….there can be no law, if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us, and another for our friends. 1

(President Eisenhower)

Introduction

The killing of Gaddafi with active support from NATO forces in October 2011 is usually accounted for by his association with global terrorism, stories about how he kept the Libyan people captive, and finally, the refrain that 'Gaddafi is killing his people.' Negative-loaded adjectives describing the behavior and personality of Gaddafi had been a trend since he seized power in 1969.

Mainstream media makes strategic use of repetition when forming public opinion about a person in opposition to Western interests. Therefore, the press provided little information about the nationalization of the oil and gas sector in 1970. Neither did the information about Gaddafi's eviction of US and UK military installations take up much space in the media. However, one may suspect that it constitutes the foundation for the hostility of Western powers towards Gaddafi during his 42-year rule of Libya.

US presidents seem to have competed about whom could come up with the worst description of Libyan president Moammar Gaddafi. President Bush described him as an "egomaniac who would trigger World War III to make headlines"; President Carter spoke of Gaddafi as "subhuman"; President Gerald Ford said that Gaddafi was a "bully" and a "cancer," and President Nixon referred to Gaddafi as a "desert rat" and "an international outlaw."

President Donald Reagan, the key protagonist of Neo-liberalism in recent times, if not the father of the Neo-liberal agenda, was obsessed with Gaddafi. To him, he was public enemy number one. Although Gaddafi was far from being a fundamentalist Islamic leader, he was branded as such by Reagan, who always referred to him as the "mad dog of the Middle East."

After Gaddafi had decided to abandon Libya's nuclear weapons program in 2003, he met with Western leaders, including Blair and Sarkozy, both of whom hoped to gain access to the Libyan market. The Arab Spring, which began in Tunisia in 2010, provided a window of opportunity for the West to get rid of Gaddafi once and for all. Although evidence was never provided, the story was that Gaddafi was killing his people. It became the excuse of the West under the aegis of two UN resolutions to intervene militarily in Libya, following the international principle of R2P2.

Fourteen years after the killing of Moammar Gaddafi, the former French President has been taken to court in France on the accusation of having introduced a corruption deal with Gaddafi. In return for his financing of Sarkozy's presidential election campaign during most of 2006, Gaddafi had been promised that the French government would advocate for an improved image of Gaddafi. Sarkozy won the 2007 election and served as President of France for a five-year term. The evidence against Sarkozy is mountainous. A verdict will be passed by the end of September 2025.

NATO's intervention, under the slogan Operation Unified Protector, was labeled a humanitarian intervention, thus resembling the one that had taken place twenty years earlier in Iraq. The image painted in the media of former Libyan president Moammar Gaddafi over the last 40 years was not without effect. No public protests emerged when he was killed. On the contrary, leaders of the West congratulated one another on the outcome. Although now, 15 years later, the country remains in chaos and remains divided.

Key hypotheses

This paper will show how easy it is to turn the public against an enemy of the Neo-liberal ideology that influences the daily life of the populations of Western nations and beyond. This is done daily when the press applies negative-loaded words to describe the target enemy, for instance by identifying terrorist groups.

The public had repeatedly been told that Gaddafi was not just a terrorist, but he also financed terrorism and was ready to maim and kill amid Western capitals. The majority of the populations in Western countries were unaware of Gaddafi's achievements in transforming Libya into a social state based on principles of equality and popular participation in government.

It appears that human rights organizations provided the bulk of justification for accusations against Gaddafi regarding his presumed genocidal behavior. The internationally recognized institutions of Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI), together with several rights organizations, gave credibility to the refrain that 'Gaddafi is killing his people.' Against this background, the UN Security Council (UNSC) mandated a resolution that enforced a no-fly zone over the entire Libya.

A major hypothesis of this paper is that Western nations, led by the USA, will use any means necessary to maintain their dominance and control of African countries as long as it serves their interests. Africa must remain open to investment by Western enterprises at any cost. The West could not afford to see Gaddafi promoting a united front of African leaders against Neo-liberal interests. Moreover, since the establishment of AFRICOM in 2007, the US has made numerous attempts to identify an African country willing to host this new US military command center. Gaddafi warned African leaders against AFRICOM since its objectives conflicted with Africa's efforts to decolonize and become self-reliant 3.

