Why the West Is Attacking Gaddafi

Michael S. Rozeff | LewRockwell.com | May 11, 2011

The reason for the Western powers support of the opposition to Gaddafi shows up in high relief in Gaddafi’s extraordinary U.N. speech of Sept. 23, 2009.

In this speech, Gaddafi stood up against the West. He openly and pointedly criticized the U.N.’s structure. He told many uncomfortable truths. He raised many uncomfortable questions. He proposed global political changes that reduce the powers of the big countries and raised the powers of smaller countries, African countries, and Islamic countries.

Ironically, this war against him again shows the truth in some of his harshest criticisms of the U.N.’s behavior and political structure. But this time not because of his supporting what the West calls terrorism, but for his striving to change the world’s balance of powers. The West turned against Gaddafi because of this challenge.

As it turns out, Gaddafi’s critique of the Security Council and the U.N. was precisely on target, although he surely didn’t expect that he would be the one to provide another example so quickly. His distrust of the U.S. and its allies also proved to be warranted.

The West cannot put up with a leader who says:

“It should not be called the Security Council. It should be called the ‘Terror Council’.

“The American presidents used to say to us, they shall terrorize us….And we shall lead the world, and we shall punish anyone whether they like it or not. We shall punish anyone who will be against us.

“Then we come to the Suez Canal war in 1956. The file should be opened. Why three countries who have permanent seats in the Security Councils enjoyed the right, the veto of the Security Council’s attack, a member state in this General Assembly?

“A country that is Egypt in this case, that was a sovereign state, was attacked and the army was destroyed. And thousands of Egyptian people were killed, and towns, villages were destroyed.

“How could such a thing happen during the era of the United Nations? And how can we guarantee that such a thing will not be repeated unless we redeem the past?

“And this is a very dangerous thing. The Suez Canal war, the Korean War, we should open the files.

“And then we come to the Vietnam War. Three million victims of the Vietnam War. During 11 days, bombs were used more than the bombs used during the whole war. And during the Second World War, all the shells and the bombs that were used, or bombed during the four years of the war, the bombs that were used in the 12 days were more than.

“This was a fierce war. And this war took place after the establishment of the United Nations. And we decided that there would be no wars.

“This is the future of the mankind, and we cannot keep quiet. How can we be how can we be safe? How can we feel accomplished? How can we feel complacent, I mean. This is the future of the world and this is the General Assembly of the world, and we have to make sure that such wars will not be repeated in the future.

“Then Panama was attacked, even though it was an independent state, a member state of the General Assembly, of the United Nations. And 4,000 peoples were killed, and the president of this country was taken as a prisoner and was taken put in prison.

“And Noriega should be released, and we should open the file. And how we give the right to a country that is a member state of the United Nations to go and wage a war against a country and take the president of such a country and take him as a criminal and put him in prison? Who would accept that?

“This may be repeated. And we should not be quiet, and we should make investigations, and we should each one of us may face the same destiny. Each member state of us may face the same, especially if this aggression is made by a member state that is has a member seat in the Security Council and supposed to look and maintain the world peace security.

“Then we have the Grenada war. This country was attacked, was invaded even though it was a member state, by 7,000 – 5,000 warships and using 7,000 troops. It is the smallest country in the world.

“And after the establishment of the Security Council, after the establishment of the United Nations, and the (inaudible). And the president of this country, Maurice Bishop, was assassinated. How this can be done with impunity? This is a tragedy.

“And then how can we guarantee that the United Nations is good or not, that the Security Council is good enough? Can we be safe and happy about our future or not? Can we trust the Security Council or not? Can we trust the United Nations or not?

“Then we have to check and investigate the bombing of Somalia.

“Somalia was a member state of the United Nations. It is an independent country. And (inaudible).

“Why? Who allowed that? Who gave the green light for such a country to attack to be attacked?

“Then the Yugoslav war. No country that is peaceful country like Yugoslavia, that was built that was built step by step, piece by piece, after it was destroyed by Hitler. We destroy it as if we are doing the same job like Hitler.

“Hitler after the death of Tito and he built this country step by step and brick by brick, and then we come and dismember it for imperialist personal interests. How can we be satisfied? How can we be happy? If a peaceful country like Yugoslavia faced this tragedy, the General Assembly should make investigations and the General Assembly should decide who should be tried for the (inaudible).

“Then we come to the Iraqi war, the mother of all evils. The United Nations also should investigate.

“The General Assembly presided by (inaudible) should be investigated by the General Assembly, the invasion of Iraq itself. This was in violation of the United Nations charter without any justifications made by several countries who have member seats in the Security Council.

“Iraq is an independent country, member in this General Assembly. How this country is attacked and how this country how we have already read in the general in the in the charter that the United Nations should have interfered and stopped.”

Important elements of the mainstream press did Americans their usual disservice by ineptly, ignorantly, and superficially dismissing Gaddafi’s speech as ranting, halting, rambling, and off the cuff. They played up the length of it, comparing it with Castro’s speech. They preferred to report on his attire in detail rather than to provide details of his criticisms of U.S.-led wars in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan.

The best way to understand why the West is putting down Gaddafi is to read his speech in its entirety. Discard that which is frivolous or speculation or personal. Retain that which is serious. Be patient with the inadequacies of the translation.

There is a video with accompanying translation of his entire speech. There is also a reasonably good transcript of that translation that is available.

About these ads