Viewed from Sub-Saharan Africa, the war against Libya has a scent of déjà vu. According to influential Zimbabwean columnist Nathaniel Manheru, the colonial powers (joined by their former US and Canadian colonies, but let down by bankrupt Portugal) are reenacting the partition of Africa, each according to her old habits. Meanwhile Gabon and Egypt, and especially Nigeria and Africa, which endorsed this new crime at the UN Security Council in breach of the African Union resolution, have lost the confidence of their African populations.
- At the Security Council, South Africa failed to defend Africa in the face of Libya intervention at the hand of colonial powers.
AS I write, Libya is burning. It is in the throes of war, more accurately, of a "righteous" aggression.
The list of the aggressor nations is as familiar as it is predictable: US, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Denmark and Canada. Missing in this Western league is Portugal. Missing in this unholy league is Germany, itself historically the venue and convenor of the 19th Century meeting that made the colonial phase of imperialism an abiding ethos in international relations.
I am referring to the Berlin Conference of 1884 which laid the ground rules for the partitioning of Africa, while averting likely conflict between and among Europe’s rapacious participants. Creating a sub-category in this invading group ranged against Libya is America and Canada, themselves offshoots and creatures of another colonialism. Together, they make a statement about latter-day colonialism spearheaded by erstwhile colonies. That is how rich imperialism is today, how weak Africa is today and, God forbid, tomorrow. Being a colony of a colony is the worst fate for a people, a continent. Being unsure of your futures is worse. It is a despairing thought.
Tahrir in London?
The abstainers are not any more righteous. I contest any such claims. Merkel faces a political meltdown by way of her personal political prospects and those of her party. She cannot afford a war even though Germany is the only economy in Europe that can sustainably pay for a war as things stand. Her economy has held firm and is in fact the motive force for the rest of Europe whose economic fortunes are worse than those of any sick "man" ever to inhabit Europe in lived history. Britain - our Britain - is among the worst, which is why its youths are now threatening to turn Trafalgar Square into another Tahrir, this time in the heart of Europe. Of course it won’t happen but that isn’t the point of the preceding sentence. Things have really gone down for Albion and most probably are set to be much worse. Tahrir is a statement of Anglo-pessimism, a statement of a people overborne by a sense of entrapment.
Merkel is aware she needs to consolidate the German economy while European folly drives the rest of his peers down an abyss, goes to war with lame consensus, sparse means, fragile economies, a tattered causa belli. Is it not wars that raise some powers while destroying others? And great powers are hardly great warriors; rather, they are great economies that assert their might on the smouldering ruins of war; nations that suture gaping wounds, plaster broken limbs, of gasping warrior states now prostrated by the cost and fatigue of war. America consolidated her global power through some gentleman called Alfred Marshall and his Marshall Plan, itself a post-Second World War economic recovery package for war-weary Europe.
Germany herself was the aggressor and loser of that war, and the recipient of that recovery package. As was Britain, as was France, but seemingly with diminishing lessons for these two. Having caused, fought and lost two wars, Germany knows wars do not pay, indeed that wars are bad business for those embroiled. Rather, wars create opportunities for dominance only for nations that either do not get involved militarily, or do so marginally. As US did in both world wars, while revving up its munition economy.
Reverse Marshall Plan
In both wars, US was in this curious habit of waiting for the eleventh minute to intervene, even then doing so well away from home. Except for Pearl Harbour, damage was largely overseas, and on affected families who lost loved ones. See what has happened to US now, having for the first time fought wars it conceived, wars it declared but cannot finish. Its economy is on a tailspin and a new world power, or powers are set to emerge, all on the back of a reverse Marshall Plan to America itself. So, Germany will not go to war and has said so in the Security Council. Commentators piqued by this German decision, and playing a goading game on it, claim Germany has lost international influence. I doubt that very much. It has ducked international obloquy, while gaining another day to consolidate its economy so as to rule Europe with a smile. Let time tell.
Well, Portugal cannot play war games any more, now or in future. It shall only fight wars that she must, and these have to be wars that threaten its very soil. Colonies undid it in the 1970s, giving it the dubious profile of being the only coloniser in history to be undone by struggles in its colonies. Never before had overseas wars in colonies back-lashed in that very direct way on the metropolis. Never before had such wars caused regime change in the metropolis. Since 1974-75, Portugal has learnt to be careful abroad, very careful, which is what has rehabilitated her on the, itself the setting for its dishonor in the previous century. I have dwelt a little too long on history. I need to come back to today.