No acknowledgment has been given to the concept of democracy practiced by Gaddafi in Libya and the initiatives he employed to improve the welfare of his people. Here, we will argue that Gaddafi implemented a more genuine form of people's participation in Libya's governance than that practiced in the Western liberal democracies. His understanding of 'good governance' did not include the ritual casting of votes every four to five years.

Instead, Gaddafi involved the people through local committees. NATO nations involved in the bombing campaign did not foresee any opposition from the African Union (AU) because they had their man in place. That person was Jean Ping, the chairperson of the AU Commission. He exerted a significant influence on the position of AU throughout the entire Libyan crisis.

The presentation in this article relies, to a large extent, on source materials identified by a Canadian researcher4. He built his observations on secret materials from the US administration revealed by WikiLeaks and the emails of Hillary Clinton. They inform the reader that preparations for what came to be referred to as the Libyan Arab Spring are likely to have begun years ahead of its actual eruption in Tunisia. The CIA and the French Secret Service had provided support to rebellious jihadist groups opposing Gaddafi for some time before the events in 2011.

The French President, Sarkozy, was particularly motivated to remove Gaddafi, as he posed a personal risk to him following his receipt of illegal funds for his presidential campaign before his victory of the presidency in 2007. At the moment of writing this, a French tribunal is deliberating about the verdict to be made in September 2025. Sarkozy knows that his destiny would have been terminated had Gaddafi remained alive. It is, therefore, quite plausible that he gave the green light for an agent of the French secret service agent, dressed up as an insurgent, to kill Gaddafi back in October 2011.

It is improbable that an active member of the French Secret Service would execute the head of a foreign, legitimate ruler without approval from the highest level. Sarkozy did not only have personal reasons for silencing Gaddafi. He was also motivated to eliminate him because of Gaddafi’s objective to establish an African monetary system controlled and run by Africans and supported by the treasury of the Libyan National Bank. If implemented, this would mean the demise of the CFA and, consequently, the French treasury's control over the economies of West and Central Africa.

Libyans enjoyed economic prosperity under Gaddafi

The adjectives used by the West to describe Gaddafi's personality stand in sharp contrast to the achievements he made for the welfare of the Libyan people. What Gaddafi attempted to build in Libya corresponds to what is generally referred to as a social state, which provides a living wage, decent healthcare, public works, investment in schools, childcare, housing for people experiencing poverty, and a range of other crucial social resources.

The Western powers do not like to leave any evidence of success stories of states applying regulation and other forms of governance than market-driven ones. Whatever Gaddafi did altruistically is always presented as arising from negative motives on his part. Usually, good deeds are judged by their results and not by the motives of those implementing them. Gaddafi is generally considered to have acted from presumed motives of a megalomaniac nature rather than upon the social benefits of his achievements.

Since his seizure of power in 1969, Gaddafi developed Libya into a virtual welfare state based on the principle of equality throughout the implementation of his policies. Thus, gender equality was a significant achievement under Gaddafi's rule. Under him, more women attended university and had significantly more employment opportunities than in other Arab nations.

His Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) initiated a process of directing funds toward providing education, health care, and housing for all. Public education in the country became free, and primary education was compulsory for both sexes. Data presented by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) indicate that the country performed well in adult literacy. Literacy grew to 95 percent for men and 78 percent for women. Medical care became available to the public at no cost. The World Health Organization (WHO) certified that all Libyan citizens benefited from free health services under Gaddafi. Between 1969 and 2010, life expectancy increased from 51 years to 74 years. Newly married couples were presented with an interest-free credit to enable them to start a family together. The average income increased to become the 5th highest in Africa.

His most significant infrastructure project, the Great Man-made River, turned arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya. This project, costing $33 billion, was being funded interest-free and without foreign debt through Libya's state-owned bank. The project ensured water access to 75% of Libyans.

Gaddafy-style democracy means people's participation

There can be no doubt about Gaddafi's unselfish motives for seizing power in 1969. From the early start of his role as head of Libya, his guiding thoughts were dominated by the belief that Western powers had too much control globally and that their dominance only benefited a tiny elite. He considered Western powers to be merely interested in exploiting Africa's natural resources and to have little interest in the sovereign development of these nations.

