Syria, Libya, Bahrain... and Elena Bonner. A connection?

Soviet dissident, Yelena Bonner

I haven't been writing that much lately, as life does get in the way, but I still follow to a degree with what is happening around the world and, most significantly, how it is being packaged. What recently grabbed my attention was the recent death of prominent Soviet dissident Elena Bonner, wife of Andrei Sakharov. What amazed me was that she was still around! Ever since the fall of the USSR, in my mind she had totally disappeared from the radar, if you were to go by the amount of coverage she had been receiving (i.e. next to nothing). I wouldn't be surprised if many of the younger journalists out there would have had no idea who she was. Her comparatively low profile of late in the Western media would lead to believe that Bonner was quite pleased with the way Russia and the successor republics have turned out and her job in Soviet times had been completed by 1992. However, what surprised me about this report of Bonner's death is that she had continued her struggle for human rights. Initially under Yeltsin's rule in the 1990s (which according to accepted, but essentially flawed, Western lore was a time of 'true freedom'), Bonner was supportive of and played an active role in the new 'democratic' clique; however that changed when Bonner split with Yeltsin over the launch of the military campaign in Chechnya in December 1994. From then on, and more so after Putin's ascendancy to power in 2000, Bonner yet again became an opponent of the new, authoritarian Russian government. She also was quite vocal in her opposition to elements of various proposed Israel-Palestine peace accords, siding her very much on the Israeli hawkish right-wing - something of an inconsistency in principles when human rights for all is concerned. Bonner's continued dissidence is surprising in that prior to 1992, under Soviet times, Bonner had very high Western media exposure, to an extent that went far beyond her the level of her influence or profile in the USSR (many ordinary Russians still have no idea who she is!). Given that Bonner continued with her struggle in much the same intensity over the past two decades, despite the fall of the Communist Party, why did the Western media turn her back on her?

OK, I can answer that on - Bonner was no longer useful for Western interests. As I have previously commented about how different emphasis is placed by the media around the world in highlighting a cause or 'dissidents' out of self-interest above principle, Bonner and her fellow Soviet dissidents helped in achieving what the West wanted - to provide a 'moral' basis for the overthrow of Communist Party rule and to pave the way for the installation of a new capitalist system in Russia (note, not necessarily a 'democratic' system). By doing so, big business in the West stood to make loads of money from Russia. Bonner post-1992 had turned from someone who could help to make this change happen to someone who just made a lot of hot air. So not only was Bonner no longer needed by the West, she was an anachronism, hence the lack of Western exposure about her continued work.

Margaret Thatcher, Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner. Who's serving who?

So how does Elena Bonner connect with Libya, Syria and Bahrain? Well, again, it involves coverage priority and an agenda grounded by Western big business interests with right-wing ideology. All three countries have experienced uprisings of various degrees, and all three have responded violently to them. However, the Western response to these 'revolutions' have not been consistent with principle. Libya is experiencing a Western intervention on the side of a murky group of rebels in what has now become a civil war. Syria faces constant demonstrations by the majority Sunni Muslims in regional centres, with constant reports of violent crackdowns. Bahrain, after mass protests in its capital, called Saudi Arabia in to quash the 'Shia' uprising and its authorities, through police intimidation and show trials, ever since have created an atmosphere of terror and fear so as to maintain the political status quo. However, what differentiates these crises is how the Western media is reporting about them.

When Nato decided to lob missiles into Libya, the first casualty was the truth. Since then, we in the West have been forced fed a steady stream of Nato propaganda. Having learnt from extensive experience in military campaigns in Yugoslavia in 1999 and Afghanistan since 2001, Nato has successfully convinced the West's media to toe the line that the mission there is 'humanitarian' and 'moral'; Nato is killing the 'killer' before it kills, so to speak. News about the Nato bombing of Libya comes solely from Nato sources i.e. Western governments. There is never any news of civilian casualties, let alone images - out of mind, out of sight, so to speak. Any Libyan news of the civilian deaths is quickly made out to be crude propaganda - well, takes one to know one. And the 'rebels'? A certain ambiguity is maintained as to their agenda, plans, structure and composure. This helps in keeping a fragile hope that they may conform to the self-formed, idealised and romantic image Western media consumers would like to have for them. What really seems to be the case with Western policy in Libya, is that Western big business can see huge amounts of money to made. Coverage of this bombing only serves to provide popular consent and a moral high horse for the Western public. The money in Libya comes not just from large oil reserves, but also because of Libya's centralised and socialised economy. Libyan public services and utilities are still largely in government hands, so a new Western-client state in Libya would then be forced to sell off its rather valuable assets such as telecommunications, water supplies and transport. This sell-off would mean bargain investments and, considering how cashed up Libya has appeared to be, potential huge profits for big business. The connection with Bonner here is that the 'rebels', who may be quite sincere with their aims for a fairer Libya, are just being used by the West now as they are useful in creating change to a capitalist system and, subsequently, massive profits for Western big business. Plus, to some on the extremes of ideology, Libya's war can be seen as a crude but visual battle of the Right triumphing over the Left.

