship treaty with Libya and US President Barack Obama said Qaddafi had lost his legitimacy. Did Qaddafi ever have legitimacy; if yes, when and how did he lose it? If not, why were the same Western powers eager to deal with him before the recent troubles? Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had visited Qaddafi in his tent in March 2004. The Libyan dictator also received former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008. Qaddafi famously referred to her as “that black woman.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi both hosted Qaddafi in their capitals a few months before the uprisings started in the Middle East. So what has changed to make Qaddafi the bad boy of the Middle East again so quickly?

True, like Saddam, Qaddafi has had a rocky relationship with the West. From being the West’s darling to mad dog and then back into their good books, he has been through many ups and downs. Qaddafi’s current pariah status has nothing to do with the West’s argument of “humanitarian intervention” to save Libyan lives. Since when have Western rulers become concerned about the plight of Libyans or Muslims? If they do not care for the lives of their own friends — look at how the children of poor families are being sacrificed in Afghanistan and Iraq — why should they care about Libyans?

We need to understand what is afoot in Libya. Despite claims to the contrary, Western troops are already operating on the ground in Libya under the cover of “protecting” Western diplomats but actually providing training to the rebels. Even with the deeply flawed no-fly resolution that does not authorize attacks on Libyan ground forces or armored columns such as tanks, that is precisely what Western bombers are doing. This is creeping occupation of Libya as the world’s attention is diverted to the nuclear disaster in Japan. What might be the reason for the latest Western crusade?

Libyan oil, much coveted by the West because of its low sulphur content, has already been mentioned. Similarly, the US has frozen about $32 billion in Libyan assets under Executive Order 13566. Libya’s frozen assets represent a significant portion of its wealth, according to the Washington Post (March 23, 2011). “In 2009, Libya had a gross domestic product of $62 billion; its sovereign wealth fund is estimated at $40 billion and its central bank reserves at $110 billion. The European Union has added the central bank, the wealth fund and three other Libyan institutions to its sanctions — two weeks after the US action [of February 25],” according to the Post. Britain, not to be left behind, has seized more than $19 billion in Libyan assets.” The looting of Libya has begun in earnest by thieves that have honed their robbing skills over centuries.

Neither Qaddafi nor a successor regime — whatever its shape or color — will ever see this money again. Americans have a habit of stealing others’ wealth, whether by freezing their assets or robbing them through direct invasion and occupation. The US froze $40 billion of Iranian assets in 1980 and barring a few million the rest have been usurped. The Saudis have invested more than one trillion dollars in the US economy. They, too, are not likely to see any of this, especially given the precarious state of the US economy.

But the West’s crusade has another, more sinister purpose. Libya will serve as a beach-head for Western penetration into sub-Saharan Africa that is rich in minerals. Chad, Niger and Sudan have vast mineral deposits that the West covets. This also fits into the election of Obama as president of the United States in 2008. With a black man in the white house, the people of Africa as well as African Americans at home would not be too concerned if the US were to attack and occupy parts of Africa. After all, nobody would accuse Obama of racism. The American establishment has had it all neatly figured out.

A hint to the permanence of Western military intervention was given by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates when he said there was no definite answer about the duration of the Libyan campaign. But he did reveal what was afoot. “Let’s just call a spade a spade,” he said in what a no-fly zone over Libya would entail. “A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy air defences. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone.” A closer look at what Gates said reveals that there is no end in sight. Let us also recall the statement of Dick Cheney, former US vice president about the “war on terror”. He said it may last 50 to 100 years. We can now begin to get a glimpse into the thinking of Western policy-makers.

Wars necessarily create humanitarian crises. There are already nearly 100,000 refugees trying to flee Libya. These include Egyptians, Tunisians, Algerians and citizens of sub-Saharan African countries as well as poor Bangladeshis, Indians and Pakistanis. The West would use their plight as a pretext to send in “humanitarian” aid and workers. Then their “protection” would be used as a pretext for sending in large numbers of ground troops. Libya would once again be colonized directly.

We can see also that while the no-fly zone resolution was authorized by the UN Security Council, the military operations have been taken over by France and Britain and placed under NATO command. Thus, NATO powers have, once again, set themselves up as “authoritative judges of the world common good.”

Libyans clamoring for Western support to help them topple Qaddafi will rue that day when they wake up. Foreign intervention has never brought liberation to any people. Horace Campbell, Professor of African American studies and political science at Syracuse University and currently working on a book on AFRICOM has said: “US involvement in the Libyan bombing is being turned into a public relations ploy for AFRICOM (US Africa Command). AFRICOM is fundamentally a front for US military contractors like Dyncorp, MPRI and KBR operating in Africa. US military planners who benefit from the revolving door of privatization of warfare are delighted by the opportunity to give AFRICOM credibility under the facade of the Libyan intervention. No African country has agreed to let AFRICOM onto the continent. It has 1,500 people operating out of Stuttgart, Germany. If Libya is indeed partitioned, that new state could provide a base for AFRICOM.”

Libyans must wake up before they end up in even worse shape than they are under Qaddafi, however bad he may be. There are better ways to seek liberation than foreign help. It always comes with long strings attached and ends up enslaving rather than freeing people.