With these anti-imperialist views, he became one of the biggest threats to the market-driven forces of the neoliberal ideology. It was not until the late 1990s that he abandoned his advocacy efforts to unify the Arab states. He realized that most of the Arab leaders had sold their souls at the cost of the dignity of their people. His political thoughts were dominated by a vision of the world where people exerted a direct influence on their daily lives – not through parliamentary elections of representatives but through direct voices in people's committees.

Gaddafi's system of direct people's participation resembles that of the Swizz Canton system5. In 1969, when Gaddafi seized power, his Revolutionary Command Council opposed all forms of colonialism and imperialism. People's committees began functioning in 1970. By 1973, more than 2000 such committees were practicing the concept of direct democracy. The idea was to create a new political structure composed of people's congresses, which merged into the General People's Congress. The governance structure established by Gaddafi contradicts the traditional behavior of a dictator, as most Western leaders labeled him.

Freedom from colonialism and imperialist dominance

Gaddafi is usually described as a sick and mentally disturbed person whose only interest is to appear all-mighty6. He saw the West as composed of colonial and imperialist powers that defined freedom from the perspective of transnational corporations.

His views on the West led him to support freedom movements anywhere in the world, where Libyan support could make a difference in alleviating the restrictions imposed by Western colonial consequences. He thus came to help not only the Palestinian cause but also the Basque separatist movement ETA against the Spanish government and the IRA against the British government.

He endorsed the anti-American government in Nicaragua and other governments of South America which fought for independence from US interference. All of this made the USA and its Western allies classify Libya as a state sponsoring terrorism. The bombing of Tripoli in 1986, ordered by President Reagan, made Gaddafi very bitter, mainly because his daughter got killed in the attack. He now took his fight against US imperialism to the USA, where he contributed financial support to Black organizations fighting for equal rights. He was a staunch supporter of the ANC’s fight for freedom from the white apartheid Government.

Mobilizing African leaders

Gaddafi gave up on the Arab countries about uniting them for the Palestinian cause. He then turned his attention to the Organization of African Unity (OAU). He felt strongly that the OAU should resist the economic and cultural dominance of the West.

His position only fueled the hatred against Gaddafi. Since his address to the OAU in July 1999 in Algiers, he was perceived as an obstacle to the freedom of Western enterprises and a threat to their continued access to African markets and the exploitation of its natural resources. A couple of months later, Gaddafi hosted an OAU summit in his hometown of Sirte.

Here, he presented his vision of a border-less United States of Africa. He envisioned the continent being ruled by a single government under a unified president, with a single defense force and a unified foreign and trade policy. To realize this, he called for the establishment of an African Union. The fear of the West, especially the USA, was grounded in the very likelihood that Gaddafi had the means to succeed in achieving his vision.

Gaddafi gave the OAU a new life, paving the way for the establishment of the African Union in 2002. Gaddafi effectively utilized Libya's oil and gas revenue to contribute to development initiatives in many sub-Saharan countries, as well as proposing the use of Libya's wealth as security for the establishment of an African monetary system independent of Western Banks and the IMF. In this way, he became a challenge to the French government, which had created the Franc CFA zone when granting independence to its African colonies.

Now, Gaddafi threatened the French monetary system by guaranteeing African countries financial and economic stability. It turned out that this would become the last nail in his coffin. Gaddafi's plans for the development of an independent Africa had been underway several years before the Arab Spring. The Ecologist reports that Gaddafi, then Chair of the African Union (2009), conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with a single gold currency. In 2004, the Pan-African Parliament laid plans for the African Economic Community to adopt a single gold currency by 2023.

Political control of Human Rights organizations

Western governments struggled to identify the necessary justifications for Gaddafi's removal. They needed support from organizations, which, to the public, were perceived as neutral and staunch defenders of human rights.