Nato being 'humanitarian' by destroying Libya to save it

Extensive and prominent media coverage is given to Syria's opposition protests. Images are shown of civilian casualties, numbers of deaths heavily emphasised and a simplistic, good vs evil scenario is being painted with the majority Sunni Muslims portrayed as pro-West, pro-democracy and 'good', while Bashar Assad and the 'ruling elite' from the 'Alawite sect' ('sect' has negative connotations - it is deliberate that this is how the West describes the Alewis) are evil. There have been no calls (as yet) for foreign intervention in Syria on humanitarian grounds like Libya, but Western media coverage too has sacrificed principle for interests. The West too would like to see Syria's left-wing government fall for much the same reasons as with Libya. Syria's economy is still very much in publicly-owned, much to the chagrin of the West's ideology of privatisation at any cost. A new, pro-West government in Damascus, like the West's plans for Libya, will be forced to privatise its assets, only to be purchased at bargain prices by the rich. The only difference with Libya though is that Syria does not have as much oil, so that would explain why there has been no pressing need by the West to engage in a military campaign to 'avert a humanitarian crisis'. As to what exactly this 'humanitarian crisis' is, well, details have never been fully given, nor is it that certain that this hypothetical 'crisis' would have actually happened otherwise.

Anti-Assad protest in Syria

Why get bothered with technicalities?! OK, maybe we should with Syria. The country is much like Iraq - a sectarian mosaic. The majority Sunni Muslims, many of whom are rather pious and see the ruling Alewis, as well as all other religions and other Islamic denominations, as heretics, have in the past displayed solid support for fundamentalist-based movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood. The more religious parts of Syria have mainly been the scene of demonstrations while the largest, and more cosmopolitan, cities such as Aleppo and the capital Damascus has displayed very little support for the opposition. Even though it has been mentioned (although downplayed by the Western media), many Syrians still support Assad as they see secularist Baath rule is the only way of guaranteeing avoiding the sectarian violence that has plagued Iraq since its 'liberation' in 2003. Christians and Shias are particularly worried as they know very well that a Sunni-majority rule, by virtue of imposing its majority in all aspects, will spell the end Syria's harmonious coexistence among the faiths. As mentioned previously, the West has adopted Sunni fundamentalist terminology in describing the ruling Shia Alewi minority as a 'sect'. Based on Western (misguided) perceptions of what constitutes Shias (i.e. like the stereotype of Iranians of today), and as a 'sect' (like doomsday sects), they would appear to be sinister and evil. However, if you were to actually delve into the practices and history of the Alewis (and the related Alevis in Turkey), it would make more sense that based on Western principles of democracy and humanism, the West would support them. The Alewis strongly believe in equality of the sexes (men and women pray side-by-side, Alewi women are not required to wear hijab, and monogamy is strictly enforced), humanism and espouse respect for other denominations and religions - aspects many Sunni clerics believe to be heretic. However, the West supports the Sunnis who, if successful in toppling the secular system under Assad, would most likely impose an austere and considerably intolerant environment in place - a new Iraq. And just like Iraq, Syria would witness a mass exodus of all of its religious minorities (particularly Christians and the last remaining Jews), while the increased Sunni Muslim religious atmosphere would also make the situation for gay Syrians even worse than they are now. Again, like Bonner, the Sunnis are being used (for now) so that the ultimate aim of fulfilling Western interests are served. And then, we are fed with the rather simplistic but inherently false paradigm that Shias are supposedly all anti-West while the Sunnis are all pro-West...

