Dear Dr Ighnewa,|
1. I must first congratulate you on the care with which your are organizing your web homepage. It has become a real forum and invaluable source of information to all those who are, like myself, linked to Libya and Libyans not by interest but by LOVE. This being said, my attention was drawn yesterday by a primitive style of an unsigned letter with uncultivated and naive content complaining about posting the names of those who were summoned lately to the Libyan Mission in New York for discussions with the Ambassador and other diplomats from the Mission the ways and means to deflate the anger of the Libyan exiled community and to prevent, if not neutralize, any activity that may be considered by the Libyan Mission as prejudicial to its campaign to sell a new image of Libya (post Leekerbie) to the US public different from the "Jamahirya" customary pictures of terror and blood, including public hanging, physical liquidation of "strayed dogs" and terrorization of Libyan exiled communities everywhere; including in Colorado where Dr Faisal Al Zgalai escaped "physical liquidation" solely thanks to his courage and determination to fight. The neutralization of the Libyan Exiled community was all the more urgent and imperative that a hearing on Libya was scheduled for the Congress and on which the Government of President Qadhafi was hoping it will tilt US policy towards a leaner approach to Libya especially if the Hearing faced no dissident voices.
2. This is the real objective of the NY meeting and I have no doubt that the writer of the unsigned letter knows it well. This is crystal clear from his letter when he wrote: "the news (the announcement) is not a problem... but the problem (is the publication of) the list of the people". This statement calls for two main comments:
(a) the writer is convinced that what he undertook (attend the meeting) was resentful and even shameful. This is what explains the "stress" which was generated by the publication of his name as participant to the meeting. For him, his participation was acceptable as long as nobody knew about it, but that that participation would become public seems to be unbearable to our "friend". This is a typically opportunistic (INTIHAZI) attitude that may give ideas about the "personality" of the writer of the unsigned letter and the quality and values of the participants.
(b) Our "Intihazi" (opportunist) seems to have been so surprised by the publication of the conclusions of the meeting along the participants' names that he forgot to ask about who, among the participants (his friends?) leaked the document and the names (even in handwriting) to the public?. For my part I believe the Ambassador himself leaked the information. He is the only one, among the participants, who has a keen interest in the publication of the document for the following simple reasons:
- This is the first time that a Jamahiri representative succeeds in penetrating officially the Libyan Exiled community in the US, which is the most important of the Libyan "diaspora". And it is normal that such a breakthrough, to bear fruit, should be made known to all, especially to president Qadhafi (for reward) and the exiled Libyans (for warning to join the ranks or...?)
- This penetration ( through the publication of the conclusions of the meeting) will result in more suspicion among Libyans with inevitable accusations and counter-accusations among the members of the community which will inevitably lead to more divisions and fragmentation among the members of the same community of which the sole beneficiary will be the Libyan government; specifically the "Revolutionary Committees". This is, in my view, another objective of the New York meeting.
3. It would be therefore more useful for our "INTIHAZI" to address his protest to the Host Ambassador and request an official apology from him. Protesting against a "homepage" is a malicious attempt to circumscribe our "RIGHT of INFORMATION" which is the basis of "the freedom of the press" that is, unfortunately inexisting in the "JAMAHIRYA". It may also be a planned obnoxious move (by the meeting) to threaten those of the Libyan community who are active in the press, information and culture sectors. Please always have in mind that the major "achievement" of the "September 1969 Revolution" has been "the cultural Revolution" of April 1973 which was in essence a move that suppressed totally and effectively any tolerated margin of freedom of expression and freedom of the press through jailing a score of democrats, including journalists, lawyers, students etc... along with all those who were known to have views that did not (100%) correspond to, the views held then, by President Qadhafi. Is our Intihazi looking for another "cultural Revolution" here among the Diaspora?
4. Our "Intihazi" in his attempt to find justification, of what seems to be from his point of view unjustifiable, asserted, albeit with fading conviction, that there is nothing wrong "by attending a meeting at the UN grounds". I have no doubt that our "Intihazi" is well aware that the UN has nothing to do with the Libyan Mission which enjoys a full diplomatic protection as a piece of land of the "Jamahirya". It is obviously worse for our Intihazi not to know this simple fact and would again give the reader an idea about the quality of the participants.!. My friend you get yourself, voluntarily or involuntarily, into something bigger than you.... You get yourself into open public life while you are only capable of miserable secret activities of a simple governmental agent (MUKHABBIR).
5. Our Intihazi stated that he" attended the conference to help the Libyan community in America", but it is obvious that he prefers, for some reasons (personal enrichment perhaps!), that the "help" is provided in total secrecy ( to better help himself) from all and especially from the Libyan community; the help recipients. And that is what explains his shame and resentment now that the community, he pretends to serve, has discovered the writer's pretense... I would leave it to the reader to imagine what kind of help, a help that even an intihazi is ashamed of, was to be provided to the community.
6. At the end our Intihazi, to justify what he really believed unjustifiable, widened his scope to the "help of my people back home". I believe that the Libyan people would not have been in need of any help had they succeeded in getting Libya rid from its numerous opportunists like our Intihazi. What the Libyan people are in need of urgently is an immunization against the HELP of opportunists like our Intihazi. What the Libyan people are in need of is the release of thousands of political prisoners... what the Libyan people are in need of is the freedom to choose their government ... What the Libyan people are in need of is Free and Independent justice... Free press.... Free elections... Free expression and above all what the Libyan people are in need of is: FREE MAN... FREE MAN and FREE MAN.
With my best personal regards,
July 4, 1999