Within no time, a story was launched that Gaddafi was intent on killing his people. The primary source of this fabricated information was the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR), an organization affiliated with the International Federation for Human Rights. On February 21, 2011, the Secretary General of the LLHR initiated a petition in collaboration with UN Watch7, As early as March 2011, HRW described what it saw as "a concerted campaign in which thousands of men have been driven from their homes in eastern Libya and beaten or arrested8."

The statements from Human Rights organizations weighed heavily on the UN and its security council when it had to decide on a resolution that could prevent Gaddafi's presumed blood bath of his people. The involvement of HR organizations, including AI and HRW, shows the interwoven relationships between these non-profit HR organizations and the interests of the US Government.

An Executive Director of AI, following the regime change in Libya, had previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State during NATO's intervention in Libya. She played a significant role in submitting the joint petition prepared by the network of HR organizations to the UNSC. Furthermore, the same person had also served as Chief Operating Officer of HRW.

It is sensational that the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and his senior military officers could not verify press reports on Gaddafi's genocidal behavior nor the information about Gaddafi's slaughter of civilians as reported by human rights groups. The lack of confirmation from US intelligence agencies and the US Ministry of Defense stands in sharp contrast to statements by President Obama, who, in a televised speech to the American people, expressed his fear of a regional catastrophe because of the consequences of Gaddafi's slaughter of his people.

Notwithstanding this, the UNSC agreed to declare a resolution that aimed at enforcing a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians. Russia and China abstained from voting. The resolution of the UNSC and the subsequent humanitarian interventions by NATO was founded on pure speculation.

The West prepares for democratic and humanitarian intervention

Ever since Gaddafi came to power, the US, in particular, had given many thoughts to how he could be removed. Thus, Henry Kissinger refers to meetings shortly after Gaddafi took over in 1969 regarding the possibility of his removal. The reason was Gaddafi's radical Arab nationalism and his interference with the US/Saudi control of OPEC policies. Ever since Gaddafi took over in Libya, Western enterprises had been of utmost concern about regaining access to the oil and gas market.

Renewed efforts were made in October 2004 by member organizations of the National Foreign Trade Council, which includes Bechtel, Chevron, and Halliburton on its board of directors9, determined to conquer 20 countries in the Middle East and North Africa, including Libya. It aimed to develop a Middle East Free Trade Area, but partly due to resistance from Gaddafi, it had to limit its scope to bilateral trade agreements with selected countries.

When the Arab Spring erupted in Libya in 2011, France and its NATO allies were quick to seize the opportunity. The story soon became the predominant one that Gaddafi's army had turned against its people. The UN Security Council enacted two resolutions, numbered 1970 and 1973, in early 2011. They aimed to protect the civilian population. However, France, with the support of the UK and the USA, as well as several NATO countries, used the resolution to effectuate regime change, masquerading as a humanitarian intervention to save civilians. It is noteworthy that not even the US intelligence services had been able to confirm the rumors that Gaddafi was intent on murdering his people.

Training had already been provided to opposition groups in Libya, mainly coordinated by The National Endowment for Democracy10 and The International Republican Institute. Together, they identified dissatisfied individuals and groups that could play a role in regime change in Libya and take over the administration when regime change had materialized. Parallel to this, Qatar, with support from France, the UK, and the US, provided military training to future insurgents in Egypt on the border to Libya, only waiting for an opportunity to intervene. The opportunity arose once Human Rights Organizations had submitted the petition to the UN Security Council (UNSC). The resolution provided the international pretext for NATO countries to launch aerial bombings two days after it was adopted.

Based on UNSC Resolution No. 1973, the West mobilized NATO, which at the time was presided over by Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a former Danish Prime Minister, anxious to maintain and strengthen his friendship with the American President, George W. Bush. Under his watch, Operation Unified Protector did not stop bombing Libya until Gaddafi on October 20, 2011, was assassinated. The member states of NATO have always been adept at manipulating the public of member nations into believing that they are the vanguard of a more just future for humanity. NATO's member nations claim to defend individual freedom.

A similar gospel was preached by NATO when they led the four-month air campaign in the Balkans 12 years earlier in 1999, concluding with the destruction of the social state of Tito's Yugoslavia. The US claimed to be leading from behind, allowing France and the UK to take the lead 11. However, NATO commanders insisted that they could not have succeeded without American intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance planes, as well as air-to-air refueling aircraft 12. Although the resolution was issued to prevent killings of civilians, it is conservatively estimated that the NATO intervention was the direct cause of the massacre of up to 50.000 civilians.