Pro-Assad demonstration in Syria

Then we come to Bahrain. The island state is ruled by the Sunni Al-Khalifa family while the population has a downtrodden Shia majority. Bahrain has an oil-based economy which was one of the first in the Gulf to diversify and become an important banking centre. When the Arab Spring revolution spread to Bahrain, with giant protests in the capital Manama's Pearl Square, the Gulf (especially Saudi Arabia) and the West became tense. Reason being is that if Bahrain's revolution succeeded, then this could precipitate a domino-effect in which the other undemocratic emirates of the region could fall. On a principled basis, this should be what the West wants - human rights and democracy for all. However, in this case this is not in the West's interests. These absolute monarchies, of which Saudi Arabia is the largest, provide the world with much oil and are engaged, and engage in, considerable business worldwide. On an ideological basis, these emirates are extremely right-wing and capitalist. In a move, and for much same rationale that the Soviet Union intervened into Afghanistan in 1979, Saudi Arabia even staged a Western-sanctioned invasion of Bahrain to restore 'order'. According to Gulf propaganda and carried by the Western media, Bahrain had apparently 'invited' Saudi forces in; again, this is what the Soviets claimed Afghanistan did in 1979. Going by Western 'logic', it was wrong for the Soviet Union to go into Afghanistan to contain the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism reaching the bordering, poor, Muslim republics of Soviet Central Asia, but it is fine for Saudi Arabia to enter into Bahrain to stop the spread of democracy and people power. Since the Saudi invasion, many have been arrested, there has been a climate of fear and terror, and even a group of doctors and nurses, serving their Hippocratic oath of treating people regardless, have been handed life sentences for treating protesters shot by Bahraini and invading Saudi forces.

When Saudi forces are 'invited' into Bahrain, it's no party.

So what has the Western media done? While there are occasional reports about the repression occurring in Bahrain, such as the sentencing of the doctors and nurses (this one by the BBC is particularly good), overall coverage has been comparatively light and low profile. This clearly shows that the West sees no use or financial benefit out of democracy in Bahrain, despite maintaining supposed principled and 'humanitarian' stances on Libya and Syria. The fact that the West has given its blessing to Bahrain's repression of democracy-supporters came when a Bahraini prince, who is connected to Bahraini security structures responsible for conducting arrests and torture of democracy activists, and the Bahraini ambassador to the UK were invited to the recent royal wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The prince clumsily declined the invite, though the ambassador was there. This came despite much fanfare made by David Cameron's government through the media how the Syrian ambassador was taken off the invite list due to his country's 'repression of democracy activists'.

Naturally, the West, and especially the US with its navy's 5th Fleet based in Bahrain, have no desire for the Gulf state to fall into the hands of the Shia majority. This is not so much the case, as claimed by the corrupt Gulf emirs and their Western benefactors, that this would open the door for Iran to spread its influence, but because after almost 40 years of unbridled capitalism which has seen little of that wealth trickle down to the majority, a new government in Bahrain would move towards a more socialised economy and environment - not what Western big business wants. Plus, the comparative and perceived instability of having democracy in these countries would play havoc on oil prices, driving Western economies into greater economic turmoil. It's always easier to deal with unaccountable dictatorships in these cases, rather than face negotiating with popularly-elected parliaments.

Where are Western principles? These doctors are now facing life imprisonment for doing this.

The opposition in left-wing Libya and Syria are like Elena Bonner pre-1992 - a useful tool for Western big business and government in spreading free-for-all capitalism, while right-wing Bahrain's repressed activists are post-1992 Bonner - a threat. But like Bonner post 1992, the terrible situation in Bahrain threatens to wither away into aberration and out of Western focus. This would allow the Bahraini authorities to get away with the atrocities and injustice the Libyan and Syrian governments are also accused of perpetrating.

I have intended to point out here how self-interest and ideology plays a bigger role than principle in determining Western policy and manufacturing public consent, rather than give my standpoint on the actual situations in Libya, Syria and Bahrain (let the people in those countries decide how they want to be run). The fact that the West would claim that principles play the main role is hypocrisy to the extreme and acts just as a ploy to hide its true agenda. Mind you, the West is not alone in doing this. In the end, those who genuinely hold principles, even if they are like Bonner and apply them unevenly, will lose out to those who stand to profit in our disposable society.

Keeping up with the Gaddafis... or Gadhafis... or Qadhafis (take your pick out of 32 spelling options!)