The powers that are burning Libya are doing so under what they have termed Operation Odyssey Dawn, itself an operational code name fraught with augury for Africa. If it is the dawn of a journey, are we in for a long haul, a long march?
Who is the traveller? Journeying to where? Someone else must deal with that. Suffice to say, the code does imply not just a shared military strategy but also a shared global prognosis and goal, with Africa as the setting for this Conradian odyssey whose rallying cry remains unchanged: exterminate the brutes!
As with Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, what is happening along that vast sand river we call Libya, is surreal. The French fired the first aerial salvo and it imparted much honour on the French escutcheon. Sarkozy - the outsider - is now plumed in bright armour of revived Gaul militarism. You want to understand that what stings French honour is validation of the phrase from an ancient writer: "Gallos quoque in bellis floruisse audivimus (We have heard that the Gauls, too, once excelled in war"). No nation once the grandeur of memory.
Only contemporary fearsomeness can be deployed, indeed can yield result in realpolitik. French honour sorely needed a chivalric fillip. There is a loud military hardware marketing text that is running well ahead of the whole war against Libya. All the participating nations behave like they are at an air show set in a vast desert where only the sand is the limit. You cannot miss the voyeurism that has accompanied the assault on Libya, as each assaulting nation displays practically what it is capable of militarily. It is a huge selling effort, only with a little bit of Afro-Arab blood, bad blood of a brute at that!
Legal versus just war
But it is also a war of yawning holy ironies, which is what makes it a fitting tribute to the land of Allah. This is a cynical point to make and I make it to sting insensate Africa, most insensate Arab League. The Western world has intervened in Libya under a UN resolution numbered 1973, itself a significant year for an Africa struggling against Western colonialism. That fateful resolution made the war itself legal.
When you read coverage of that war, you wonder whether these so-called experienced Western journalists know the difference between a legal war and a just war. But then how can they ever do given that the West is still to give the world, let alone fight, a just war? Legal wars do satisfy and fulfill statutes, whether national, regional or international, as appears to be the case in this one. As for just wars, well, the proposition gets slightly more entangled with human values, indeed gets value-laden. The ends have to be noble, indeed have to justify the sacrifices of war as a means. I am oversimplifying a complex matter and I prefer it that way. Please don’t impugn my knowledge on this one. I could take you along and along with analysis until the morrow, like the proverbial light but incessant rains of mubvumbi, whose seepage is known to go very far, indeed to reach the core and pith of the earth! Usadheerere!!
Very wide remit
Operation Odyssey Dawn, we are told, is meant to save Libyan civilians in danger from a bloody dictator in the form of their leader, one Muammar Gaddafi, Brother Leader as he prefers to be called. The resolution does not require Gaddafi to actually harm his people. Rather, it requires the assaulting powers to merely think he intends to do so for them to attack. And they need not attack Gaddafi’s advancing infantry. They are empowered to take "all the necessary measures" to avert what they think may pose a threat to Libyan civilians, including, nay especially, those in rebellious Benghazi!
Now, let us be fair. There appears to be a whiff of nobility in the reference to saving Libyan civilians, a whiff that appears to make the war eligible to be considered just. That hint is further reinforced by the requirement of a ceasefire in Libya, a development and condition that can only make civilian life thrive and multiply, consistent with God’s vision for mankind. That, ladies and gentlemen, is noble, is nobility itself.
Surfeit of morality
Even much better, the resolution forbids deployment of ground troops by any foreign power, all to uphold Libya’s sacred sovereignty. That too, ladies and gentlemen, is laudable and most consistent with the raison d’etre of the African Union (AU) and the vision of its founding fathers. It also strikes a happy code with Zanu-PF , does it not? That party’s vocabulary begins and ends with this complex word, does it not? The resolution also says the participating nations must report to the Secretary General and through him to the Security Council within set times. Real accountability!
Even much, much better, the resolution recognises the right of the Libyan people to decide their own futures.
It does, too, recognise the Arab League as siblings of Libya. Even the AU is referred to by the resolution. At face value, the resolution appears aware of the need to address the morality of that war. That means there is moral awareness, in which case any failures and lapses that follow cannot be exculpated on grounds of amorality (being unable to grasp or discern what is moral). They have to be dealt with as culpable instances of immorality (conscious violation of known and believed moral standards). I am being commonsensical and I like it too. After all, is not the absence of common sense the bane of our world?
