Article

On the
Libyan crisis

By
H.E. Yoweri K. Museveni
President of the Republic of Uganda

20th March 2011

1
By the time Muammar Gaddaffi came to power in
1969, I was a third year university student at Dar-es-
Salaam. We welcomed him because he was in the
tradition of Col. Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt who had
a nationalist and pan-Arabist position.

Soon, however, problems cropped up with Col. Gaddafi

as far as Uganda and Black Africa were concerned:
1. Idi Amin came to power with the support of
Britain and Israel because they thought he was
uneducated enough to be used by them. Amin,
however, turned against his sponsors when
they refused to sell him guns to fight Tanzania.
Unfortunately, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, without
getting enough information about Uganda,
jumped in to support Idi Amin. This was
because Amin was a „Moslem‟ and Uganda was
a „Moslem country‟ where Moslems were being
„oppressed‟ by Christians. Amin killed a lot of
people extra-judiciary and Gaddafi was
identified with these mistakes. In 1972 and
1979, Gaddafi sent Libyan troops to defend Idi
Amin when we attacked him. I remember a
Libyan Tupolev 22 bomber trying to bomb us in
Mbarara in 1979. The bomb ended up in
Nyarubanga because the pilots were scared.
They could not come close to bomb properly.
We had already shot-down many Amin MIGs

2
 using surface-to-air missiles. The Tanzanian
brothers and sisters were doing much of this
fighting. Many Libyan militias were captured
and repatriated to Libya by Tanzania. This was
a big mistake by Gaddafi and a direct
aggression against the people of Uganda and
East Africa.

2. The second big mistake by Gaddafi was his

position vis-à-vis the African Union (AU)
Continental Government “now”. Since 1999, he
has been pushing this position. Black people
are always polite. They, normally, do not want
to offend other people. This is called: „obufura’
in Runyankore, mwolo in Luo – handling,
especially strangers, with care and respect. It
seems some of the non-African cultures do not
have „obufura’. You can witness a person
talking to a mature person as if he/she is
talking to a kindergarten child. “You should do
this; you should do that; etc.” We tried to
politely point out to Col. Gaddafi that this was
difficult in the short and medium term. We
should, instead, aim at the Economic
Community of Africa and, where possible, also
aim at Regional Federations. Col. Gaddafi
would not relent. He would not respect the
rules of the AU. Something that has been
covered by previous meetings would be
resurrected by Gaddafi. He would „overrule‟ a

3
 decision taken by all other African Heads of
State. Some of us were forced to come out and
oppose his wrong position and, working with
others, we repeatedly defeated his illogical
position.

3. The third mistake has been the tendency by

Col. Gaddafi to interfere in the internal affairs
of many African countries using the little money
Libya has compared to those countries. One
blatant example was his involvement with
cultural leaders of Black Africa – kings, chiefs,
etc. Since the political leaders of Africa had
refused to back his project of an African
Government, Gaddafi, incredibly, thought that
he could by-pass them and work with these
kings to implement his wishes. I warned
Gaddafi in Addis Ababa that action would be
taken against any Ugandan king that involved
himself in politics because it was against our
Constitution. I moved a motion in Addis Ababa
to expunge from the records of the AU all
references to kings (cultural leaders) who had
made speeches in our forum because they had
been invited there illegally by Col. Gaddafi.

4. The fourth big mistake was by most of the Arab

leaders, including Gaddafi to some extent. This
was in connection with the long suffering people
of Southern Sudan. Many of the Arab leaders

4
 either supported or ignored the suffering of the
Black people in that country. This unfairness
always created tension and friction between us
and the Arabs, including Gaddafi to some
extent. However, I must salute H.E. Gaddafi
and H.E. Hosni Mubarak for travelling to
Khartoum just before the Referendum in Sudan
and advised H.E. Bashir to respect the results
of that exercise.

5. Sometimes Gaddafi and other Middle Eastern

radicals do not distance themselves sufficiently
from terrorism even when they are fighting for a
just cause. Terrorism is the use of
indiscriminate violence – not distinguishing
between military and non-military targets. The
Middle Eastern radicals, quite different from the
revolutionaries of Black Africa, seem to say that
any means is acceptable as long as you are
fighting the enemy. That is why they hijack
planes, use assassinations, plant bombs in
bars, etc. Why bomb bars? People who go to
bars are normally merry-makers, not politically
minded people. We were together with the
Arabs in the anti-colonial struggle. The Black
African liberation movements, however,
developed differently from the Arab ones.
Where we used arms, we fought soldiers or
sabotaged infrastructure but never targeted
non-combatants. These indiscriminate methods

5
 tend to isolate the struggles of the Middle East
and the Arab world. It would be good if the
radicals in these areas could streamline their
work methods in this area of using violence
indiscriminately.

