C&P

An argument has been advanced that Nato bombed its way into Libya because of its oil and did not care much about bringing democracy to the people. The fact that some of the rebels have had connections to al Qaeda fortifies this argument. Depending on whether Nato will move in to assist the NTC in stabilising the country and in creating an enabling environment for free and fair elections to take place, this argument cannot casually be dismissed. The fact that Syria (which has little oil resources) presented a similar situation but attracted no bombing from Nato further reinforces that thinking.

Some commentators have advanced another argument to the effect that Gaddafi had to be stopped because he was about to achieve his long stated desire for a politically united Africa which Europe apparently would not like to see happening any time soon. This theory has other elements such as Gaddafi having finalised plans for creating an African bank, which would have put the World Bank and IMF out of business in Africa.

Further, that an African currency pegged to Gold reserves rather than the dollar was underway, irked America into action against Gaddafi. This thinking is espoused mainly by those who have a romantic view of Gaddafi and those who believe that the West is never honest in its dealings.

The killing of black Africans who are perceived to have been hired by Gaddafi will alienate the ‘new’ Libya from Sub Saharan Africa. With the West increasingly losing investment opportunities to Asia, South America and Africa, the new Libyan leadership will soon understand Gaddafi’s wisdom in investing less and less in the West and more heavily in other regions and particularly in Black Africa.

If ethnic cleansing directed at black Africans continues under the leadership of the NTC, it will be easy to predict that sooner rather that later that the economy of Libya as well as its stability will be heading south.