Before we see how well the invading countries have lived up to the moral ideals and requirements of the resolution, let us deal with the environment and architecture of the resolution itself. It is a United Nations Security Council Resolution, taken under Chapter 7, which allows for intervention. That is the same resolution Britain and America would have wanted invoked against our country in 2008. Read together with the brand new notion of "responsibility to protect" which is now a UN stricture, Chapter 7 does allow for international intervention in circumstances in which developments in a given country is thought to endanger world peace and life of the citizenry of the affected country, while the responsible government is either unable or unwilling to protect the affected citizens. That is why it is called a war chapter. I am mangling complex issues to simplify what is happening in Libya, what could happen to any other part of the world. Let us make another point.
The Security Council as presently constituted has African states seconded there on a non-permanent basis. These are South Africa, Nigeria and Gabon. It has Arab states who are expected to represent that part of humanity. Let us for a moment refuse to be bogged down by who is permanent and who wields or does not wield veto power, important though these matters are. We can debate that another day. In any case no veto power was used, regrettably. In any case, no member was barred from voting, again regrettably.
Within built-in limits we have suffered as Africa since the launch of the UN, the decision on Libya was taken by a relatively representative structure of the world body. As already stated, Africa was represented, the Arab world was represented, Asia was represented, Latin America was represented, Europe and America were over-represented, as indeed they have always been historically. Even Germany too, was represented! It was within the means of that body - through its representative membership - to give the resolution another direction, other than the one it eventually took. There was no fait accompli for anyone.
Only dilemmas arising from decisions and stances taken by those responsible for Libya, both consanguineously and hemispherically. The Security Council needs a minimum of 9 votes for a resolution to carry the day. This rule is only bent by the exercise of a veto by any one or group of its permanent members. As matters developed, resolution 1973 won by well over the minimum nine, with no veto exercised and with numerically significant abstentions to have taken the vote in another direction. Russia, China, India, Brazil, Germany and possibly one or two others abstained. All have given reasons for their abstentions, reasons clearly indicating that they could have voted against the resolution if only, if only . . . But it is still too early to make the point.
Developments on that fateful day for Libya, for the Arab League and for Africa, as well as the mathematics of the vote, seem to indicate that resolution against Libya was legal, just and deserved. Three African countries - South Africa, Nigeria and Gabon - voted for action against Libya as proposed by the resolution. All countries representing the Arab world in the Security Council voted for action against Libya. In any case prior to the resolution, the Arab League had actually passed a resolution endorsing the idea of a no-fly zone ostensibly to save endangered civilians. The resolution amounted to endorsing foreign intervention in Libya. The secretary general of the Arab League is one Amry Moussa from Egypt, itself a foremost member of the League, but also an African country. Potentially the Arab League had a good leg in the Arab world, a better leg on the African continent. Its resolution and that of the UN could have been different, except by choice.
Betrayal of Africa
Just before the UN resolution, the Security organ of the AU had met in Addis Ababa and had issued a resolution which did three fundamental things. It decried Gaddafi’s undemocratic ways at home, stressing the entitlement of the Libyan people to good, democratic government available to all peoples of the world. It decried the situation of conflict inside Libya and agreed on a five-presidential team to find facts on what was happening on the ground, for purposes of recommending an AU-supervised package for stabilising and reforming Libya. Thirdly, it affirmed the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Libya, warning foreigners to keep off the Libyan soil until Africa asked for help.
The Peace and Security Council (PSC) which met in Addis never, never endorsed what was to follow under the UN resolution. But the three African countries did not uphold the AU position in voting with the West for intervention in Libya, a resolution sweetly couched as a no-fly zone. Africa had triggered a mechanism for remedial action and some of the countries representing Africa on the Security Council were part of the African remedy as proposed by the PSC. Those countries chose to take narrow national positions, as opposed to the continental one to whose development they were either a party or bound by.
The triad strength that did not help Much worse, coincidentally two of Africa’s giant states are in the Security Council. I am referring to South Africa and Nigeria. The third - Egypt - had had an opportunity as holding executive chair of the Arab League.