Africa's 'King of Kings' Muammar Gaddafi with a virgin from the Amazonian Guards protecting him behind

The next to go? The Middle East has seen a wave of people's revolutions which has forced out two Western-supported dictators with a taste for black hair dye and outlandish, 'caring' wives with subliminal political ambitions and sticky fingers when it comes to their fiefdom's wealth - Tunisia and Egypt, while other Arab countries, in particular Bahrain, have been rocked by huge protests whose outcome only should result in a well-needed change to their country's political environment. The latest country to gain the most media coverage for its public protests against the ruling clique is Libya.

Since 1969 Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has ruled Libya with an iron fist and a varied wardrobe, though curiously he holds no posts (neither did China's Deng Xiaoping in the later years of his life, but he was the one pulling the strings). Nevertheless, in Libya you are left with no doubt who is in charge as Gaddafi has an all-pervasive cult of personality, with his face peering down from billboards, posters and other tacky merchandise throughout the country. Much has been written about his often eccentric rule of this large north African country of 6 million people, ranging from 'the Green Book' (the Gaddafi-penned ideology that 'guides' Libyan politics, providing a 'third way' between capitalism and communism), his bevvy of female bodyguards and his bizarre behaviour on overseas trips, such as the lecture he held for a group of Italian models (who were all tested for HIV prior to attending) urging them to convert to Islam. Gaddafi has been to Americans their caricature of a goofball dictator. So much so was he the pariah de jeur of the 1980s that even in the 1985 film 'Back To The Future' there is reference to 'Libyan terrorists', something that sounds a bit out-of-tune these days.

Gaddafi, in a daring outfit, with the gals from the guard

Here on this blog, we like to focus on the more juicy, gossipy and, ultimately, more 'human' side to these dictators. 'Human' here is not referring to the initial, positive images most people have for the term. Oh no, these dictators are human in that they are delusional, wanting attention and crave to be loved - all very human traits. They also use their positions of power to their own and family's gain, much like any human would in such circumstances. What brings them down though is that they hypocritically portray themselves at one with the masses that in practice they show such disdain for.

Mama! Sadiya, matriach to a bunch of misfits

So what are the Gaddafis like? Well, Muammar does have an extensive family and its pretty hard keeping up with his mini-mes. In all, he acknowledges to have fathered eight children - seven sons and a daughter. And if you are familiar with any of the other desperate dictators featured in this blog, then it will come as no heart-breaking shock that the kids have done remarkably well for themselves, to varying degrees. Naturally, it's this sense of over-entitlement which forms the basis for some resentment towards them from the Libyan masses and wider. As one US State Department official stated in a cable, "[Gaddafi's offspring's] repeated falls from grace highlight the broad gulf between average Libyans, who view the al-Qadhafi family as unsophisticated upstarts from a historically inconsequential part of the country (Sirte - southern Libya) who routinely embarrass Libya, and senior regime officials, who view the state as an extension of the al-Qadhafi family empire". So let's go through the kid list and their 'achievements'.

The eldest son, Muhammad, was born to a wife of Muammar's who is no longer in favour. That rules him out of taking over the mantle any time. In any case, he has been given a cushy alternative job - head of the Libyan Olympic Committee (hmmm... just like Mubarak's brother-in-law in Egypt). And we all know how above the board those IOC members are... Anyway, he has his hands in some murky businesses too.

Muhammed Gaddafi (left) with the wacko prez of Kalmykia, chess nut Ilyumzhinov

The next in line (literally) is Saif al-Islam, a 39 year old architect by trade, but very much a public political figure in Libya. He has recently shot to even greater prominence with his defiant but rambling speech he gave against the Libyan anti-government demonstrators, where he blamed the disturbances on everyone from foreign infiltrators (well, the US have used that line with Iraq and Afghanistan for ages, so why not?) to Israel (of course, perhaps the sharks were sent there too) to 'drunkards' (alcohol being strictly forbidden in Libya) and warned of impending civil war. Saif al-Islam has in the past voiced his criticisms of the shortcomings of the Libyan system. As a US State Department cable published by WikiLeaks shows, in 2008 Saif made a big song and dance about how he was frustrated with his father's system, called for reforms much in line with those now demanded by demonstrators throughout the country, and that he was considering withdrawing from public office. A very public (and a little too well organised) response to this threat came from the masses appealing Saif al-Islam to reconsider. Alas, he reluctantly, probably weepingly, returned to continue his revolutionary work - oh, isn't he so selfless and humble!

