By:Basharat Hussain Qizilbash

Violence begets violence is the lesson one can learn from the life and death of the Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, who grabbed power through a violent act and was kicked out of power by violent protestors that ultimately assassinated him in a brutal manner. For over four decades, he ruled as a romantic revolutionary, who thought he could fashion the world according to his whims and fantasies. Like a true romantic, he was a man of many dreams, who was quite passionate about them. He was the leader of a small country yet he chose the whole world as the theatre of performance.
From Africa to Europe, he supported all brands of revolutionary liberation movements such as the Front of National Liberation in Eriteria and Irish nationalists struggling against Britain in Northern Ireland. At the same time, he was equally critical of the capitalistic American neo-imperialism and the atheistic Russian communism. His most cherished dream, however, was pan-Arabism as he wanted to forge on a common political platform a United States of Arabs to confront the challenges posed by the West as well as the communist bloc but he lacked the vision, means and stature to overcome the centuries old Arab prejudices, parochialism and tribalism.
One may disagree with his approach but one can never question the sincerity of his purpose in uniting the Arab states into a political unity. In 1969, he persuaded Egyptian President Gamal Nasser and Sudanese President Jafar Numeiri to launch the Revolutionary Arab Front. Undeterred by Nasser’s sudden demise, he prevailed upon the new Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Syrian President Hafez Assad to form the Federation of Arab Republic in 1971. Frustrated by Sadat’s lacklustre attitude, he proposed to President Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia that their states should merge into an Arab Islamic Republic in 1974. His selflessness to the pan-Arab cause was unique in the sense that he had been the only leader, who publicly declared that he would step down as the head of the Libyan state in favour of Sadat to realise the dream of the federation with Egypt.
One wonders when he was so enthusiastic in pursuing his ideals, then why did he fail in all of his enterprises. I think the most important factor that caused his failures was his maverick bent of mind which did not permit him to be consistent in his words and deeds. Consequently, even if he had the noblest of intentions; he could not be taken seriously by others. His whole life is replete with erratic behaviour. For example, he announced that Libya would quit the Arab League if Egyptian President Mobarak were invited to its 1989 session. Later, to the utter amazement of everybody, he not only accepted Mobarak but was the first person to embrace and kiss him.
Such a maverick attitude irritated many and caused more ill-will than good-will. The August 1990 Arab League summit convened to find a solution of Iraq’s attack on Kuwait is another case in point. Qaddafi suspected that the resolution that was to be passed was actually prepared in Washington and then translated in Arabic. Fair enough! But the way he communicated his displeasure was annoying to the Sheikhdoms. First, he confronted Sheikh Zayed, the ruler of UAE: “Why are you hiding behind the Americans? Wouldn’t it have been easier to get the Israelis to protect you? They are nearer.” Then, in a sheer display of bravado, he bellowed to a group of other Gulf foreign ministers that included Sheikh Saad of Kuwait: “Why don’t you ask the Israelis to come and defend you?” He was probably the only Arab leader, who personally led a demonstration of about half a million people in Tripoli in support of Iraq and against the US military intervention.
This maverick personality trait made him a man of many contradictions. The same Iraq with whom he was expressing solidarity in 1990 was castigated by him in 1972 for signing a treaty of friendship with socialist Russia. He argued that Iraq had broken the ranks of Arab solidarity and so recalled his ambassador from Baghdad but three years later had himself signed a $1 billion arms deal with Moscow.
Even Moscow found it quite difficult to forge a stable relationship with such a maverick mind. He was an Islamist at heart and enforced strict Islamic regulations in the early 1970’s by banning alcohol, closing bars, cabarets and other places of entertainment as he firmly believed that one day the world would reject capitalism and communism and would ultimately embrace Islam.
Ironically, he was not consistent even in his opposition to communism. First, in 1971, after the communists had brought a successful coup against President Jafer Numeiri of Sudan, Babakr el-Nur boarded a BOAC flight from London to Khartoum to take over as the new President, had his flight forcibly brought down in Libya on the orders of Qaddafi, was put in jail and subsequently handed over to the Sudanese authorities. However, the very next year, the maverick Libyan leader supported the Marxist South Yemen government in its civil war against North Yemen.
These eccentricities had completely estranged him from his Arab brothers, the imperialist West and the Russian communists. If any country that was strong enough to save him in his last confrontation against the US-led NATO forces, it was Russia. A few days ago, the incumbent Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov clearly warned the world that his country would not allow a Libya-style military intervention against Syria, however, no such warning was issued by the Russians in defence of Qaddafi. Why? Just because Russians had not forgotten Qaddafi’s tirades against them. The Soviet President Brezhnev, while communicating his displeasure at Qaddafi had enquired from Sadat in a meeting: “We don’t know him; we have never met him; we have nothing against him or against Libya. So, I don’t know why he is attacking us, and communism and Soviet Union.”
Sometimes the wounds caused by words can be more cutting than a sword. The Russian prestige was definitely wounded. The annoyed Brezhnev reminded Sadat, “We judge people by what they say. Why is Qaddafi attacking us? We aren’t attacking him... Obviously what Qaddafi says can’t harm the Soviet Union, and the time will come when he will repent of everything he had said against the Soviet Union.” Qaddafi should have marked his words but he didn’t and thus, met an ignominious end.

Source: Man of many contradictions