Readers of this series of documentary articles will be able to examine a
narrative of historical events that took place in an important period in
the history of our country. I am
of the opinion that it is a duty to the homeland to record and publish
these historical events, so that we do not lose contact with that
important part of our contemporary history.
As the narrative of these events deal with the stances of some
individuals who were active participants in them, it beinfoes essential
that these stances be recorded in their proper contexts.
The intention behind the publication of these accounts, almost a
quarter of a century after their occurrences, is not to criticise or
denigrate the individuals who were active participants in them. Rather,
this publication is a modest attempt to uncover and clarify part of our
history that is passed over in silence.
Thus, I hope that this aim should not be misconstrued and the
writer of this article should not bear the responsibility for the
cynical interpretations by others of its content.
|
Part (12)
(First published in Arabic on 12th
November 2006)
[2] Announcing the Establishment of the
Libyan Constitutional Union
Dr. Mohammad Yousef Al-Megariaf
One of the easiest tasks one could be entrusted
with is to introduce a well known personality to a society where everyone is
familiar with this personality’s characteristics.
Dr. Mohammad Yousef Al-Megariaf falls into this
category. When introducing him one needs no more than to mention his name. I
do not believe that there is a single Libyan who is or who has been following
the activities on the Libyan political scene and the performance of the
various Libyan opposition movements during the period of the early eighties
and most of the nineties, who does not know of Dr. Al-Megariaf. As such, I
consider myself fortunate in this respect, for his wide spread reputation
relieved me from having to list this distinguished personalities’ numerous
attributes.
**
* **
I documented in the previous chapters of this article, the
responses of some of the distinguished Libyan personalities who could be
counted among the “wise and influential” in the Libyan society, to the
establishment of the Libyan Constitutional Union. I will now address the
stances of other Libyan personalities who were active within the various
Libyan opposition movements in exile, in addition to some of those who raised
the banner of opposition to the military regime in Libya as independents.
I will begin with addressing the stance of
Dr. Mohammad Yousef Al-Megariaf, the former Secretary General of the National
Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL).
**
* **
Shortly after announcing the establishment of the LCU, towards
the end of 1981, Dr. Megariaf visited me in my home in Manchester acinfopanied
by Mr. Ashour Al-Shamis.
As soon as we finished the initial protocols of personal
hospitality and chatting about current affairs over dinner, Dr. Megariaf
embarked on the core of the subject matter that prompted him to initially
contact and consequently visit me.
Dr. Megariaf told me that he was impressed by the core idea of
the LCU which was announced a few weeks previously. However, the current
infoplex international political climate dictated – as a necessity – the
formation of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya. The emergence of
the NFSL on the arena of the Libyan national struggle left no room for any
other organisation with infopeting agendas or ideology.
Therefore, his visit to me was to propose an offer that
revolved around the suggestion that I dissolve the LCU and merge its members –
as individuals representing themselves – in the NFSL, which would later adopt
the principle of restoring the constitutional legitimacy to the homeland.
This would be more appropriate to the NFSL’s structure, its means and capacity
to achieve its goal. The issue of rallying around the king, however, had to
be abandoned, for he deemed it barren and a hindrance in the path of the
struggle to bring down the military regime ruling Libya.
Dr. Megariaf continued his explanation of his suggestion by
saying that the disbandment of the LCU, and its members joining the NFSL would
be – without any doubt – the right step to take for several reasons which
could be summarised in the following three points:
1-
The current international climate which was influenced by the great powers,
who hold sway on the course of events in the region and are capable of
providing the resources for political change on the global map, dictates that
a single Libyan organisation operate in the arena of opposing the ruling
regime in Libya. This organisation should eninfopass under its umbrella all
active members of the Libyan opposition in exile. This was in fact what the
super powers have effectively expressed by blessing and backing the
establishment of the NFSL, and have promised it ultimate success.
