After losing Egypt, the U.S. government tries to divide and weaken Libya, and this effort receives support from the supporters of Bin Laden, and thousands of Egyptian refugees that over the years have taken refuge in eastern Libya, fleeing the repression in Egypt. After the Egyptians came Algerians, Tunisians and Somalis, followers of Al Qaeda. They enjoyed the hospitality of the Libyans and then the next thing they stabbed them in the back, triggering a revolt that has left tens of victims, through sabotage, terrorism and destruction of public property.
But who is this Qaddafi that the media suddenly started to attack in all forms, and even in a most cowardly form? Gaddafi led a revolution to overthrow King Idris, a puppet of Italian and American interests in the region. At the time, the largest U.S. military base abroad was in Libya, Qaddafi and his supporters surrounded the base and gave 24 hours for all invading foreigners to leave the country.
In power, Gaddafi did not like the Arab monarchs, did not build palaces with gold, not buy luxury yachts or collections of imported cars. He devoted himself to rebuilding the country, ensuring better living conditions for the people. Today Qaddafi is not president or prime minister of Libya, but the media wants him to resign a post which does not exist.
The lies of the media cannot hide the fact that Gaddafi has supported the struggles of peoples for liberation in Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and many other countries, specifically concretely helping the people who fought for liberation. In practice, Gaddafi has always been a benefactor of mankind, but for the mercenary media, a benefactor is one who creates wars in search of profits for the arms industry or to dominate the world, as were the wars created by the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua and many other countries.
This utterly ridiculous gossip of wealth and strange customs have always been exploited by the media, it was with Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and etc. It is enough to be a serious ruler that does not seriously kneel down and cower in fear before the United States and is not intimidated to be demonised and disparaged by the mercenary media.
Another fact that the media cannot falsify is the HDI (Human Development Index) measured by UN officials. These data indicate, for example, that Libya had in 1970, a situation a little worse than Brazil (HDI of 0.541, against 0.551 of Brazil.) The Libyan index surpassed the Brazilian years later, and in 2008 was well ahead: 0.810 (ranked 43rd), compared to 0.764 (ranking 59th). All three sub-indices that comprise the HDI is higher in the African country: income, longevity and education.
In the HDI recast the difference remains. Libya is ranked the 53rd (0.755) and Brazil 73rd (.699). Libya is the country with the highest HDI in Africa. Therefore, the best distribution of income, and health and public education are free. And almost 10% of Libyan students receive scholarships to study in foreign countries.
So what kind of dictatorship is this? A dictatorship would never allow this kind of policy for the benefit of the people.
Gadhafi wrote the Green Book, the Third Universal Theory, which deals with controversial and real issues. He complains, for example, about the falsification of democracy through parliamentary assemblies. In most countries that consider themselves democratic, including the United States of America, political parties are organized criminal gangs to loot the people's money in legislative assemblies, City Councils, House of Representatives, etc.
This observation - and a book in publication - certainly irritate and anger them? The defenders of parliamentary democracy? The Green Book, written by Gaddafi, says that workers should be involved and self-employed, and that the land must be of those who work it and those who live in the house. And power shall be exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries, without politicians, through popular congresses and committees, where the whole population decides the fundamental issues of the district, city and country. These words, which everyone knows are true, revolt and irritate those few who benefit from the falsification of democracy, especially the capitalist regimes.
But the press will keep on on forging the news, boiling hatred by spreading lies, because it is following orders from the U.S. government, very interested in the large oil reserves of Libya.
*In a rare interview with Western journalists in January 1986, only months before the U.S. terrorist bombing of Libya, the Leader of the Revolution spoke frankly about his life and how he had been misunderstood by the West. Meeting the journalists in his tent he told of how he admired former US Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and of other world leaders he admires like "Egypt's late Gamal Abdul Nasser, India's Mahatma Gandhi, Sun Yat-Sen of China and Italy's Garibaldi and Mazzini." (Really, I'm a Nice Guy, Kate Dourian, Tripoli, Libya.)
