Role of Western media in Gaddafi's fall

The West-sponsored story about Gaddafi has sold very well. Obviously, the credit goes to the crafty storytellers, who with their relentless efforts have regaled us with the tale of yet another Arab dictator whose whims are as entertaining to readers as to the Western leaders. Although the task was a bit arduous in the beginning, things became easier for them, that is to say, for the Western media, when the Arab world got carried away by the so-called "Spring," the seemingly never-ending flow of which is yet to ebb. After that, the only thing left for them was to organise the narrative in a way so as to represent Gaddafi as a stereotyped villain who having stifled democracy for more than four decades set out on a killing spree.
Apparently, this narrative was and still is chronologically ordered, which is easy for readers to grasp; yet the lapses are too conspicuous to be overlooked. In other words, everything associated with the positive outcome of Gaddafi's rule both in regional and international contexts was selectively discarded. So the beginning where the story had originally started had to be rewritten starting from the middle or from anywhere that suited the taste of the Western readers and the interest of their leaders. As a result, much as Aesop's fable calls for a cathartic ending thereby punishing the malevolent fox, the tone of the story about Gaddafi in Western media inevitably demanded his dethronement thereby legitimising the West's uncalled-for intervention in the name of restoring freedom to the people of Libya. The rest is not silence, but a tale marked by the charade of neutrality.
This is not to say that the "Arab Spring" holds no promise in terms of political change. Nor is it to imply that Gaddafi was really a good ruler. Far from that, his outrageously eccentric feats, especially in harbouring political outlaws from the world over including those of the killers of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, are enough to make one stand against many of his weird policies. Nevertheless, this is to emphasise that the civil war that broke out in Libya was set in a completely different context where any arbitrary involvement of the West with the US at the helm and the Nato taking care of the rest has palpable political dimensions, the history of which traces back to as far as 1969. This is also to note that when such a highly politically charged story was told by the Western media, that difference in context and tenor was carefully obliterated and shown to be a natural extension of the Arab Spring where Western military intervention was necessitated only by Gaddafi's burgeoning crimes against humanity.
Now let us take a look at some of those parts that were dropped from the story. In spite of Gaddafi's eccentricities compounded with his acts of brutality, he had done some remarkable things that ensured many of the basic rights every citizen in the world is entitled to. Consider his massive steps to nationalise all the local banks (for details, visit www.Qatarliving.com). Or for that matter, consider his contribution to give a definite shape to Opec, a major player in international oil market. Of all the heads of Opec's member states, Gaddafi was most dissident, causing much worry to Western leaders because they always knew if Libya refused to share its oil output with Opec, international oil price would jump several notches up the very next day. To make matters worse, no plausible pretext for military attack under the aegis of the United Nations could be found in Libya even along the furthest imaginary lines as had been found in Iraq. So the West had nothing more to do except for biding its time, waiting for its associated media wings to fabricate one more story like the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Once such a cooked-up story was established, their unlawful military attack would find all its justification without ever revealing the ulterior motive: gaining full control over Libya's oil fields.
And the opportune moment struck as soon as people in their thousands took to the streets in Tunisia demanding democracy. All that the media needed to do then was show some real skills that they had mastered throughout the last couple of centuries. They did show that skill by making us believe that it was for the best interest of the Libyan people that Gaddafi must be attacked and killed. Their skill has deluded us into believing that it was only Gaddafi who committed numerous crimes against humanity and not the indiscriminate air strikes of the Nato forces that killed many innocent people. Last but not least, their skill has made us oblivious of the fact that this altruism does not apply to Saudi Arabia or Bahrain even though there are more draconian laws and repressive acts to contain organised democratic movement in these countries. In fact, these countries bowed down to the US long ago, which is why democracy is not required there.
At this point, one must ask why close US ties with many despotic governments are not reported in Western media. On the other hand, see how brisk they are to warn readers of the premonition that in Tunisia the Islamist party after winning the democratically held election (which of course was their idea) may prop up Islamic fundamentalism. May be this is another splatter of altruism, which is too self-effacing to take into account their own crisis, the pitfalls of capitalism that has flooded the streets of the USA and other European countries with angry protestors.
In the final analysis, narrative of this story emerges as a pattern which is common in a whole range of West-sponsored stories. Take for example the one about Saddam Hussein, which has all the symmetries of a criminal dictator dancing defiantly on top of his oil resources. Going down the course of Western imperialism in the past two or three decades, one can fairly assume that this pattern will continue to be present in the fate of any future leader who is as defiant as Gaddafi or Saddam.
Again, this is not to say that the Libyan people do not deserve to elect their own government. But that is only for them to decide whether they will go for a spontaneously triggered mass uprising for democracy or not. In fact, it is purely a matter of political consciousness and when people naturally grow to be conscious of their democratic rights, nothing can stop a revolution. This is exactly what had happened in Bangladesh in 1990. We did restore democracy by throwing out a dictator; and we did not need anyone to make up a story or the Nato planes to come in marauding bands and kill innocent people.
Indeed, time has come for all to question the credibility of Western media.

The writer works in the Editorial Section, The Daily Star.