There were however some hushed tones of protests from some isolated sections of the African continent, with some countries castigating the attacks on Libya, other African leaders opting to call the attacks neo-imperialism, a commonly known rhetoric among African revolutionaries, particularly from Zimbabwe’s Zanu PF political circles, who claimed the Nato move was a deliberate ploy to root out Africa’s revolutionary fathers opposed to the western world’s neo-imperialism agenda.
But surprisingly, no pragmatic action was taken by AU, Sadc or the Arab League when disaster struck in Libya.
The noise only emerged after Gaddafi was captured and killed by rebel forces.
When the uprising started in Tunisia, AU never sent a peace-keeping force to quell the revolt.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
When the wind of revolution swept through Egypt, again AU never helped in any practical ways.
Even more still, when the same hurricane of cries for change spread to Ivory Coast, the AU remained passive.
There were continued calls for governments of national unity in the troubled countries by African leaders, a well-orchestrated move to protect dictators refusing to relinquish power.
Back home, when Gaddafi was silenced, analysts loyal to President Robert Mugabe lined up to describe the murder of the former Libyan leader as a return to what they called the dark days of imperialism, a rhetoric expected from Mugabe’s bootlickers, who knew the comradeship that bound their boss to the former Libyan strongman, a hand that bankrolled Zanu PF.
Those leaders that benefitted from Gaddafi’s “generosity” called his murder an onslaught on revolutionary leaders in Africa. Yet AU was a signatory to the permission that saw Nato forces being deployed in Libya to help the rebels now in control. Why did AU not send its peace-keeping forces to Libya if some African leaders say they were perturbed by the happenings?
And why did the organisation become a signatory to a document that allowed Nato forces to pounce upon Gaddafi, alongside the now victorious rebels? African leaders, signatory to AU are still making noise about Nato having infringed upon the sovereignty of Libya, way after the harm has been done. I wonder why they never made noise when Gaddafi launched his artillery against defenceless Libyan civilians. Much noise against revolutions sweeping across Africa is emerging from within the circles of leaders clinging to power, losing allies by each passing day as nature takes its course, with ordinary people awakening to its call, kicking out tyrants.
Perhaps, someone out there needs to wait and see how the wind blows . . . but it may be too late. In Zimbabwe, Professor Jonathan Moyo has been making the loudest noise, castigating the way Gaddafi was dragged around the streets, kicked, punched and undressed, as barbaric and brutal, but I understand our fellow revolutionary fathers in Zanu PF boast of having degrees in violence and instead of crying from behind the scenes, they should have put their degrees to test and pragmatically come to the rescue of their comrade instead of making noise after his death.
Professor Moyo blamed African states representing the continent in the United Nations Security Council, South Africa, Gabon and Nigeria, for supporting the UN resolution 1973, which paved the way for the invasion of Libya, saying their hands were dripping with blood.
Why was the “learned” professor silent when Libya was being bombarded and when the anti-Gaddafi forces went all out in search of the unrepentant dictator? And finally, AU and Sadc are just but toothless barking dogs, which should never be relied upon for they have never called dictators to order in Africa.