From hope for a liberated Africa to regional havoc

Following the withdrawal of NATO's bombing campaign only two days after the killing of Gaddafi, the entire world was awaiting the introduction of a Western-type democracy. However, since 2012, Libya has been a divided country with tribal gangs and jihadist groups roaming the country. Since 2022, it has been formally governed by two governments, one of which is recognized by the United Nations.

A particular event bears witness to the inhumanity of NATO's 'humanitarian interventions. That is the destruction of Libya's water infrastructure. The NATO forces did not only destroy the installations, but they also destroyed two factories that produced pipes for the maintenance of the system13. This event was in grave contradiction to the UNSC resolution, which merely authorized the protection of the civilian populations. The Operation Unified Protector overstepped the mandate provided by the UNSC resolution, which did not include regime change.

Critics have long questioned why violent intervention was necessary in Libya. Hillary Clinton's recently published emails confirm that it was less about protecting the people from a dictator than about money, banking, and preventing African economic sovereignty. NATO's violent intervention was not chiefly about the security of the people. It was about the security of global banking, money, and oil.

A decade later, about half a million Libyans were internally displaced out of a population of six million, and more than one million had fled abroad. Military depots fell into the hands of arms dealers, who used the loot to arm terror groups in neighboring countries, such as Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, thus creating regional instability.

From Hillary Clinton's 3000 emails, one of them dated April 2, 2011, reads in part: "Gaddafi's government holds 143 tons of gold and a similar amount in silver. This gold was accumulated before the current rebellion and was intended to be used in establishing a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA) 14”.

A reading of France's Neo-colonial behavior vis-a-vis its former West and Central African countries tells a bloody story of France's efforts to maintain its economic dominance of these countries through its control of the CFA15.The files of WikiLeaks and the emails of Hillary Clinton provide the strongest and most reliable proof of American and Western commitments to the removal of Gaddafi, not for the sake of the protection of civilians but for the sake and security of the banking systems of the West.

African Union conspire with Western interests

Although there can be little doubt about Gaddafi's pan-African visions and hopes for the continent, the AU made modest efforts to stop NATO's aggression against a sovereign member country. The formal creation of the AU at a meeting in Cape Town in 2002 was the outcome of Gaddafi's efforts to establish a self-reliant continent, independent of former colonial ties and free from the influence of neoliberal corporations that dominate Western countries.

The AU offered little opposition to UNSC resolution 1973. The reason for this is most likely the influence of Jean Ping, the President of the African Union Commission and a former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Gabon. This Central African country was primarily dominated by France and, to this day, one of the few former colonies that still maintains a contingent of French military personnel. He was appointed chairperson of the African Union Commission from 2008 to 2012.

During the turmoil in Libya, he was on an official visit to the USA, where he expressed his strong support for President Barack Obama. The Assistant Secretary for African Affairs noted that it was nice to know that the USA had its man in the AU. Privately, Jean Ping must have been cheering for the fall of Gaddafi. As the chair of the AU Assembly, he did not accept a minute of silence in honor of Gaddafi when country members of the assembly proposed it16.

When his term came to an end in 2012, he lost the seat as chairman of the commission to a South African candidate. Perhaps as compensation to Ping for his anti-Gaddafi position during the NATO bombing campaign, the French government advocated strongly for Ping when the UN Secretary-General was looking for the recruitment of a Special Envoy to Mali in 2012 17.

Africa’s Youth wants to break Western-type democracy

The agenda hidden from the vast majority of the world's population regarding NATO's 'humanitarian' intervention was to ensure that Africa remains divided with continued accessibility by Western transnational corporations to its resources. In that regard, NATO powers were victorious. The Africans lost! They will continue to hold a subservient position to the exploitative forces of Western powers for many years to come. The creation of a unifying, independent Africa, including a common currency, has been put on pause.

