Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Here Lies Ozymandias, King of Kings

No, that's not the man in the picture. The dejected looking semi-corpse is Muammar Gaddafi (this week's spelling of the name) who wants to be king of kings, but his fellow Africans just won't let him. No matter how much he pays them. Alexander wept because there were no nations left to conquer. Muammar weeps because the people he buys just won't stay bought.

Each year for the past three years, the very wealthy Gaddafi has put on one of his ostentatious all-expenses paid vacations for the various leaders of the African nations in hopes of forming a United Africa, with himself as king. I specifically used the word "king" because there's no resemblance whatsoever to an elected president or prime minister. Idi Amin's generalissimo and president for life would be the closest thing to it, or perhaps the Kim regime in North Korea.

Six months ago, Qaddafi tried to have himself re-elected to the one-year chairmanship of the African Union, but couldn't even pull that off. He really wanted that position because the AU is the largest organization in Africa determined to form something resembling a United States of Africa or a Union resembling Europe's federation. The AU would have fast-tracked that concept with Gaddafi as leader, but instead is now being run by his much-hated "gradualist" allies.

What is really peculiar about all of Gaddafi's machinations is the determination to create something as anachronistic as a king. The main opposition to this comes from the two sub-Saharan nations of South Africa and Nigeria. His support, tepid as it may be, comes largely from the strongmen and tribal chieftains of the more backward and destitute African nations. But as the representative of Zambia's Tonga tribe put it: "Most of our traditional leaders here are very poor and as such they are just agreeing with everything without objection." In other words, "anyone who can put on a party like this and give us freebies is a king in our book."

It seems that Gaddafi is envisioning something faintly akin to the Holy Roman Empire. A vast feudal congregation of nations varying in governmental form and leadership, but united under one leader. But "king" is not a word that has been bandied about much outside of Africa of late. Still, it is rumored that Gadaffi already had the papers elevating him to that position, waiting only for the signatures of the various heads of state present at the gathering in Tripoli.

Gaddafi has delusions of adequacy, and in his pipe dreams envisions himself as a king, or maybe even an emperor. Still, the thing that seems to have hung many of the delegates up is not the kingship itself, but Gaddafi's clear intention to make the throne hereditary. Even the Holy Roman Empire had pretensions to electing its emperors. Gaddafi's document doesn't specifically mention hereditary monarchy, but very noticeably goes out of its way not to mention time limits on the king's rule nor any provision for a successor. By default, that seems to mean hereditary monarchy.

Gaddafi has sons to assume the throne, and there's something eerie about his favorite son's name--Hannibal. I wonder what Rome thinks about that. But I digress. Before we entirely laugh off the concept of a king in the modern world, we do have to remember that there are many kings and queens in modern Europe, although I don't think Gaddafi has the idea of a true constitutional monarchy in mind. He will want to be both the head of state and head of government, and undoubtedly the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Lest anybody have any doubts about Gaddafi's real idea of kingship as an elected monarchy responsible to an elected legislature, consider his own words: "There would be no elections because there are dozens of examples of people who have lost their lives across the continent because of election disputes." So much for a republic led by a titular king. He solved that problem in Libya by simply murdering all his opponents, their supporters and fellow-travelers. Now it's all cozy and peaceful in his country. You do understand, don't you?

Another problem for Gaddafi (although he has the remedy) is that there are large Christian presences in Uganda, Nigeria and South Africa. In addition, there are also large numbers of animists in central Africa. Gaddafi is a jihadist Muslim, and recently sent 1,000 troops to launch a Muslim campaign to end Christianity in Uganda. He has also made his contempt for black Africans known, most particularly by his ejection of thousands of black workers from Libya and imprisonment of thousands more for nothing more than attempting to rise to positions of authority in labor organizations or start their own businesses in competition with Arab Muslims.

And if you didn't grasp the racism there, how about his attempt to coerce the European Union into giving him $6.3 billion to organize a project to keep black Africans out of Europe because, in his own words, blacks are "starving and ignorant." By dividing and insulting most of the rest of Africa, Gaddafi's bribes just don't convince even the most insular of African statesmen that he has the temperament or ability to organize a United States of Africa which will exert its rights and authority without mass murders and suppression of the majority African population.

One last question. Am I the only one who thinks that Muammar Gaddafi is actually Mickey Rourke in disguise? Well--have you ever seen them in the same place at the same time? I have heard from a friend whose sister's uncle's friend knew a grad student from Columbia who visited Libya once and saw Rourke getting into Gaddafi drag. How much more proof do you need? I sense a major international conspiracy.


T_Rav said...

LawHawk, if your theory about Gaddafi's true identity is correct, does this mean we should send Robert Downey Jr. to Libya to take him out?

Unknown said...

T_Rav: Now why didn't I think of that? LOL

AndrewPrice said...

Poor Muammar G., or however he's spelling it now. Won't anyone take him seriously? I'm deeply touched by his plight. Actually, strangely, I couldn't care less. Maybe he should go back to war with Switzerland, then he might get interesting. . . but probably not.

Unknown said...

Andrew: He would like to go to war for his throne against France, but he can't find a Parisian couturier to make his robes for him. As for Switzerland, he still finds the Swiss Navy far too formidable.

No matter what this buffoon does, he is still treated with kid gloves by the Europeans and the UN, continues to support terrorists, and is always given the "royal treatment" when he comes to New York to address the General Assembly and take a temporary spot on the Security Council. For our liberal, leftist and Islamic friends, pride goeth before a state dinner.

LL said...

I was in the Gulf of Sidra Yacht Club in 1986 when he set up his "line of death" and Reagan showed him how it was done downtown.

After that - and until the obama regime's rise to power, he was careful not to provoke the US or anyone else. Since obama is proud to bow to him, I think he's been emboldened.

Unknown said...

LL: Wow. That Gulf of Sidra confrontation was pretty hairy. Glad you survived it. And yes, Obama has emboldened dictators worldwide. He's about as scary as the Pillsbury Doughboy.

Tennessee Jed said...

There was a brief moment after Bush had defeated Sadaam, that I thought Gaddafi might be getting on board, and true democracy might come to the middle east. What was I thinking?

Unknown said...

Tennessee: I didn't fall for it, though I don't claim any more wisdom than you. I was pretty sure it was pure fear that motivated Gaddafi during and after Reagan. Obama's yellow streak has proven me right.

StanH said...

And we wonder why Africa is the seething armpit that it is. But, what the hell let’s head to Tripoli for good eats. They did at least showed a bit of wisdom in turning Gaddafi(?) down, that guy is certifiable.

Post a Comment