Like father, like son. Saif Al-Islam is one to shine in traditional couture

But Saif al-Islam has a weakness - hunting, and travelling to far-flung places to take a shot at game. He saw in 2010 in a small town in rural New Zealand, only for a couple of weeks later to be in western Algeria, on both occasions for hunting trips. However, his public image up to now has been quite staid and boring compared to the behaviour of his younger siblings. Some, including US diplomats, have concluded that this could be a way of presenting the heir-apparent as more educated and cultured... by comparison.

Saif Al-Islam: Let me put you to sleep with one of my speeches

And so who are the wild kids... you know the type - the ones likely to drive off cliffs in their pink Lamborghinis. Well, known to those into football (soccer) is third eldest son Saadi. He is a tiptop soccer star no less, married to the daughter of a military commander, was once captain of the Libyan national team, runs the Libyan Football Federation (yes, neither is FIFA corrupt... hehe) and has been signed for various professional teams including Italian Serie A team U.C. Sampdoria, although without appearing in first team games. Rumour has it that Saadi was only signed up to curry up Gaddafi senior in providing generous concessions to Italian companies to invest in Libya and the like (extensive arms sales, in particular). He has been caught for doping and last year was ordered by an Italian court to pay 392,000 euros to a luxurious hotel for doing a runner after a month long stay in summer 2007. Saadi also had ambitious but rather crazy plans to create Libya's very own Hong Kong on the country's border with Tunisia, and has his hands in the Libya's oil wealth. All this and he's not even 40 years old!

Any guesses which one is Saadi?

Next in line for disgrace is Gaddafi's fourth son and 'National Security Advisor' (the same role Lukashenka in Belarus has for his son) - Mutassim. He spent a few years in Egypt following an internal leadership dispute, where he cultivated close links with the ruling elite there, including Omar Suleiman, Mubarak's intelligence chief and current prime minister. Mutassim is not shy of making the bold fashion statement and is one for a big booze up. While older bro was in NZ on the hunt, Mutassim held a 'quiet soiree' on St Bart's in the Caribbean to bring the new year, as he customarily does every year as of late. At the 2009 bash, no less than Beyoncé and Usher were called in to provide the music, and copious amounts of alcohol was on hand. La Beyoncé went home that night 1.2 million dollars richer. Mere pocket change! Mutassim was surprised that his festivities garnered the attention it did, with photos of the event splashed across tabloid papers worldwide, including the UK's Daily Mail which you can check out here. That placed yet another nail into his supposed rival bid for the throne from his elder, hunting brother. Actually, Mutassim's new year's bash at the Nikki Beach club on St Bart's is has been a hot ticket now for years! Enrique Iglesias performed in 2005 after his squeeze Anna Kournikova befriended the Gaddafi crew, so she convinced the Spanish heart throb to sing for a six-figure sum! Parteeee! I'm sure that Mutassim was thinking about Libya's security the whole time though...

Mutassim (with cigarette) partying like its... erm ... 2010 in St Bart's

But these guys are lightweights compared to son number 5 - Hannibal (yes, really!) He's the type of guy any parent has warned their daughter from. He is spoilt and lives life to the maxxtreme with a significant degree of impunity. According to one US State Department cable, one of his 'hobbies' (OK, more of the wife's hobby) is terrorising the hired help, so a pair up with Naomi Campbell would a match made in hell. Actually, just have a read through this cable and be sure to lift your jaw back into your mouth afterwards. Juicy details are given of his arrest in Switzerland in 2008. Hannibal's lurid past, and the consequence of his actions have caused him to supposedly be 'living in fear from his father' ever since include: assaulting Italian police officers in Rome 2001 with a fire extinguisher; attacking police in Paris after being stopped for speeding on the wrong side of the Champs-Élysées and going through a series of red lights while pissed as a newt in 2004; and receiving a four-year suspended prison sentence from a French court after beating his pregnant girlfriend, the model Aline Skaf, who refused to let him into their hotel room in 2005. Hannibal was banned from traveling to the European Schengen zone between 2005 and 2008, however he successfully obtained a visa from the Swiss Embassy in Tripoli in February 2008. Of course, after being arrested by the Swiss authorities after two of his staff complained of being physically beaten, Hannibal complained of having been treated terribly; though as a chain smoker, he was allowed to smoke in his secured room when Swiss law explicitly bans any smoking inside public buildings. Hannibal's arrest provoked a giant diplomatic spat between the land of cuckoo clocks and the land of the cuckoo leader. Gaddafi senior even called for Switzerland to be conquered and carved up by its neighbours! Eventually, Libya's oil spoke louder and Hannibal and wife were freed and all restored to normal.