The event in Libya in 2011 shows the approach of the West when seeking to ensure markets for their transnational corporations. We observe the contradictions between the rhetoric used by Western powers and the facts on the ground. Western intervention claims to aim at introducing requirements that will lead to better living conditions. Neoliberalism proclaims that capitalism and democracy are synonymous, thus obscuring the significant inequality that exists in countries dominated by market forces.

The average citizens of the West accept the uneven distribution of benefits derived from resources originating from the African continent. In any case, the populations of the West are the beneficiaries, while the bulk of Africans remain abused in an undignified manner. The mindsets of both populations from two different worlds are strongly influenced by the same media, which is controlled by a handful of global corporations that direct media content, including news, social media, and the movie industry. Their programs are presented under the umbrella of democracy with narratives flavored by a human rights vocabulary, thus making criticism difficult.

The good news is that there is hope ahead. An increasing number of Africans, especially young Africans, no longer want the type of democracy offered by Western nations. This we witnessed at the presidential election in Senegal in early 2024. It is increasingly being recognized that Western-type democracy implies the acceptance of values inherent in the neoliberal ideology with resulting impoverishment and humiliation for the African people18.

The following quote summarizes perfectly the underlying values of a Western priority to ensure the economic growth of its territories at the cost of other cultures: "Europe ruled the world for centuries, imposing its order of misogynist patriarch, slavery and racism, arbitrary colonialism, religious intolerance, repression of thought and environmental destruction in the service of economic exploitation 19". Africa is anxiously awaiting a leader who will be able to unite the continent to the benefit of those who call it home.

Notes

1 Dwight D. Eisenhower’s radio address on Oct. 31, 1956 (quoted from Fears Empire, War, Terrorism, and Democracy, by Benjamin R. Barber, New York 2003.
2 The Responsibility to Protect populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing is a global principle since the adoption of the UN World Summit Outcome Document in 2005.
3 In February 2007, the President of the United States decided that the time had come to contribute to Africa's development efforts actively. It was agreed that this support should be provided under the leadership of the Department of Defense, specifically by a new command cente referred to as Africa Command, or for short, AFRICOM.
4 Maximilian C. Forte: Slouching Towards Sirte. NATO’s War on Libya and Africa, Baraka Books, Montreal. 2012.
5 Direct democracy is a distinctive feature of the Swiss political system. It allows the electorate to express its opinion on decisions taken by the Swiss Parliament and to propose amendments to the Federal Constitution.
6 See, for instance: Seeking Gaddafi, Libya, The West and the Arab Spring, by Daniel Kawczynski, London 2011.
7 Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel. Primarily, UN Watch denounces what it views as anti-Israel sentiment at the UN and UN-sponsored events. 8 Maximilian C. Forte: Slouching towards Sirte. Nato’s war on Libya and Africa, Montreal, 2012. 9 The Bu$h Agenda. Invading the World. One economy at a time, by Antonia Juhasz, HarperCollins Books 2006.
10 NED was created at the initiative of US President Ronald Reagan, who is also considered the Godfather of neo-liberalism. Its objective is to fight dictatorships, where they create obstacles to American interests. The US government fully funds it.
11 The favorite American way of ensuring new markets and maintaining existing ones is to let others do the work, as we currently see being done in Ukraine and Israel.
12 in The Guardian by Richard Norton-Taylor, Mon October 31, 2011 20.22 CET.
13 Ahmed, May 14, 2015: War crime: NATO deliberately destroyed Libya's water infrastructure. Ecologist, Informed by Nature Information from Maximilian C. Forte.
14 Africa’s Last Colonial Currency. The CFA Franc Story, by Fanny Pigeaud and Ndongo Samba Sylla, La Decouverte, Paris, 2018.
15 Information from Maximilian Forte's Slouching Towards Sirte.
16 Notification from Africa Confidential, vol. 53. no. 20, 5. 10. 2012.
17 De la Démocratie en Francafrique. Une histoire de l’imperialisme Electoral, by Fanny Pigeaud and Ndongo Samba Sylla, La Decourverte, Paris, 2024.
18 The Mask of Democracy, by Kristian Laubjerg, in Meer.com, 2020. 19 Pierre Vesperini: What to do with the past. New Left Review 146. (March/April, 2024).