That means Africa fell in its triad strength, betrayed by its lead nations. Ironically, these are the nations with ambitions to gain permanent seats in the Security Council, however emasculated. They have been departing from the Ezeluwini consensus during which Africa demanded permanent and fully dressed seats to match and countervail any other permanent member of the Council. Could national positions and ambitions have got the better of Africa’s principle and vision on Libya, thereby on itself?
Recanting Arab League
As things went, the fact of an African and Arab block vote for intervention in the Security Council amounted to legitimizing a war and an intervention which imperialism had long planned but was hesitant to execute unilaterally. Once those block votes came, imperialism wasted no time in declaring an unjust war Africa and the Arab League made both legal and symbolically defensible. We gave the West the moral symbolism, which is why President Mugabe spoke of self-treason. It is telling that apart from President Mugabe and the ANC Youth League, no one else on the African continent has spoken against what is going on in Libya. Moussa seems to suggest the Arab League, having noticed what its resolution and vote have occasioned, is beginning to recoil. Far from redeeming the League, this actually deepens its moral crisis, its political failures.
With the stance taken by South Africa and Nigeria in the Security Council, it is difficult to see how Africa can repose trust in a leadership which cannot defend it against ravishment by imperialism. Or a leadership which votes for itself and not for principles and positions Africa will have taken. South Africa and Nigeria have failed the test of African trusteeship, but in a way that warns the continent against thinking that a seat or seats on the Security Council brings to it foolproof defense and security. That status would have to come with parameters binding which ever country attains it, to prevent national unilateralism and mortagaging Africa’s Security Council resource to foreign causes. Whatever the circumstances, foreign encroachment on a continent with a past we have had, can never be justified, except if and when it unfolds on our terms as Africans.
Much worse, the UN resolution seems to be a package in either regime change or/and secession. Neither are values of the AU. In a very short time in the invasion, the issue of Gaddafi’s fate both as a human being and as a leader of Libya, came up. Was he fit to live? Was he fit to remain president of Libya? Or would one action - seemingly unintended and accidental - resolve both? Such as hitting him to smithereens by a stray missile? Or bombing his compound as indeed happened, for the second time by the way? This is where the issue of the remit of the UN resolution comes in. As it stands, resolution 1973 does allow and accommodate just about anything anyone with a fighter jet or warship wants and pleases to do. It allows for "all measures necessary" to protect civilians anyone thinks are about to be endangered by the Libyan regime.
The civilians it protects are dissenters who have rebelled against central authority in Libya. That means if Obama wakes up thinking a-ahh Gaddafi should be punished for escaping American bombs in 1989, he can legitimately send his boys to take him out for being the most probable source of orders to Libya’s fighting army. Or if Cameroon thinks the spirit of Lockerbie has not been expiated by oil deals which Blair secured and the billions which Gaddafi paid by way of compensation, he can easily make the physical elimination of Gaddafi part of the necessary measures. Or much worse, if this invading concert of the West thinks Libyan oil is "endangering civilians", they can legitimately take full control of it in a way that feeds into their anemic economies as an unintended and much regretted consequence of a UN war! Thanks to Africa and the Arab world, all these horror scenarios are now possible.
Libya’s own Taiwan
Much worse, if Gaddafi survives to fight another day, he will find himself presiding over a new Libya with its small "Taiwan" whose centre is Benghazi. Elsewhere in Europe, divisions of Cold War era have given way to unification, which is why we now have greater Germany. Or where these have led to guided fragmentation as in the former Soviet Union, these have been to prepare for the reincorporation of these smaller states under the European Union in a way that makes them perpetual underdogs barking against threats of, or from a resurging Russia. Worse, for America, any state that is silly enough to want to secede, must be in a position to subdue the rest militarily, a requirement written into the American constitution. This trend towards larger polities in Europe, towards maintaining territorial integrity of America, is what is being challenged in Libya which does not deserve it. And that means Africa, too, does not deserve larger formations, which is why its already fragmented states are being attacking even further. A major principle of the AU is taking a major knock.
I said if Gaddafi survives, he has to fight another war. I mean it literally, not figuratively. Judging by what happened to Saddam, the no-fly zone is just a phase, a battle, in a war which a marked state has to lose, in which a marked leader has to be guillotined. A no-fly operation is meant to degrade defences, allows invading countries to rehearse for a full, televised war. Gaddafi can only postpone his demise, delay the occupation of his country, indeed delay the take-over of Libya’s oil assets. We need to understand imperialism from history, recent history in this case.