These five points above are some of the negative

points in connection to Col. Gaddafi as far as
Uganda‟s patriots have been concerned over the
years. These positions of Col. Gaddafi have been
unfortunate and unnecessary.

Nevertheless, Gaddafi has also had many positive

points objectively speaking. These positive points
have been in favour of Africa, Libya and the Third
World. I will deal with them point by point:

1. Col. Gaddafi has been having an independent

foreign policy and, of course, also independent
internal policies. I am not able to understand the
position of Western countries which appear to
resent independent-minded leaders and seem to
prefer puppets. Puppets are not good for any
country. Most of the countries that have
transitioned from Third World to First World
status since 1945 have had independent-minded
leaders: South Korea (Park Chung-hee), Singapore
(Lee Kuan Yew), China People‟s Republic (Mao Tse
Tung, Chou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Marshal Yang
Shangkun, Li Peng, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jing Tao,

6
etc), Malaysia (Dr. Mahthir Mohamad), Brazil
(Lula Da Silva), Iran (the Ayatollahs), etc.
Between the First World War and the Second
World War, the Soviet Union transitioned into an
Industrial country propelled by the dictatorial but
independent-minded Joseph Stalin. In Africa we
have benefited from a number of independent-
minded leaders: Col. Nasser of Egypt, Mwalimu
Nyerere of Tanzania, Samora Machel of
Mozambique, etc. That is how Southern Africa
was liberated. That is how we got rid of Idi Amin.
The stopping of genocide in Rwanda and the
overthrow of Mobutu, etc., were as a result of
efforts of independent-minded African leaders.
Muammar Gaddafi, whatever his faults, is a true
nationalist. I prefer nationalists to puppets of
foreign interests. Where have the puppets caused
the transformation of countries? I need some
assistance with information on this from those
who are familiar with puppetry. Therefore, the
independent-minded Gaddafi had some positive
contribution to Libya, I believe, as well as Africa
and the Third World. I will take one little
example. At the time we were fighting the
criminal dictatorships here in Uganda, we had a
problem arising of a complication caused by our
failure to capture enough guns at Kabamba on
the 6th of February, 1981. Gaddafi gave us a
small consignment of 96 rifles, 100 anti-tank
mines, etc., that was very useful. He did not

7
 consult Washington or Moscow before he did this.
This was good for Libya, for Africa and for the
Middle East. We should also remember as part of
that independent-mindedness he expelled British
and American military bases from Libya, etc.

2. Before Gaddafi came to power in 1969, a barrel of

oil was 40 American cents. He launched a
campaign to withhold Arab oil unless the West
paid more for it. I think the price went up to US$
20 per barrel. When the Arab-Israel war of 1973
broke out, the barrel of oil went to US$ 40. I am,
therefore, surprised to hear that many oil
producers in the world, including the Gulf
countries, do not appreciate the historical role
played by Gaddafi on this issue. The huge wealth
many of these oil producers are enjoying was, at
least in part, due to Gaddafi‟s efforts. The
Western countries have continued to develop in
spite of paying more for oil. It, therefore, means
that the pre-Gaddafi oil situation was
characterized by super exploitation in favour of
the Western countries.

3. I have never taken time to investigate socio-

economic conditions within Libya. When I was
last there, I could see good roads even from the
air. From the TV pictures, you can even see the
rebels zooming up and down in pick-up vehicles
on very good roads accompanied by Western

8
 journalists. Who built these good roads? Who
built the oil refineries in Brega and those other
places where the fighting has been taking place
recently? Were these facilities built during the
time of the king and his American as well as
British allies or were they built by Gaddafi? In
Tunisia and Egypt, some youths immolated
(burnt) themselves because they had failed to get
jobs. Are the Libyans without jobs also? If so,
why, then, are there hundreds of thousands of
foreign workers? Is Libya‟s policy of providing so
many jobs to Third World workers bad? Are all
the children going to school in Libya? Was that
the case in the past – before Gaddafi? Is the
conflict in Libya economic or purely political?
Possibly Libya could have transitioned more if
they encouraged the private sector more.
However, this is something the Libyans are better
placed to judge. As it is, Libya is a middle income
country with GDP standing at US$ 89.03 billion.
This is about the same as the GDP of South Africa
at the time Mandela took over leadership in 1994
and it about ----------------- the current size of
GDP of Spain.

