Zimpapers Logo

And all this happening on the 11th anniversary of the commemoration of the September 11 terror attacks on the US Twin Towers and also taking place 40 days before the first year of Gaddafi’s brutal murder?
I have noted with bemusement the painstaking search for answers by the Obama administration on why and how those who killed ambassador Christopher Stephens upstaged them, considering that they had Navy Seals on Libyan soil.
Who will also forget the Mark Antony-like eulogy by the US president at the United Nations General Assembly last September? But even in an election year, sometimes it is sobering to retrace your footprints.
History might not have the best answers if you relate it to President Obama’s answers in Monday’s presidential debate, but it is history that made him the first US black president. After the September 11 Benghazi attacks, why did US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton take responsibility for the Benghazi failures when the buck should stop with the commander-in-chief, President Obama?
A spurned Africa will also never forget Secretary Clinton’s widely reported loaded remarks when she joked with a TV news reporter soon after learning about Gaddafi’s gruesome death on October 20, 2011: “We came, we saw, he died”, she said.
The TV reporter asked Secretary Clinton whether her visit to Libya had anything to do with Gaddafi’s killing and she quipped, “No,” then rolled her eyes before adding, “I’m sure it did.”
During that unexpected visit to Tripoli last year, she announced, “I am proud to stand here on the soil of a free Libya.”
One year on, how free is Libya when government-backed militias are attacking Ban Walid, an alleged Gaddafi stronghold? Is Secretary Clinton prepared to return to Tripoli and announce once more that she is “proud to stand here on the soil of a free Libya?”
But more precisely, is the remark, “We came, we saw, he died” haunting her considering that a year later, four US citizens are killed in an incident that still begs more questions than answers?
In my view, it is this contextual framework that shaped the final two-party debate on foreign policy between incumbent President Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney on Monday.
Whatever the outcome, come November 6, who in the world ever thought that what seemed like an easy ride for Obama would actually turn out to be a nightmare? The list of foreign policy issues made it look like Africa was not even a consideration, but a careful analysis of Monday’s debate reveals that it was Africa that set the tone for whatever the candidates argued about in those 90 minutes. And, more precisely, it was Libya that was the entry point in the debate.
Bob Schieffer the debate moderator’s first question concerned Libya — the attack of the US consulate in Benghazi — and he said: “The controversy over what happened there continues. Four Americans are dead, including an American ambassador. Questions remain. What happened? What caused it? Was it spontaneous? Was it an intelligence failure? Was it a policy failure? Was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened?
“Governor Romney, you said this was an example of an American policy in the Middle East that is unraveling before our very eyes.”
Romney responded, “We see in, in Libya, an attack apparently by, I think we know now, by terrorists of some kind, against, against our people there . . .”
To further indicate that Africa was a major player in the US foreign policy, Romney added, “Mali has been taken over, the northern part of Mali by al-Qaeda type individuals. We have in, in Egypt, a Muslim Brotherhood president. And so what we’re seeing is a pretty dramatic reversal in the kind of hopes we had for that region.”
Obama’s response was, “Now with respect to Libya              . . . we would go after those who killed Americans and we would bring them to justice. And that’s exactly what we’re going to do.
“But I think it’s important to step back and think about what happened in Libya. Keep in mind that I and Americans took leadership in organising an international coalition that made sure that we were able to, without putting troops on the ground at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in Iraq, liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years.
“Got rid of a despot who had killed Americans and, as a consequence, despite this tragedy, you had tens of thousands of Libyans after the events in Benghazi marching and saying America is our friend. We stand with them.”
But, all this did not answer Schieffer’s questions: “What happened? What caused it? Was it spontaneous? Was it an intelligence failure? Was it a policy failure? Was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened?”
As a major growth point, it is up to Africa to come up with the answers and also decipher how these foreign policy pronouncements linking so heavily on Libya mean.
True, Western foreign policies on Africa hardly change, but the Arab Spring and many attempts at illegal regime change will show that Gaddafi might be dead, but imperialists will not let go of the continent.
They will use every excuse under the sun to try and recolonise Africa. China’s co-operation with the continent and its global economic dominance makes Africa a major foreign policy issue, notwithstanding the negative stereotypes and the heavy focus on terrorism.
That in itself is also telling. Africa is probably going to be the next battleground for global supremacy, but as Romney said, the West “can’t kill our (its) way out of this mess”. They cannot also kill their way into having their wishes realised.
May the winner realise that bilateralism and multilateralism are the major building blocks to reversing the centuries-old historical imbalances.
May the winning candidate also realise that after centuries of pillaging and plundering Africa’s resources, Africa needs to move forward, Africa also needs to be a First World continent and that Africa does not need to be policed by outsiders.