How has the war itself panned out, in relation to its moral bearings, assuming war can ever have that? Prior to the war and even the UN resolution, the West evacuated all its personnel in Libya. That amounted to two things, namely that westerners were above Libyan civilians who deserved collective "protection" under a no-fly zone resolution. That made them a superior race, a superior citizenry, did it not? They are the residents of Libya for fat, peaceful days of oil rigs, opulent banking, and construction tenders, but endangered species to be saved from wars triggered by their home governments, is it not? Secondly, the evacuation was an admission that the resolution and the operations would cost civilian lives, whether from direct hits or vengeance.
This is where irony and moral bankruptcy begins. By evacuating their own nationals, the invading countries confirmed they would be spilling civilian blood, Libyan blood, well against the dictates of the resolution. Already, a lot of blood has been drawn by those blind missiles lobbed into urban cornubations, whether from the sea or from the air. The West’s fighter planes have been degrading not just Gaddafi’s defences, but resolution 1973’s moral pretences. Our next sight will be of Libyan civilians either trekking out as refuges or hurdled on an open desert as war displaced. All these men and women are civilians and would have had food and shelter under Gaddafi.
Much worse, assuming the air attacks stop Gaddafi by way of a stalemate, what happens when anti-Gaddafi begin to advance on other cities en route to Tripoli as desired by the invading West? Surely there will be fierce fighting in and around civilian-filled cities and towns? Will the West still enforce a no-fly zone between rebels and Libyan army, indeed adopt "all measures necessary" to dissuade rebels from advancing towards cities they wish Gaddafi is ejected from? Or will they - as we all fear they will - will they become the airforce of Libya’s "democratic demonstrators"? In which case a real first will have emerged from Libya where "civilian demonstrators" who have already notched a half-first by being the first ever to demonstrate with small arms, tanks, and huge anti-aircraft guns, will be the first to afford a multinational western airforce, indeed will be the first ever group to command American forces abroad.
I ask more of moral questions? Why have the Arab nations refused to participate? Don’t tell me this nonsense about Qatar and United Arab Emirates. These are not Arabs, whether by bearing or by size, if you get what I mean. Egypt "will none of it", to use Shakespearian English. Saudi Arabia, far from showing up this campaign, is in fact doing the exact opposite, that is by rolling its tanks into Bahrain to support Gaddafi’s poor alter ego. By the way, Bahrain houses American bases, which is why monkey business will not be allowed from demonstrators in that country. Change will come to Bahrain, but on Washington’s terms. So, why are Arabs not backing their resolution? Or extending the revolution which started in Tunisia to other climes such as Yemen and Saudi Arabia itself? As for Qatar, what its Aljazeera has been doing through airwaves, its small army is now prepared to do together with western invaders.
The story of Gaza
Still I ask more of moral questions. Gaza. What happened in 2008/9? Israel moved in and pulverized the civilians of Gaza. These are no less civilian than the blest Libyans; no less visible to the Arab League and United Nations than the civilians of Benghazi. Equally, the intervening countries of today were there in those years of Gaza’s assault. Why no resolution imposing a no-fly zone on Israel? Why no attack on the compound of Israeli president who even in personal moral terms, was a failure? Not even an enquiry? And as events would dictate, the militants of Gaza have now goaded Israel which as always has responded disproportionately. Civilians have already died. No UN meeting. No UN resolution. No Arab League resolution.
No Vote for Veto
Were countries which abstained complicit in the ravishment of Libya? Of course not. Veto countries like China and Russia might see the moral principle at stake, but they need a cue from regions and continents which house the country under assault. We saw it here when SADC said no to Zimbabwe’s planned assault. South Africa took a firm stance which it has now undermined. In the case of Libya, both Africa and the Arab League undermined any likely support, whether by veto or by vote, from China and Russia, Brazil and India. They failed to use their vote or the threat of it, to trigger a veto which was sure to come. That is how Libya was let down. Or more accurately, how Libya let itself down and, with that, the rest of Africa. It sounds paradoxical, callous even as I appear to be blaming the victim. Yes I am.