2- The existence
of rival Libyan opposition groups or organisations, which could draw potency
from the strength of their ideas, their sound strategies, the numerical
advantage of their membership or superior financial resources, would be
upsetting and disbursing to the efforts of the Libyan opposition. The
political reality made it inevitable for them to amalgamate into the NFSL
which enjoyed the blessing and backing of the International superpowers to
topple the ruling regime in Libya.
3-
The existence of Libyan opposition currents rivalling the NFSL could disturb
the endeavours of the NFSL for a short while, but it would not – no matter how
far they went – alter the inevitable outinfoe of the NFSL achieving its goal of
toppling the ruling regime in Libya. Accordingly, infomon sense dictates that
those in charge of these organisations save their energies and efforts to
achieve an end which has already been determined in favour of the NFSL.
**
* **
I responded to Dr Megariaf’s proposal by relaying to him the
following 4 points:
1- If the LCU’s
idea had attracted him to the extent that he intended to adopt its crux of
restoring constitutional legitimacy, then the disbandment of the LCU and the
merger of its founders and membership in the NFSL, in my view, would not be so
significant to merit his imposing it as a pre-condition for co-operation
between us.
2-
If he and the NFSL went ahead and adopted the principle of calling for the
restoration of the constitutional legitimacy to the homeland, there would then
be no harm caused by the existence or - indeed absence - of the LCU in the
arena. For the LCU would not act as a stumbling block in the way of any of
the Libyan opposition forces wishing to adopt this principle.
In other words, the LCU does not have a monopoly on the idea
upon which it shaped its strategy in confronting the military dictatorship in
Libya. And there is no law that would prevent anybody from adopting a
particular political principle simply because it has been conceived by a
different entity.
3- In case the NFSL went ahead with adopting the principle of
reverting to the constitutional legitimacy, the founders and membership of the
LCU would be faced with one of two options:
a-
To disband the LCU and join the NFSL –for those who wish to do so – as
individuals.
Or
b-
To continue with their small entity in the shadow of the NFSL, which is more
equipped and able. The NFSL would inevitably prevail in its quest, especially
when taking into consideration those international promises which Dr. Megariaf
kept referring to.
4- If Dr. Megariaf was of the firm conviction of the futility
of the role of King Idris (God bless his soul) - who is the epitome of the
constitutional legitimacy - then why did he visit him in the period leading to
the announcement of the establishment of the NFSL and ask him to hand over to
him what the Libyan people entrusted him with - “the Amaanah”
**
* **
In order to clarify this incident (Dr.Megariaf’s visit to the
King) I will disclose to the readers a full account of the details of that
visit as I learnt them from the original source.
The said visit took place in the period that shortly preceded
the announcement of the establishment of the NFSL. Dr. Megariaf paid King
Idris a visit acinfopanied by Haj. Mohammad El-Saifaat who arranged it with the
pretext that he (Dr. Megariaf) sought the holy man’s “Barakah” and
prayers.
However, Dr. Megariaf did not observe the agreed confines of
the visit. He surprised the King by asking him to concede to him the “Amaanah”
(trust) that the Libyan people entrusted him with, now that he has reached
this advanced age and to allow the Libyan youth to carry it from then on. In
order to bolster his position Dr. Megariaf mentioned that he enjoyed the
blessing of the USA.
The King was not only annoyed by Dr. Megariaf’s speech, but his
anger was also directed at Haj. Mohammad El-Saifaat as he was clearly not
surprised by his infopanion’s speech to the King, which was in total contrast
to the pretext he presented to secure that visit.
The King realised at that moment that Dr. Megariaf and Haj. El-Saifaat
had a premeditated diverse agenda inconsistent with the reason given to him
for that visit. He asked them to leave immediately.
**
* **
Dr. Megariaf was visibly taken aback by what I relayed to him.