He spoke of his favourite book The Outsider by British author Colin Wilson and others he likes such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and Roots. Throughout this interview the profound thinking and innate humanity of Muammar Qadhafi shone through.
He also stated in another interview: "I see the press as being the messengers between me and the world to tell them the truth."
Friday, March 4, 2011
Nouri al-Maliki is in danger of becoming the Mubarak of Baghdad : Sami Ramadani
As the walls of fear are being knocked down in one Arab country after another, the ugly concrete walls "of separation and intimidation" erected by the US-led forces in Iraqi cities have become a target of protesters. During last Friday's "day of rage", 29 people were killed by security forces. Another day of protest is planned for this Friday (4 March) "to honour the 29 martyrs". The regime's tactics – which include the shooting of peaceful demonstrators – show that the post-occupation edifice built by the US is not much different from the assortment of American-backed dictatorships across north Africa and the Middle East.
It was George Bush who – referring to Syrian troops in Lebanon – declared that free and fair elections were not possible under occupation. Iraqis for once find themselves in agreement with him as they question the legitimacy of elections under occupation that produced a toothless parliament with no more power than Egypt's under Mubarak.
Like all regimes threatened by mass uprisings, Iraq is a police state that shows its true face once challenged by the people. And the more radical the challenge, the more violent the reaction. In Egypt and Tunisia hundreds were killed and thousands injured to bring about the downfall of Ben Ali and Mubarak. But the most radical demand – the regime's overthrow – has yet to be tested.
In Iraq a majority of Friday's protesters wanted to "reform" rather than overthrow a "corrupt" regime. However, the lesson the regime appears to have drawn from the great uprisings sweeping the region is to anticipate and act to stop people, especially in Baghdad, from congregating in large numbers.
Extraordinary measures were taken to prevent people converging on the capital's Tahrir Square. All of Baghdad's many bridges over the Tigris – linking the two halves of the city – were closed, all vehicles and bicycles banned. New concrete blast walls sealed off Jamahiriya bridge, which leads to the hated Green Zone. A city of over 6 million people had been turned into a massive site for police and army encampments and fortifications.
Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, was clearly motivated by fear of the masses, declaring that although he was in favour of protecting the right to protest, he thought it best that in future people should gather only in Baghdad's football stadium or al-Zowra'a park – rather than march for rallies in Tahrir Square. Presumably he was petrified by the thought that a great banner, similar to the one that adorned Cairo's Tahrir square, would go up proclaiming: "The people want to overthrow the regime".
For its part, the world's biggest US embassy – the power behind the throne – took the unprecedented step of broadcasting in Arabic, on state TV, a thinly veiled threat to protesters not to go too far in their demands. The US, it stressed, fully backed the "democratically elected" regime, while supporting the right to peaceful protest. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama must be pretty confused as to which dictatorship they should now abandon and which to prop up.
Maliki has so far made four state-TV broadcasts. In the first two he urged people to stay at home, because "Ba'athists and al-Qaida terrorists" had infiltrated the protesters and were planning to kill them. In the third, he was visibly shaken, thanking the protesters and promising reform "within one hundred days". Lastly, he implied the state would react violently and even torture journalists if they wanted to "overthrow" him and his regime, because he was "democratically elected".
His accusations that the protesters were "Ba'athists" was answered with the most popular chant of last Friday: "Nouri al-Maliki is a liar." Other slogans asserted: "The people's oil is for the people not for the thieves"; "We want dignity, jobs and services"; "No to terrorism, no to Saddam's dictatorship, and no to the dictatorship of thieves"; "No to the occupation"; "We are not Ba'athists, repression is Ba'athist"; and an old favourite of many previous rallies, "Sunnis and Shia, this homeland we shall never sell". In Iraqi Kurdistan, where at least six were killed, protesters demanded that Kurdish leaders Barzani and Talbani must follow Mubarak.
The Iraqi struggle for "dignity and freedom" is even more difficult than that of Libya's heroic people. It faces 50,000 US troops (plus tens of thousands of contracted mercenaries) and Iraqi forces numbering over 1.5 million. The indifference of the BBC and other media is conspicuous and hypocritical, particularly following the torture of four Iraqi journalists.
