Khadafi at UN

Libyan Leader Muammar Khadafi made a historic speech at the 64th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. The speech is significant for several reasons.

Firstly, it is the first time in the 40 year history of new Libya that he has attended the United Nations General Assembly. The visit is historic for that very reason.

Secondly, he was speaking not only as the Libyan leader but also as the President of the African Union. In that sense his voice was symbolic of the voice of Africa, the poor but rich continent. It's poor because of colonial exploitation. It's rich because of its vast physical resources.

Thirdly, what gives weight to his speech is that its content included the aspirations of the Third World countries as a whole.

Fourthly, there was more than a grain of truth in his pronouncements.

He did not mince his words. Nor did he spare any one. He pointed out that the United Nations has failed to prevent 65 wars that took place after it was formed. He questioned the rationality of the veto held by permanent members of the Security Council. In fact, the Security Council which reflected the geo-political power structure 64 years ago has become an anachronism long ago. New and emerging nations have risen on the world's horizon and they remain unrepresented.

Khadafi faulted the Security Council for usurping the rights of the General Assembly which is the most representative body. His call for more powers to the General Assembly and wider representation at the Security Council would surely receive the support of the majority of UN members.

On behalf of the African Union he called upon its colonizers to repatriate the colonial loot amounting to US $ 7.7 trillion.

Obviously his speech has hurt those who want to preserve the status quo. The Western media has joined their leaders in ridiculing Khadafi for his "un-ceremonial" behaviour at the UN. They have forgotten that the United Nations General Assembly is not a sacrosanct place of religious worship but a political forum. Nor is it an academic symposium.

It is only such emotional and forceful speeches that liven the General Assembly debate which is dull and monotonous most of the time with only the speaker's country delegation listening. That's why speakers like Fidel Castro, Barack Obama, and Hugo Chavez could get a full house audience.

To find fault with a politician for being emotional is both absurd and stupid. Colonel Khadafi, the people's politician he is could not but express his thoughts emotionally. These very same media and others had not only silently witnessed but also loudly hailed emotive outbursts of the ilk of George W. Bush at the UN podium.

One should not forget that these emotive outbursts of the Western media are also politically motivated. (It would be impossible to find an apolitical media man) It is only the anti-Western politicians that get berated by them.

It is unfair to single out the Western media. There are also their cousins in the Third World, including in Sri Lanka that for various reasons would like to take a dig at Khadafi to achieve their political aims much closer home. As far as we are concerned we could only say "Well said, Khadafi".

Women and politics

There is good news from the legislature. According to the amendments to the Elections Ordinance, more positions are to be given to women in legislative bodies. Needless to say women representation in our representative bodies is dismally low. In this respect Sri Lanka is even far behind some African countries.

Though it is often quoted with pride that Sri Lanka produced the world's first Prime Minister and the first woman President Sri Lankan women's position in the political arena is minimal. Even the few women who have made it up to the legislature have done so in most cases due to voids caused at electoral level by the demise of their family members who happen to be in the legislature. That means their place in the political hierarchy is rather circumstantial. However, it is to the credit of these women MPs that they performed their parliamentary duties exemplarily. Patriarchy prevails everywhere, even in the domains of the "radical" Left. It is high time to take a radical departure by affording women their due place in all spheres.

We cannot claim to be a pinnacle of democracy while confining half the population to the backyard. In fact, the level of women's participation in social life, including politics is an indication of the level of development of a country. It is also a mirror of its political democracy.

Democracy cannot be limited to the exercise of universal suffrage. The populace should also actively engage in political and social life of the society. That is why the new amendment, however limited in its scope is a step in the right direction.