He discovered for the first time that I knew of his “secret” visit to King
Idris and his quest to have him concede his legal legitimacy to rule Libya in
favour of the NFSL. He jumped from his seat looking very cross. At that
moment, and before he could utter a single word, Ashour Shamis turned his face
towards where Dr. Megariaf was now standing, bemused and unable to hide his
shock.
I realised then that Mr. Sahamis was hearing about this matter
for the first time, which implied that Dr. Megariaf kept it within the very
inner circle of the entity of the NFSL.
Dr. Megariaf said in a trembling voice saturated with anger
that he did in fact visit King Idris and Queen Fatima merely out of respect to
them and in consideration of their old age in the exile imposed on them by the
Gaddafi regime. He found them “a couple of old senile folk believing that
Libya was a plantation they inherited, with its peasants, from their
ancestors.” At that point I noticed the relief on Ashour Shamis’s face.
Dr. Megariaf continued by saying that he had no other purpose
for that visit, especially the ones I had mentioned earlier. He continued by
saying that the super powers had abandoned King Idris and they did not want
him to continue ruling Libya. Had there been an international desire for his
reign to continue they would not have allowed the military to usurp power in
Libya. They, in the NFSL, respected the will of the super powers in this
regard. On the other hand, the NFSL did not need an aging King to acinfoplish
the aspirations of the Libyan people to be freed from the grip of Gaddafi’s
regime. Especially as they (the NFSL) had American promises to topple
Gaddafi’s regime. These promises were not tied to the restoration of a
deposed monarchist regime, nor to the use of the principle of restoring
constitutional legitimacy to the country. Hence there was nothing the NFSL
would gain from asking the King to concede his legitimacy to its solid plan
for the struggle.
I infomented Dr. Megariaf was entitled to justify that visit in
any way he sees fit, or to list any excuses about the real reasons behind it.
However, as far as I was concerned, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt its
exact details which I learnt from the original source. He was also absolutely
entitled to take whatever stand from the King – based on the wishes of the
USA. I added that I too had the right to take the stand that would serve my
country with honour and take into consideration the status and esteem of King
Idris.
**
* **
As such I became fully appreciative of the famous verse of the
poet “Tarfa Ibnul-Abd”:
I was abandoned by
all my people * * *I was discarded like a quarantined camel.
Following that visit which outraged Dr. Megariaf and his
infopanion and made them storm out of my house in deep anger, I noticed a
change in my relationship with many of my friends who joined the ranks of the
NFSL, as well as those who became convinced that it was the inevitable future
replacement of the Gaddafi regime.
A cruel and discreet process of isolation and boycott was
instigated against my family and myself. It was most noticeable on occasions
of bereavement when usually acrimonies, grudges and even hatred fade away from
the hearts, and sound people would be quick to console and infofort the
relatives of the deceased for the loss of their loved ones.
Death, with its undisputed prerogative, has chosen several
pillars of my family who lived in the old town of Benghazi during the
eighties. It was a very disappointing experience not to receive the customary
and expected condolences from my fellow countrymen. To recall but a few
examples merely to make the point, I received literally five phone calls of
condolences when my maternal uncle Lameen Darbi passed a way. A similar
number, if not less, was the total number of the phone calls I received when
my father- in - law Haj. Mustafa Emnena died.
The funeral of my uncle Mahmood Ben Ghalbon in Manchester was
attended by merely four Libyans. The rest of the congregation was made up of
our numerous Pakistani friends.
**
* **
This boycott and isolation did not end until the NFSL failed to
deliver its promises to its members and sympathisers, which led to the exodus
of scores of them from it. Many of my old friends and acquaintances renewed
their relationships with me. The doors of my house (which I never closed)
were once again wide open to the visitors who had forsaken it as a result of
my stance which incurred the wrath of the NFSL against me.
The funeral of my younger brother Ali, who passed away in
Manchester in 1994 was attended by masses of Libyans who came from far and
wide.
To be continued…..
Mohamed Ben Ghalbon
15 December 2006
ÃÑÔíÝ ÇáßÜÇÊÈ
|