Hannibal lists his interests as beating his wife, smoking and reckless driving

Not that Hannibal learnt much from the experience except that he gets it his way. His fetish for terrorising again was focused on his wife, according to another US state department cable. Hannibal had physically abused his wife, Aline, in a London hotel room over Christmas 2009. The US Embassy in Tripoli was told that Aline had threatened to leave Hannibal a few weeks before the incident and had fled to London. When Safiya, Hannibal's mother, heard the news, she pleaded with Aline by phone to return to Tripoli, promising to give her "whatever she desired," in exchange. Hannibal pursued Aline in London, and the encounter ended in assault. When mama Safiya and Hannibal's sister, Ayesha al-Qadhafi (at that time many months' pregnant - more to come about her), heard the news, Ayesha traveled to London to intervene. Both Qadhafi women - Safiya by phone and Ayesha in person - advised Aline to report to the police that she had been hurt in an "accident," and not to mention anything about abuse. London press reported that Hannibal was allowed to leave the UK discreetly, on diplomatic immunity. So are you wondering what Aline looks like? Well, look no further...

Those eyebrows are trés naturelle

Something to wear when meeting the parents

There are two more, younger Gaddafi sons (yes, Muammar's cylinders are really firing), Saif al-Arab and Khamis, the latter being a police officer. Now, anyone can tell you that being a police officer in such a society is a pretty good job to have, especially when daddy is running the joint. Khamis is being reported to have led the forces cracking down on opposition rallies in eastern Libya. Not much is known about Saif al-Arab though the diplomatic gossip in Tripoli has it that he lives in Munich, Germany, is involved in murky business and loves to party like his brothers.

Khamis (middle). But check out the Russian guy in the white leather jacket on the right!

The only (known) daughter of Gaddafi is Ayesha, who happens to be a lawyer no less, which comes in handy for Hannibal in particular as she always seems to be called in to smooth over the cracks for his shenanigans. She was also on Saddam Hussein's defence team for his trial - well, he ended up in the gallows, so that can't be added as one of her brighter elements of her career. In true Bedouin style, she married a cousin of her father's in 2006. Now, for yet another shock of Ricky Martin proportions (we knew you were gay), Ayesha has her own .... charity, just like the desperate dictator housewives! As this US State Department cable details, she and her brothers are extensively involved in the most profitable sectors of the Libyan economy, and serve on the boards of these companies. Also in true desperate dictator housewife/daughter style, Ayesha is quite glamorous. Check out the pics...

But all is not well between the siblings. There is plenty of rivalry - so much that it could have been lifted from the script of Falcon Crest or a Mexican telenovela. As US diplomats noted: controversy over the Coca Cola plant in Tripoli also highlighted Qadhafi family involvement in commercial enterprise. While three different sons Saadi, Mohammed and Mutassim, were all rumored to be fighting at different points over who had the right to the representative licence, the dispute was supposedly argued before the courts and resolved through mediation. The very twisted tale of the Coke franchise, continues to confound the local business and diplomatic community attempts to ascertain exactly what interests are in play. Mutassim was involved in setting-up the Coca-Cola franchise held by the Egyptian Ka'ur group during the late 1990s. Mutassim lost control of many of his personal Libyan business interests during the period of 2001 to 2005 when his brothers took advantage of his absence to put in place their own partnerships. Mutassim was then spotted arriving on a British Airways flight at Tripoli International Airport, greeted by a small group of well wishers and protocol assistants with bouquets of flowers (how nice!), then whisked off to the VIP arrivals lounge and into his vehicles without passing through customs or immigration. Mohammed, the head of the Libyan Olympic Committee, now owns 40% of the Libyan Beverage Company, currently the Libyan joint venture Coca-Cola franchisee. The British Ambassador to Libya reported his sources attributed the resolution to a deal whereby Mohammed Al-Qadhafi was prevailed upon to relinquish his Libyan Olympic Committee's share of the joint venture and sign it over to the Libyan Pensions Fund. Another Ambassador chimed in that he heard it was sister Aisha Al-Qadhafi who mediated the dispute between the two brothers and got Mohammed out of the soda business. If Libyan government officials are asked about the Coca Cola case, the standard response is that the government was making sure that all the proper licences and registrations were in place. Phew!
So are the Gaddafis now facing the axe with the scripts for their final episode being written by the Libyan people, especially those of the country's eastern region of Cyrenaica? Well, the reports broadcast by Western media sources are based on widespread speculation and rumour. What the media is doing is falling yet again into the trap oft repeated when passions are high on revolution. People involved in the heat of these emotional events tend to exaggerate everything, whether it be death tolls, numbers at demonstrations or levels of brutality. Have people died in Benghazi and are there demonstrators in Tripoli - probably yes. Have over 300 died in Benghazi and the numbers at the Tripoli demo reach over a hundred thousand? Probably not. Let's remember how events were reported when Romania's Ceauşescu was toppled in 1989. When he was tried by kangaroo court on Christmas day 1989, he was accused of genocide, of having killed 64,000 Romanians in the period from the 17th to 25th December 1989. During that period, the numbers of the people dead that were being mentioned had consistently grew as the Chinese whispers spread. With no better source to verify such information, these huge death tolls were taken to be fact. Once all was settled and better sense could be made of what had happened in that period, the final death toll only came to 108! So how did 108 become 64,000 then?

There is also another parallel between the Romanian 1989 revolution and current events in Libya - the rumour of 'foreign mercenary' participation. When the Hungarian nationalist pastor Laszló Tökes and his parishoners openly protested against Ceauşescu's system in Timişoara on 17 December 1989, the death toll from the subsequent massacre began to grow and grow (thousands rumoured to be dead when the toll actually was no more than 20). Word also had it that North Korean and not Romanian soldiers were responsible for mauling the unarmed demonstrators. Fast forward 20 years and now in Libya we hear of 'news' that those firing on the demonstrators are 'mercenaries' from a variety of countries (usually sub-Saharan African), while the Libyan government is too laying blame on 'foreign insurgents' for instigating the demonstrations. Blaming foreigners for atrocities is a simple way of getting people to believe the worst possible scenario, and no one in a country would want to believe that an armed force would fire on its own people.

Ceausescu and Gaddafi sharing a couch in 1974. Will they share the same fate?

Both of these cases show that in media-poor societies like Ceauşescu's Romania or Gaddafi's Libya, rumours take on a greater sense, at the cost of reliability and accuracy. What we need to do is be aware of this. Some news sites such as the BBC have provide some excellent background information though it's often buried amid loads of print (much like this post). Points made include that eastern Libya has never been a stronghold for Gaddafi rule, that violent demonstrations have happened in the past and that they have likewise been violently put down. The difference this time is that word is getting out and getting top billing. The cynic in me is noticing that the hearsay from Libya, a country of staunch anti-Western rhetoric (though Gaddafi now has been quite willing to engage with the evil West) is diverting attention from the unrest in pro-Western Bahrain, home to the US Fifth Fleet. Could this be because a change of government in Bahrain that would accurately reflect the will of its majority Shia population (added with the Western misconception that this Shiite element automatically means a win for Iran and the mullahs) would be more detrimental to Western interests? Despite Bahrain's small size, change has the potential to galvanise the peoples of Saudi Arabia, especially the adjacent Shia populated areas on the Arabian/Persian Gulf coast (where Saudi Arabia's extensive oil supplies are located) to topple their hypocritical and corrupt sheikhs. Now that would upset the world's apple cart, especially the price of oil.

Don't forget that protests are also happening in Bahrain, and the villains are just as bad

Back to Gaddafis. As much as Gaddafi senior tried to promote himself with a self-believeing but self-delusional altruistic aim of fighting for the liberation of oppressed peoples worldwide and to improve the lot for his own people, it is time for him to realise that he failed miserably and it's time to step down. Time for Libya to be a true country of its people rather than the façade portrayed of such Gaddafi's jamahiriya (state of the masses). The behaviour displayed by his family is proof enough of a failed system. Out of all the Arab revolutions of the past 2 months, Libya is following in Romania's footsteps the closest. I just hope though that the same patterns from the so-called Romanian 'revolution' in 1989 (which saw most of the old ruling clique and structure remain in place, just sans the Ceauşescus) are not repeated.