4. Gaddafi is one of the few secular leaders in the

Arab world. He does not believe in Islamic
fundamentalism that is why women have been
able to go to school, to join the Army, etc. This is
a positive point on Gaddafi‟s side.

9
 Coming to the present crisis, therefore, we need to
point out some issues:

1. The first issue is to distinguish between

demonstrations and insurrections. Peaceful
demonstrations should not be fired on with live
bullets. Of course, even peaceful
demonstrations should coordinate with the
Police to ensure that they do not interfere with
the rights of other citizens. When rioters are,
however, attacking Police stations and Army
barracks with the aim of taking power, then,
they are no longer demonstrators; they are
insurrectionists. They will have to be treated as
such. A responsible Government would have to
use reasonable force to neutralize them. Of
course, the ideal responsible Government
should also be an elected one by the people at
periodic intervals. If there is a doubt about the
legitimacy of a Government and the people
decide to launch an insurrection, that should
be the decision of the internal forces. It should
not be for external forces to arrogate themselves
that role, often, they do not have enough
knowledge to decide rightly. Excessive external
involvement always brings terrible distortions.
Why should external forces involve themselves?
That is a vote of no confidence in the people
themselves. A legitimate internal insurrection,

10
if that is the strategy chosen by the leaders of
that effort, can succeed. The Shah of Iran was
defeated by an internal insurrection; the
Russian Revolution in 1917 was an internal
insurrection; the Revolution in Zanzibar in
1964 was an internal insurrection; the changes
in Ukraine, Georgia, etc., all were internal
insurrections. It should be for the leaders of
the Resistance in that country to decide their
strategy, not for foreigners to sponsor
insurrection groups in sovereign countries. I
am totally allergic to foreign, political and
military involvement in sovereign countries,
especially the African countries. If foreign
intervention is good, then, African countries
should be the most prosperous countries in the
world because we have had the greatest
dosages of that: slave trade, colonialism, neo-
colonialism, imperialism, etc. All those foreign
imposed phenomena have, however, been
disastrous. It is only recently that Africa is
beginning to come up partly because of
rejecting external meddling. External meddling
and the acquiescence by Africans into that
meddling have been responsible for the
stagnation in Africa. The wrong definition of
priorities in many of the African countries is, in
many cases, imposed by external groups.
Failure to prioritize infrastructure, for instance,
especially energy, is, in part, due to some of

11
 these pressures. Instead, consumption is
promoted. I have witnessed this wrong
definition of priorities even here in Uganda.
External interests linked up, for instance, with
internal bogus groups to oppose energy projects
for false reasons. How will an economy develop
without energy? Quislings and their external
backers do not care about all this.

2. If you promote foreign backed insurrections in

small countries like Libya, what will you do
with the big ones like China which has got a
different system from the Western systems?
Are you going to impose a no-fly-zone over
China in case of some internal insurrections as
happened in Tiananmen Square, in Tibet or in
Urumuqi?

3. The Western countries always use double

standards. In Libya, they are very eager to
impose a no-fly-zone. In Bahrain and other
areas where there are pro-Western regimes,
they turn a blind eye to the very same
conditions or even worse conditions. We have
been appealing to the UN to impose a no-fly-
zone over Somalia so as to impede the free
movement of terrorists, linked to Al-Qaeda, that
killed Americans on September 11th, killed
Ugandans last July and have caused so much
damage to the Somalis, without success. Why?

12
 Are there no human beings in Somalia similar
to the ones in Benghazi? Or is it because
Somalia does not have oil which is not fully
controlled by the western oil companies on
account of Gaddafi‟s nationalist posture?

4. The Western countries are always very prompt

in commenting on every problem in the Third
World – Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc. Yet, some of
these very countries were the ones impeding
growth in those countries. There was a military
coup d'état that slowly became a Revolution in
backward Egypt in 1952. The new leader,
Nasser, had ambition to cause transformation
in Egypt. He wanted to build a dam not only to
generate electricity but also to help with the
ancient irrigation system of Egypt. He was
denied money by the West because they did not
believe that Egyptians needed electricity.
Nasser decided to raise that money by
nationalizing the Suez Canal. He was attacked
by Israel, France and Britain. To be fair to the
USA, President Eisenhower opposed that
aggression that time. Of course, there was also
the firm stand of the Soviet Union at that time.
How much electricity was this dam supposed to
produce? Just 2000 mgws for a country like
Egypt!! What moral right, then, do such people
have to comment on the affairs of these
countries?