However, inspired by the uprisings of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain, Iraqis have embarked on a new phase in their struggle.
It was George Bush who – referring to Syrian troops in Lebanon – declared that free and fair elections were not possible under occupation. Iraqis for once find themselves in agreement with him as they question the legitimacy of elections under occupation that produced a toothless parliament with no more power than Egypt's under Mubarak.
Like all regimes threatened by mass uprisings, Iraq is a police state that shows its true face once challenged by the people. And the more radical the challenge, the more violent the reaction. In Egypt and Tunisia hundreds were killed and thousands injured to bring about the downfall of Ben Ali and Mubarak. But the most radical demand – the regime's overthrow – has yet to be tested.
In Iraq a majority of Friday's protesters wanted to "reform" rather than overthrow a "corrupt" regime. However, the lesson the regime appears to have drawn from the great uprisings sweeping the region is to anticipate and act to stop people, especially in Baghdad, from congregating in large numbers.
Extraordinary measures were taken to prevent people converging on the capital's Tahrir Square. All of Baghdad's many bridges over the Tigris – linking the two halves of the city – were closed, all vehicles and bicycles banned. New concrete blast walls sealed off Jamahiriya bridge, which leads to the hated Green Zone. A city of over 6 million people had been turned into a massive site for police and army encampments and fortifications.
Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, was clearly motivated by fear of the masses, declaring that although he was in favour of protecting the right to protest, he thought it best that in future people should gather only in Baghdad's football stadium or al-Zowra'a park – rather than march for rallies in Tahrir Square. Presumably he was petrified by the thought that a great banner, similar to the one that adorned Cairo's Tahrir square, would go up proclaiming: "The people want to overthrow the regime".
For its part, the world's biggest US embassy – the power behind the throne – took the unprecedented step of broadcasting in Arabic, on state TV, a thinly veiled threat to protesters not to go too far in their demands. The US, it stressed, fully backed the "democratically elected" regime, while supporting the right to peaceful protest. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama must be pretty confused as to which dictatorship they should now abandon and which to prop up.
Maliki has so far made four state-TV broadcasts. In the first two he urged people to stay at home, because "Ba'athists and al-Qaida terrorists" had infiltrated the protesters and were planning to kill them. In the third, he was visibly shaken, thanking the protesters and promising reform "within one hundred days". Lastly, he implied the state would react violently and even torture journalists if they wanted to "overthrow" him and his regime, because he was "democratically elected".
His accusations that the protesters were "Ba'athists" was answered with the most popular chant of last Friday: "Nouri al-Maliki is a liar." Other slogans asserted: "The people's oil is for the people not for the thieves"; "We want dignity, jobs and services"; "No to terrorism, no to Saddam's dictatorship, and no to the dictatorship of thieves"; "No to the occupation"; "We are not Ba'athists, repression is Ba'athist"; and an old favourite of many previous rallies, "Sunnis and Shia, this homeland we shall never sell". In Iraqi Kurdistan, where at least six were killed, protesters demanded that Kurdish leaders Barzani and Talbani must follow Mubarak.
The Iraqi struggle for "dignity and freedom" is even more difficult than that of Libya's heroic people. It faces 50,000 US troops (plus tens of thousands of contracted mercenaries) and Iraqi forces numbering over 1.5 million. The indifference of the BBC and other media is conspicuous and hypocritical, particularly following the torture of four Iraqi journalists.
However, inspired by the uprisings of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain, Iraqis have embarked on a new phase in their struggle.
The Arab revolution will be made by Arabs, or it won't be a revolution at all : Seumas Milne
It's as if the bloodbaths of Iraq and Afghanistan had been a bad dream. The liberal interventionists are back. As insurrection and repression has split Libya in two and the death toll has mounted, the old Bush-and-Blair battle-cries have returned to haunt us.
