Re-colonisation: its real face

On August 23, after rebels entered Libyan leader Moammar Qadhafi's compound in Tripoli, Nato admitted the presence of its troops in Libya exposing who really ended Qadhafi's 42-year "despotic" rule; despotic his rule was, but was not corrupt as proved by Libya's national wealth saved over the years that the West is targeting.
Since 1986, the US launched several aerial attacks on Tripoli to kill Qadhafi but he rendered himself fit for overthrow only after he floated the idea of a Gold Dinar to replace the US dollar; his entire regime, not him alone, had to go to curb such blasphemous thinking. That Nato and the US toppled Qadhafi is a fact. Only two months ago, the rebels that toppled Qadhafi, barely numbered 1,000 and used to admit that, without the air war waged on Libya by Nato, they would either be dead or in flight.
Nato's final assault on Qadhafi's compound followed 7,505 aerial strikes against ground targets, largely by the US and British air forces. Without Pentagon's remote-controlled firepower - bomber aircraft guided by satellites - Nato couldn't have achieved this victory.
Nato bombs fell on homes, universities, hospitals, state offices and Qadhafi's compound. Everyone was a target of the operation under the guise of the "responsibility to protect" slogan that the UN accepts as an obligation (of the West) under its 1973 Resolution.
Western media ignored the fact that on August 22 alone there may have been over 1,300 civilian deaths in Tripoli, and at least 5,000 may have been wounded. That's not all, some 65,000 soldiers defending Tripoli also remain unaccounted for.
Being a solely African affair, the forum that should have been empowered to settle the Libyan crisis was the African Union (AU). Ignoring AU's role, and Nato's defiance of AU resolutions, was an illegality sanctioned by the UN.
On August 24, the BBC hinted that Libya must now focus on rebuilding its shattered security; this will make Libya a market for American, British and French arms and help pocket Libya's estimated $150 billion lying in banks in the US, Britain, Germany and Holland, as well as the 144 tonnes of Libya's gold. That's some catch!
BP, Total and Exxon's Libyan assets worth billions of dollars will be secured, 1.6 million barrels a day of Libyan oil (the cheapest given Libya's close vicinity to Europe) will again be accessible, and Western oil giants will be rewarded in many other ways by Libya's Nato-sponsored National Transitional Council.
The BBC regretted the fact that Qadhafi kept saving Libyan wealth instead of spending it like the Gulf states. Indeed, it was "regrettable"; Libya had zero public debt, and huge reserves for spending over time to build a better (not recklessly exuberant Dubai-like) future for its citizens.
It was "regrettable" because Libya didn't copy the Emirate of Dubai - the star among the Gulf states. In the five years beginning 2005, Dubai borrowed $125 billion (twice the sum Pakistan borrowed in 63 years) and in 2010 defaulted on its external debt repayment commitments.
Despite Western claims about poverty in Libya, Western media hasn't cited any evidence thereof discovered by its own analysts. Tripoli fell faster than expected not because, supposedly, the Libyan majority rose against Qadhafi; Nato's relentless aerial bombing caused that miracle.
Just one example of the loss being caused by the gun toting Libyan "revolutionaries" that Nato is out to protect, was the number of passenger aircrafts burning on Tripoli's airport. But to the West the surety of selling to Libya new aircrafts and all else that is being destroyed is a welcome opportunity.
After the mess Nato created in Afghanistan and Iraq, the third one is in Libya. Yet, Nato admires the success of this experiment - decimating dissident states anywhere on the globe using remote-controlled weaponry, and installing therein Nato's proxies.
While the West insists that the divide in Libya is only three-way - anti-Qadhafi lot in Benghazi in the East, Qadhafi supporters in the West and Berbers in the South West - the fact is that 6 million Libyans comprise of 140 tribes - a divide bigger than that in Afghanistan or Iraq.
The long-marginalised Berbers provided the most ruthless militia for toppling Qadhafi. Not surprisingly, in Urdu diction the word 'berbariyat' owes its origin to this lot; now in control of Tripoli, they would be the toughest to satisfy in any power-sharing formula, nor subsequently submit to the West.
Abdel Fatah Yunus, the first rebel commander, was executed by non-Berber rebels after discovering his French connections. Over time, more commanders who turn out to be Western proxies may meet the same fate. So much for the backing the West is hoping for. According to a Reuters report, worried about such prospects Nato members are putting together a "bridging force" of soldiers from Qatar, UAE, Jordan, and the US to "help secure the weapons"; how will this bridging force disarm thousands of gun toting Libyans (the new "Taliban"?) is anybody's guess.
While its remote-controlled weaponry may decimate its enemies, the West has yet to master the art of installing at least visibly non-controversial proxies, as proved by the on-going chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan; it makes the West appear, at best, only clever-by-half.
Despite West's zero concern for the aftermath of its invasions, the success of its remote-controlled invasion of Libya is a warning for the resource-rich badly governed states that pay only lip-service to building efficient and accountable administrations, and surrender their countries' defence to their Western allies'.
This is true of the oil-rich Sheikhdoms. Except for the US, most Western countries lack the natural resources they need, especially energy, to sustain their exuberance. It is amazing that these Sheikhdoms learnt nothing from the re-colonisation experience of Iraq.
Until the colonial era ended, the West met all its resource needs by squeezing them out of its Asian, African and South American colonies. Now that the West is on the brink of bankruptcy (principally due to oil price hike) it has embarked on a re-colonisation campaign under the garb of "responsibility to protect".
In the changed scenario ie invasion via remote-controlled weaponry against which most Asian, African and South American states find themselves defenceless, improved governance to prevent the use of the "responsibility to protect" slogan is the only option - a fact the regimes still don't accept.