A recent video of Ugandan President Museveni explaining how NATO assassinated Muammar Gaddafi, one of the greatest advocates of Pan-Africanism, at the Pan-African Parliament in 2014 has surfaced. His speech has sparked outrage among Africans because it clearly showed that the West and its Allies do not care about the African people and will remove anyone who stands in their way.

(Video Clip)

In his speech, President Museveni stated in his speech that “they didn’t listen to us, they continued and killed Gaddafi, and now Libya is in shambles up to today.” If NATO’s involvement was actually launched on humanitarian grounds, as they claimed, the situation in Libya would be different today, but thanks to the 2016 publication of Hillary Clinton’s emails, we now know the true motive for NATO’s entry into Libya. It was merely to prevent the formation of an independent hard currency in Africa, which would liberate the continent from its economic shackles under the dollar, the IMF, and the French African franc. That hard currency would have helped Africa to break free from the remaining vestiges of colonial exploitation.

The US-NATO intervention was supposedly launched on humanitarian grounds in response to reports of mass atrocities under Gadaffi; however, years later, various human rights organisations have questioned the claims due to a lack of evidence. Prior to 2011, Libya had attained economic independence, with its own water, food, oil, currency, and state-owned bank. Under Gaddafi, it rose from one of Africa’s poorest to its richest. Education and medical care were both free; having a home was seen as a human right; and Libyans took part in an innovative system of local democracy. The country had the world’s largest irrigation system, the Great Man-made River project, which supplied water from the desert to cities and coastal areas, and Gaddafi was planning to replicate this model throughout Africa. But that was before US-NATO forces attacked the irrigation infrastructure and wreaked havoc on the country. Why would the irrigation system be bombed if the involvement was truly humanitarian? A civilian irrigation system serving up to 70% of the population is hardly a humanitarian intervention.

One of the emails read in part from Hillary Clinton’s private email server stated that “Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver … This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan gold Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).”

In a ‘source comment’, the original declassified email added:

“According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

One, A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

Two, Increase French influence in North Africa,

Three, Improve his internal political situation in France,

Four, Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

And five, Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.” Conspicuously absent is any mention of humanitarian concerns. The objectives therefore are money, power and oil.

Robert Parry, an investigative journalist, highlighted further explosive confirmations. They included admissions of rebel war crimes, special operations trainers inside Libya almost from the outset of the uprisings, and Al Qaeda infiltrated in the US-backed resistance. This basically suggests that the West organised the protests in Libya at the time.

In 2011, French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly described Libya’s leader as a threat to global financial security. But how could a tiny country of six million people represent such a threat just because Gaddafi wants to establish an independent African currency?In the words of Canadian Professor Maximilian Forte put it in his heavily researched book Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa, “the goal of US military intervention was to disrupt an emerging pattern of independence and a network of collaboration within Africa that would facilitate increased African self-reliance. This is at odds with the geostrategic and political economic ambitions of extra-continental European powers, namely the US.”

All of this suggests that the West wants a perpetually dependent Africa, where they will continue to syphon off her resources in the name of helping the continent, and anyone who stands in their way, such as Gaddafi, will be labelled a terrorist, a dictator, and eventually eliminated.

What do you think? Do leave your comment down below. And don’t forget to like subscribe and put on the notification bell if you want to see more videos lik