Newspapers and radios all over the region - even our very own kids - are touting:
"Obama is killing Libyans"
"Obama is sending planes over to bomb Africa!"
"America is ruling the decisions for what the UN should do." "Gadaffi is a true African leader!"
"The US is leading the offensive with eyes for oil" ...the list goes on and on.But after showing the kids actual pictures from their country's newspapers of the
French fighter jets, or explaining who Gaddafi
really is and what he's really doing to his people, they seemed to believe that maybe what they were hearing from school, their parents and the radio isn't necessarily the whole truth. And after talking with our adult friends who are defending Gaddafi or defending Museveni's decision to stand by Gaddafi, it often becomes a bit more clear that the Libyan leader and very well their
own leader, may have a few things confused. Unfortunately it's not that easy to reach the rest of the population...
The African Union (AU) and Gaddafi's relationship with itIt seems difficult to separate the AU from the Libyan leader: Along with Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa, Libya supplies 75% of the AU's budget. And the remaining 25% could very well be said to be Gaddafi's money, too, spread out among the rest of Africa in various forms of real estate, corporations and the like. And if I've learned one thing,
money talks. Many Africans could very well have a good impression of the wealthy Libyan who has made no secret of his dream for the "
United States of Africa" and has even proposed $97 million of his "own" money to free Africa from the influences of the West. A beacon of hope, indeed.
However, the weeks leading up to the passage of the UN resolution, the AU was quiet. It's been argued that ever since the panic in Egypt, the AU has gone into hiding and not until Western forces intervened in Libya did many African leaders speak out in defense of their 53 member Union. Could it be to get in the good graces of their AU Chairman, Gaddafi himself?
"Don't bite the hand that feeds you"The saying seems rather appropriate; African leaders are caught either way they stand - going against Western allies or going against the powerfully wealthy Gaddafi - both of whom have play a crucial role in development of their country. One interesting article I read suggested that African leaders are not speaking out too loudly in defense of the Libyan rebels in fear that their own countrymen may very well take note and rise up - a seemingly more likely story as each year passes and many of these power-hungry dictators stay in office or refuse to leave...
...which leads me to: Uganda's responseMy brother recently emailed me to gauge how Ugandan's felt about Gaddafi seeking asylum here. At that time, I had never even heard of any such proposal! There was nothing in the news on that subject, and only until I searched more on the internet, was I able to find a little information. Nearly a week and a half after his email, I have only found one editorial paragraph in one paper briefly mention Museveni's offer to the soon-to-be (?) exiled leader.
And in a trend all to familiar to my discoveries in Africa, the race for its leaders to become the ultimate, all mighty reigning super power for the continent rears its head again: When Museveni complained the No Fly Zone meant he and the other AU members could not fly into Libya on March 20 to "complete
their mission" it prompted a distrust of the West. Headlines of the UN's (and in many African's minds I have to say, that can translate to "United States'") failure to respect African affairs were everywhere. It also encouraged rumors that the West, again specifically the US, was out for Libya's
oil. So with his offer to Gaddafi and snears at the West, Museveni has earned his nickname as "Africa's Protector Against Bullies" and similarly, Rwanda's Kagame has been titled the "Champion Against Impunity" for his current opposition-to-the-UN stance- efforts reminiscent of his countries 1994 genocide.
So as I continue to get feeds from international news sources on a more accurate account of what is happening in Libya and in particular, the US's involvement (or rather non-involvement nowadays) it just leads to more frustration with these leaders: There seem to be far greater problems in their own country than the need for them to take to the papers and radio, speaking out against the West's involvement. It rather seems to me that without the West, there would be quite a few more Libya's on the world's hands...