The same western leaders who happily armed and did business with the Gaddafi regime until a fortnight ago have now slapped sanctions on the discarded autocrat and blithely referred him to the international criminal court the United States won't recognise.
While American and British politicians have ramped up talk of a no-fly zone, US warships have been sent to the Mediterranean, a stockpile of chemical weapons has been duly discovered, special forces have been in action, Italy has ditched a non-aggression treaty with Tripoli and a full-scale western military intervention in yet another Arab country is suddenly a serious prospect.
Egged on by his neoconservative lieutenants, David Cameron went furthest. Fresh from his tour selling arms to Gulf despots, the British prime minister talked excitedly about arming Libyan rebels, and only staged a hasty retreat when he found himself running ahead of the US administration.
But neither American caution nor UN security council opposition should obscure the fact that there is now a serious danger of western armed action in Libya. Unlike in the rest of the region, we are no longer talking mainly about the security forces confronting demonstrators but a split in the heart of the regime and the military, with large areas of the country in the hands of an armed opposition.
With Colonel Gaddafi and his loyalists showing every sign of digging in, the likelihood must be of intensified conflict – with all the heightened pretexts that would offer for outside interference, from humanitarian crises to threats to oil supplies.
But any such intervention would risk disaster and be a knife at the heart of the revolutionary process now sweeping the Arab world. Military action is needed, US and British politicians claim, because Gaddafi is "killing his own people". Hundreds have certainly died, but that's hard to take seriously as the principle motivation.
When more than 300 people were killed by Hosni Mubarak's security forces in a couple of weeks, Washington initially called for "restraint on both sides". In Iraq, 50,000 US occupation troops protect a government which last Friday killed 29 peaceful demonstrators demanding reform. In Bahrain, home of the US fifth fleet, the regime has been shooting and gassing protesters with British-supplied equipment for weeks.
The "responsibility to protect" invoked by those demanding intervention in Libya is applied so selectively that the word hypocrisy doesn't do it justice. And the idea that states which are themselves responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in illegal wars, occupations and interventions in the last decade, along with mass imprisonment without trial, torture and kidnapping, should be authorised by international institutions to prevent killings in other countries is simply preposterous. The barefaced cheek of William Hague's insistence that there would be a "day of reckoning" for the Libyan regime if it committed crimes or atrocities took some beating.
The reality is that the western powers which have backed authoritarian kleptocrats across the Middle East for decades now face a loss of power in the most strategically sensitive region of the world as a result of the Arab uprisings and the prospect of representative governments. They are evidently determined to appropriate the revolutionary process wherever possible, limiting it to cosmetic change that allows continued control of the region.
In Libya, the disintegration of the regime offers a crucial opening. Even more important, unlike Tunisia and Egypt, it has the strategic prize of the largest oil reserves in Africa. Of course the Gaddafi regime has moved a long way from the days when it took over the country's oil, kicked out foreign bases and funded the African National Congress at a time when the US and Britain branded Nelson Mandela a terrorist.
Along with repression, corruption and a failure to deliver to ordinary Libyans, the regime has long since bent the knee to western power, as Tony Blair and his friends were so keen to celebrate, ditching old allies and nuclear ambitions while offering privatised pickings and contracts to western banks, arms and oil corporations such as BP.
Now the prospect of the regime's fall offers the chance for much closer involvement – western intelligence has had its fingers in parts of the Libyan opposition for years – when other states seem in danger of spinning out of the imperial orbit.
But Libya has a compelling history of foreign occupation and resistance. Up to a third of the population are estimated to have died under Italian colonial rule. Those calling for western military action in Libya seem brazenly untroubled by the fact that throughout the Arab world, foreign intervention, occupation and support for dictatorship is regarded as central to the problems of the region. Inextricably tied up with the demand for democratic freedoms is a profound desire for independence and self-determination.
That is clear in reaction on the ground in Libya to the threat of outside intervention. As one of the rebel military leaders in Benghazi, General Ahmad Gatroni, said this week, the US should "take care of its own people, we can look after ourselves".