Libya’s own failures
Firstly, the autocracy in Libya exposed the Libyan Republic. It was needless, counterproductive even. It was gratuitous and little was at stake to derogate from civil liberties of Libyans. Gaddafi was and is an unmitigated despot who thought he could use oil and cross-border investments to stave off threats. Secondly, Gaddafi was not a principled politician. His mercurial character made it very difficult to tell what he represented, beyond the wish for eternal power itself. He caused and sponsored many wars on the continent, indeed destabilized many states on the continent simply out of cynicism or to create client states that would cheer him at home and abroad. That was despicable. Very few wars on the continent did not have his meddlesome hand.
Libya and Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe got Libyan assistance in its fight against British colonialism and this must be acknowledged publicly. We have a lot to thank Gaddafi for that. Equally, Gaddafi took a firm stance on the land issue, even driving from Lusaka to Harare to visualize the scope of the land issue here. That, too, was laudable. Well, after the land acquisition, Gaddafi sent in a tillage unit to help us fight off sanctions and sanctions-related limitations. The equipment is still here, helping out with food security. There are other instances and forms of assistance which one cannot write about. But something went drastically wrong in the mid 2000s.
Because of sanctions, Zimbabwe desperately needed Libyan oil, on generous terms too. We already owed Libya, but still counted on her support. Little did Zimbabwe know that around that time, Libyan foreign policy was undergoing sea-change. She was making overtures to Europe and America, and was using Britain and Blair for that, including the Italians. She sought to close the chapter on nuclear weapons and Lockerbie and sold its own mother for that consuming goal. To succeed, she dangled billions of dollars by way of compensating Scotland for Lockerbie, dangled oil deposit permits soon to be auctioned off. She also dangled her country’s huge reserves which looked for commercial homes. Above all, she flayed friends and fellow Africans for Europe.
The story of Tamoil
In this great courtship, Zimbabwe became one of the early casualties. Tamoil, the Libyan oil concern with which Zimbabwe sought a supply relationship, gave part of its shareholding to British interests, thereby creating a situation where we were actually negotiating with the British for oil supplies meant to fight off British punitive measures. It never worked. Given the role that President Mugabe had played in campaigning against western sanctions on Libya during his tenure as AU chairman, this Libyan action was not very nice. Here was Zimbabwe facing the same sanctions Libya had gone through, and had defeated them using Africa, specifically Zimbabwean support. Why would Libya not help out a brother country in similar predicament?
Africa and the Victorians
Much worse, Libyan oil concessions went up for auctioning, all of them ending up with western oil conglomerates. The man was investing in his relations with the West. Russia took note. China took note. Libya had crossed the floor, was in mad dalliance with the West, mistaking itself for an equal partner. At the AU, Libya was beginning to play big, even using traditional structures in many African countries to legitimse its quest for continental leadership.
Uganda was furious. South Africa was furious. Nigeria felt challenged. Zimbabwe was critical but accommodative. This is key to understanding the Security Council vote. The dominant feeling was one of jeering distraught Libya, or simply showing indifference to its fate, with very few countries - among them Zimbabwe - excavating vital principles underlain by Gaddafi’s personal offensiveness. The last straw came during the Africa-Europe Summit last year in Tripoli. The cup of African tolerance simply overflowed. Far from standing with Africa against Europe, Gaddafi was pleading with Europe to get specialized surveillance aircraft with which to fight African immigrants using Libya as entrepot. And when the attack on his country began, he threatened to allow African immigrants free passage into paranoid Europe. He sought to play on
Europe’s fears of the black peril, to stave off attack. Africa took note. In that same meeting with Europeans, Gaddafi showed a schizophrenia which upset many Africans. Was he Arab; was he African? Europe sought to drive a wage between Africans and Arab Africans, all in the name of developmental differential. Gaddafi seemed to find that uplifting, more so given that the distinctions put him well above generalised African poverty.
Just before the attack, Gaddafi made mediation proposals that marginalized Africa and privileged Western countries that are part of its assault. France was supposed to lead in brokering peace, the same France which fired the first salvo. Again Africa took note of a Gaddafi whose heart was in Europe, his country and contempt on African soil. That did not help. But his fate illustrates one important lesson for Africa and those who wield African power. It is when you have done all to appease the West, including selling off family silver to it, that you are at your most vulnerable. After that, you will be so worthless to the West, that only your own death becomes the last rite. You can never placate the Victorians, more so when capitalism is in crisis. Icho!
New Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe)