There’s a curious Russian anecdote about a police officer who arrested a man for talking about the dictator in public. He was taken prisoner and sentenced to be shot. Stalin, who used to sign the execution orders, was curious about the charges against this individual:
“Did he say my name?” Stalin asked.
“No, but the policeman said he could tell that he was talking about you,” replied the court official.
To which Stalin replied:
“Ah, so this officer thought that since he was talking about a dictator, then he was referring to me. Well execute him too for considering me a tyrant.”
I bring up this story because it relates to a response to my entry about the assassination of Gadhafi – I repeat, “assassination,” because I believe he was killed in a depraved manner. Perhaps a trial in which he would have been sentenced would have been more ethical and human, without beating and shooting him – which I think was revolting.
As for the NATO intervention, which also left things clear, to me this seemed to be immoral opportunism, because whatever might be the internal dimensions and conflicts within a nation, those should be resolved by the inhabitants themselves, without external interlopers.
But that doesn’t mean that Gadhafi should be considered a hero, or that he was wrongfully removed from power. It’s true that the insurgent troops received military support from NATO, and for this they’ll be charged at a premium. We will see the plundering of their nation’s wealth and interference in its economy, politics and society, so that later they may have other reasons for rioting – this time against that former allies.
But that is a matter of time and increasing awareness on the part of the Libyans. What concerns me are certain pro-Gadhafist opinions that are attempting to sublimate the persona of this individual, who (as quoted in the post) did in fact make great contributions to Libya’s social development and economy stability with his progressive programs.
But how did the progress of that country stagnate? It happened when the leader who once undertook those progressive changes incurred the sclerosis of power and imposed his ideology as the only one permissible, refused to allow questioning or opponents, made the study of his books compulsory and destroyed all vestiges of democracy.
This is what happened to the Libyans. Those who were not sheep began their struggle, while those who were content preferred that situation to any change. Eventually the conflict became an excuse for the major powers to take advantage of the circumstances.
One person commenting on my entry called me a traitor for speaking out this way, asking me what I would do or say if this same thing happened in Cuba or Venezuela.
In this there’s is a curious detail: Why did this person find common points between Libya, Venezuela and my island? This reminds me of Stalin’s logic. Was their comment implying that Cuba is ruled by a tyrant? To borrow from a very Cuban saying, I would reply: “That’s what you said…”