No-fly zones, backed by some other opposition figures, would involve a military attack on Libya's air defences and, judging from the Iraqi experience, be highly unlikely to halt regime helicopter or ground operations. They would risk expanding military conflict and strengthening Gaddafi's hand by allowing the regime to burnish its anti-imperialist credentials. Military intervention wouldn't just be a threat to Libya and its people, but to the ownership of what has been until now an entirely organic, homegrown democratic movement across the region.
The embattled US-backed Yemeni president Ali Abdallah Saleh claimed on Tuesday that the region-wide protest movement was "managed by Tel Aviv and under the supervision of Washington". That is easily dismissed as a hallucinogenic fantasy now. It would seem less so if the US and Britain were arming the Libyan opposition. The Arab revolution will be made by Arabs, or it won't be a revolution at all.
The same western leaders who happily armed and did business with the Gaddafi regime until a fortnight ago have now slapped sanctions on the discarded autocrat and blithely referred him to the international criminal court the United States won't recognise.
While American and British politicians have ramped up talk of a no-fly zone, US warships have been sent to the Mediterranean, a stockpile of chemical weapons has been duly discovered, special forces have been in action, Italy has ditched a non-aggression treaty with Tripoli and a full-scale western military intervention in yet another Arab country is suddenly a serious prospect.
Egged on by his neoconservative lieutenants, David Cameron went furthest. Fresh from his tour selling arms to Gulf despots, the British prime minister talked excitedly about arming Libyan rebels, and only staged a hasty retreat when he found himself running ahead of the US administration.
But neither American caution nor UN security council opposition should obscure the fact that there is now a serious danger of western armed action in Libya. Unlike in the rest of the region, we are no longer talking mainly about the security forces confronting demonstrators but a split in the heart of the regime and the military, with large areas of the country in the hands of an armed opposition.
With Colonel Gaddafi and his loyalists showing every sign of digging in, the likelihood must be of intensified conflict – with all the heightened pretexts that would offer for outside interference, from humanitarian crises to threats to oil supplies.
But any such intervention would risk disaster and be a knife at the heart of the revolutionary process now sweeping the Arab world. Military action is needed, US and British politicians claim, because Gaddafi is "killing his own people". Hundreds have certainly died, but that's hard to take seriously as the principle motivation.
When more than 300 people were killed by Hosni Mubarak's security forces in a couple of weeks, Washington initially called for "restraint on both sides". In Iraq, 50,000 US occupation troops protect a government which last Friday killed 29 peaceful demonstrators demanding reform. In Bahrain, home of the US fifth fleet, the regime has been shooting and gassing protesters with British-supplied equipment for weeks.
The "responsibility to protect" invoked by those demanding intervention in Libya is applied so selectively that the word hypocrisy doesn't do it justice. And the idea that states which are themselves responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in illegal wars, occupations and interventions in the last decade, along with mass imprisonment without trial, torture and kidnapping, should be authorised by international institutions to prevent killings in other countries is simply preposterous. The barefaced cheek of William Hague's insistence that there would be a "day of reckoning" for the Libyan regime if it committed crimes or atrocities took some beating.
The reality is that the western powers which have backed authoritarian kleptocrats across the Middle East for decades now face a loss of power in the most strategically sensitive region of the world as a result of the Arab uprisings and the prospect of representative governments. They are evidently determined to appropriate the revolutionary process wherever possible, limiting it to cosmetic change that allows continued control of the region.
In Libya, the disintegration of the regime offers a crucial opening. Even more important, unlike Tunisia and Egypt, it has the strategic prize of the largest oil reserves in Africa. Of course the Gaddafi regime has moved a long way from the days when it took over the country's oil, kicked out foreign bases and funded the African National Congress at a time when the US and Britain branded Nelson Mandela a terrorist.
Along with repression, corruption and a failure to deliver to ordinary Libyans, the regime has long since bent the knee to western power, as Tony Blair and his friends were so keen to celebrate, ditching old allies and nuclear ambitions while offering privatised pickings and contracts to western banks, arms and oil corporations such as BP.