13
5. Another negative point is going to arise out of
the by now habit of the Western countries over-
using their superiority in technology to impose
war on less developed societies without
impeachable logic. This will be the igniting of
an arms race in the world. The actions of the
Western countries in Iraq and now Libya are
emphasizing that might is “right.” I am quite
sure that many countries that are able will
scale up their military research and in a few
decades we may have a more armed world.
This weapons science is not magic. A small
country like Israel is now a super power in
terms of military technology. Yet 60 years ago,
Israel had to buy second-hand fouga magister
planes from France. There are many countries
that can become small Israels if this trend of
overusing military means by the Western
countries continues.

6. All this notwithstanding, Col. Gaddafi should be

ready to sit down with the opposition, through
the mediation of the AU, with the opposition
cluster of groups which now includes
individuals well known to us – Ambassador
Abdalla, Dr. Zubeda, etc. I know Gaddafi has
his system of elected committees that end up in
a National People‟s Conference. Actually

14
 Gaddafi thinks this is superior to our multi-
party systems. Of course, I have never had
time to know how truly competitive this system
is. Anyway, even if it is competitive, there is
now, apparently, a significant number of
Libyans that think that there is a problem in
Libya in terms of governance. Since there has
not been internationally observed elections in
Libya, not even by the AU, we cannot know
what is correct and what is wrong. Therefore, a
dialogue is the correct way forward.

7. The AU mission could not get to Libya because

the Western countries started bombing Libya
the day before they were supposed to arrive.
However, the mission will continue. My opinion
is that, in addition, to what the AU mission is
doing, it may be important to call an extra-
ordinary Summit of the AU in Addis Ababa to
discuss this grave situation.

8. Regarding the Libyan opposition, I would feel

embarrassed to be backed by Western war
planes because quislings of foreign interests
have never helped Africa. We have had a
copious supply of them in the last 50 years –
Mobutu, Houphout Boigny, Kamuzu Banda,
etc. The West made a lot of mistakes in Africa
and in the Middle East in the past. Apart from
the slave trade and colonialism, they

15
participated in the killing of Lumumba, until
recently, the only elected leader of Congo, the
killing of Felix Moummie of Cameroon,
Bartholomew Boganda of Central African
Republic, the support for UNITA in Angola, the
support for Idi Amin at the beginning of his
regime, the counter-revolution in Iran in 1953,
etc. Recently, there has been some
improvement in the arrogant attitudes of some
of these Western countries. Certainly, with
Black Africa and, particularly, Uganda, the
relations are good following their fair stand on
the Black people of Southern Sudan. With the
democratization of South Africa and the
freedom of the Black people in Southern Sudan,
the difference between the patriots of Uganda
and the Western Governments had
disappeared. Unfortunately, these rush actions
on Libya are beginning to raise new problems.
They should be resolved quickly.

Therefore, if the Libyan opposition groups are

patriots, they should fight their war by
themselves and conduct their affairs by
themselves. After all, they easily captured so
much equipment from the Libyan Army, why do
they need foreign military support? I only had
27 rifles. To be puppets is not good.

16
9. The African members of the Security Council
voted for this Resolution of the Security
Council. This was contrary to what the Africa
Peace and Security Council had decided in
Addis Ababa recently. This is something that
only the extra-ordinary summit can resolve.

10. It was good that certain big countries in the

Security Council abstained on this Resolution.
These were: Russia, China, Brazil, India, etc.
This shows that there are balanced forces in the
world that will, with more consultations, evolve
more correct positions.

11. Being members of the UN, we are bound by the

Resolution that was passed, however rush the
process. Nevertheless, there is a mechanism for
review. The Western countries, which are most
active in these rush actions, should look at that
route. It may be one way of extricating all of us
from possible nasty complications. What if the
Libyans loyal to Gaddafi decide to fight on?
Using tanks and planes that are easily targeted
by Mr. Sarkozy‟s planes is not the only way of
fighting. Who will be responsible for such a
protracted war? It is high time we did more
careful thinking.

Yoweri K. Museveni

17
PRESIDENT

20th March 2011

18