Now the prospect of the regime's fall offers the chance for much closer involvement – western intelligence has had its fingers in parts of the Libyan opposition for years – when other states seem in danger of spinning out of the imperial orbit.
But Libya has a compelling history of foreign occupation and resistance. Up to a third of the population are estimated to have died under Italian colonial rule. Those calling for western military action in Libya seem brazenly untroubled by the fact that throughout the Arab world, foreign intervention, occupation and support for dictatorship is regarded as central to the problems of the region. Inextricably tied up with the demand for democratic freedoms is a profound desire for independence and self-determination.
That is clear in reaction on the ground in Libya to the threat of outside intervention. As one of the rebel military leaders in Benghazi, General Ahmad Gatroni, said this week, the US should "take care of its own people, we can look after ourselves".
No-fly zones, backed by some other opposition figures, would involve a military attack on Libya's air defences and, judging from the Iraqi experience, be highly unlikely to halt regime helicopter or ground operations. They would risk expanding military conflict and strengthening Gaddafi's hand by allowing the regime to burnish its anti-imperialist credentials. Military intervention wouldn't just be a threat to Libya and its people, but to the ownership of what has been until now an entirely organic, homegrown democratic movement across the region.
The embattled US-backed Yemeni president Ali Abdallah Saleh claimed on Tuesday that the region-wide protest movement was "managed by Tel Aviv and under the supervision of Washington". That is easily dismissed as a hallucinogenic fantasy now. It would seem less so if the US and Britain were arming the Libyan opposition. The Arab revolution will be made by Arabs, or it won't be a revolution at all.
Vogue's ridiculous puff piece on Syria's ruling family : David Kenner
استيقظ محرر مجلة
vogue
ودون خجل ولو للحظةونشر مقال عن اسماء بشار الاسد، واشاد بها وبزوجها بنما العالم العربي يغلي
http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/asma-al-assad-a-rose-in-the-desert/
It's hard to imagine that a Vogue editor woke up this morning and decided it wouldn't be hugely embarrassing to publish a puff piece today, at the moment of the greatest upheaval in the Middle East in two generations, about Syria's ruling family. But that appears to be exactly what happened.
The article does not once mention the protests currently under way in the Middle East, including scattered evidence of demonstrations in Syria. Instead, the article focuses on Syrian first lady Asma Assad -- the "freshest and most magnetic of first ladies," endowed with "[d]ark-brown eyes, wavy chin-length brown hair, long neck, an energetic grace." At a time when other Middle Eastern first ladies, notably Tunisia's Leila Trabelsi, have been the target of protesters' wrath, this may not be the wisest moment for Asma to flaunt her glamour.
One can only assume that the Assads agreed to be interviewed for this piece before the current outbreak of unrest made it embarrassing for both for them, and for Vogue. Still, some of the damage done to the Assads is self-inflicted. In one anecdote, Asma pays a visit to one of the centers run by her NGO, Massar, in the Syrian port city of Latakia -- and promptly lies to the assembled schoolchildren about closing the foundation.
vogue
ودون خجل ولو للحظةونشر مقال عن اسماء بشار الاسد، واشاد بها وبزوجها بنما العالم العربي يغلي
http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/asma-al-assad-a-rose-in-the-desert/
It's hard to imagine that a Vogue editor woke up this morning and decided it wouldn't be hugely embarrassing to publish a puff piece today, at the moment of the greatest upheaval in the Middle East in two generations, about Syria's ruling family. But that appears to be exactly what happened.
The article does not once mention the protests currently under way in the Middle East, including scattered evidence of demonstrations in Syria. Instead, the article focuses on Syrian first lady Asma Assad -- the "freshest and most magnetic of first ladies," endowed with "[d]ark-brown eyes, wavy chin-length brown hair, long neck, an energetic grace." At a time when other Middle Eastern first ladies, notably Tunisia's Leila Trabelsi, have been the target of protesters' wrath, this may not be the wisest moment for Asma to flaunt her glamour.
One can only assume that the Assads agreed to be interviewed for this piece before the current outbreak of unrest made it embarrassing for both for them, and for Vogue. Still, some of the damage done to the Assads is self-inflicted. In one anecdote, Asma pays a visit to one of the centers run by her NGO, Massar, in the Syrian port city of Latakia -- and promptly lies to the assembled schoolchildren about closing the foundation.
صراع نجلي القذافي على "كوكا كولا
بعيد دخول شركة كوكا كولا الى ليبيا في العام 2005، اندلع خلاف بين اثنين من أبناء الزعيم الليبي معمر القذافي للسيطرة عليها.
وتحول الخلاف الى مواجهة مسلحة حسمتها ميليشيا مسلحة لإحدى الطرفين، وفقاً لبرقيات دبلوماسية أمريكية مسربة نشرها موقع ويكيليك.
نزوات الحكام
وبحسب صحيفة "نيويورك تايمز"، فإن الواقعة تتيح مجالاً نادراً لإلقاء نظرة من خلف الكواليس على سلوك أفراد عائلة القذافي وتعطي فكرة أوسع عن نزوات الأسر الحاكمة التي تعكر تحقيق التنمية الاقتصادية في بعض الدول العربية.
وعادت شركة كوكا كولا وغيرها من الشركات الأمريكية إلى ليبيا بعدما تخلي معمر القذافي عن البرنامج النووي لبلاده.
وما إن باشرت كوكا كولا العمل في ليبيا، حتى اندلعت المواجهة بين نجلي القذافي محمد، البكر من زوجة القذافي الأولى، والمعتصم، للاستحواذ على الشركة.
وبحسب احدى البرقيات المسربة عام 2006، طفا النزاع على الواجهة في أواخر العام 2005، وبعد اسبوعين على تشغيل المصنع، حين احتلته قوات موالية للمعتصم في طرابلس.
ونقلت صحيفة نيويورك تايمز عن الناطقة باسم كوكا كولا كيري تريسلر قولها ان "فترة غموض اكتنفت ملكية معمل التعبئة" في ليبيا عام 2006 لكن حلت الأزمة في نهاية المطاف".
واضافت الناطقة ان المعمل توقف عن الانتاج والتوزيع بسبب الاوضاع المضطربة في ليبيا حاليا.
وتسرد البرقية كيف ان عربتين عسكريتين محملتين بمسلحين اقتحمتا المصنع، وطلب من العمال المغادرة قبل أن تغلق المنشأة.
وسيطرت قوات المعتصم على المعمل بعد اصابة عامل اجنبي وتدمير بعض المعدات.
وأشارت البرقية الى ان السلطات الليبية لم تقدم أي مبرر قانوني لإغلاق المصنع، رغم شكاوى من الخسائر المترتبة على ذلك.
وبلغت المعركة ذروتها في فبراير/ شباط، عندما توجه رجال المعتصم إلى منزل أخيه محمد، وضربوا أحد ابناء عمومته وخطفوه "لتوجيه رسالة إلى المهندس محمد"، وفقاً للبرقية.
فيلم "العرّاب"!كما تلقى عضو في مجلس ادارة الشركة تحذيرا عاجلا بضرورة مغادرة طرابلس قبل ان يقع في قبضة رجال المعتصم.
ولم تنته الأزمة الا حين تدخلت عائشة القذافي، الابنة الوحيدة للعقيد، وطرحت تسوية تقتضي بأن يبيع محمد حصته في شركة التعبئة للمعتصم، مقابل كف رجال الأخير عن مضايقاتهم.
ونقلت احدى البرقيات عن رجل طالته تداعيات النزاع قوله لمسؤول في السفارة الامريكية في طرابلس ان الواقعة أشبه بفيلم "العراب" الذي يتناول صراعات رجال المافيا. وقال: "لقد عشنا مشاهد الفيلم خلال الأشهر القليلة الماضية".
وقال الناطق باسم وزارة الخارجية الامريكية فيليب كراولي ان الوزارة لن تعلق على ما كشفته البرقيات.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)