| Gaddafi reaps what he has sown during his four-decade rule: terror, nepotism, tribal politics and abuse of power. Larbi Sadiki Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 23:03 GMT | ||
After Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Tunisia's Ben Ali, Gaddafi is the worst of the Arabs’ surviving illegitimate rulers. He is now reaping what he has sown: terror, nepotism, tribal politics, and abuse of power. In Gaddafi’s Libya, the so-called People’s Congress, universities and other regime-affiliated organisations have had to toe the official line: worship of the "brother leader", read his Green Book, and the brand of Pan-Africanism that no Libyan except Gaddafi and his henchmen believed in. While visiting the country with a group of students from Exeter University, the hollow slogans of Gaddafi’s "Great Revolution" covered all public space. "Partners not salaried" one says. Another declares "People’s rule" (sultat al-sha’ab). Nothing could be further from the truth. Gaddafi has ruled the country with the delusion of grandeur of a man who rose to power in a 1969 coup with fairly acceptable political ideals that got corrupted and abandoned. Gaddafi’s much vaunted socialism turned into distribution in favour of the Colonel’s clansmen. Inner circle An inner circle of Gaddafi’s confidants and close relatives decided and executed the hangings of the 1970s, relying on the fearsome and murderous "revolutionary committees". No recourse to the people was taken when decisions were made and carried out about war such as in Chad and elsewhere in Africa. The people could not openly complain about the money lavishly disbursed in the pursuit of Gaddafi’s foreign adventurism, including the sponsoring of terrorist organisations. Gaddafi’s regime has been linked to the 1972 Black September killings of Israeli athletes in Germany , the 1978 disappearance in Libya of Shia Imam Musa Al-Sadr, the 1984 murder of British police officer Yvonne Fletcher, the 1986 bombing of Berlin’s La Belle Discotheque, the 1987 arms vessel destined to the Irish Republican Army, and to the hijacking of Pan Am flight 73 in 1986 and the 1988 Pan Am flight 103 bombing. This does not exhaust the list. The US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986 or the large amounts of monies paid by Gaddafi to compensate all kinds of claims against Libya have been some of the prices paid by Libyans for their leader’s miscalculation. The sanctions and pariah status have only been eased only in the past 10 years. Carrying the green Libyan passport has made Libyan citizens persona non grata in many parts of the world. Gaddafi’s narcissism was such that very few of his comrades in arms from the original Free Officers cohort that executed the 1969 coup against King Idris have survived his brutality. A few died in mysterious circumstances (Omar Limheshi; Imhammad al-Muqrif). Others withdrew from public life voluntarily (Abd al-Salam Jelloud). Act of public disavowal Like Egypt, the uprising in Libya qualifies as an act of public disavowal of an existing regime. These are countries which had military revolutions and today are experiencing civil revolutions. Like Tunisia, but in a worse fashion, Libya has invested very little in social capital or civic capacity building. All organisations are committed to, and affiliated with, Gaddafi’s Great Revolution. Literally, these are cells that spy on the people or militias bribed to defend the regime. When protesters wave flags, chant pro-Gaddafi or anti-Western slogans, they do so on regime orders. Regardless, Libyans have not been passive. For instance, the Libyan League for Human Rights, the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO), and the banned Islamists all have used the internet to express their anger. In some cases, Libyan dissidents used the Internet as a political tool before activists in other part of the Middle East. The NCLO met in London in 2006 and it may plan a role in reforming post-Gaddafi Libya. Attempts at removing Gaddafi began in the mid-1980s. The most famous was the May 1984 Bab Al-Aziziya Barracks coup when the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, made up of military and civilian dissidents, played a leading role. The most serious challenge against Gaddafi’s authority came from the most populous and powerful Libyan tribe, the Warfallah, in October 1993. The rebellion led to kangaroo trials in 1995. Many tribesmen were executed in 1997. The eastern region, Benghazi, has always been a source of dissidence against the regime. Dozens died in protests in 2006.The map of the current mutiny is both tribal and regional. Two tribes have withdrawn allegiance to Gaddafi's regime, thus settling old scores. Gaddafi is now paying the price for humiliating the Wirfallah tribe, which he has excluded from his favours since the mid-1990s. Similarly, the Tabu tribe in the country's southeast has suffered appalling discrimination. The misery belts of Libya are now leading the rebellion. Cities like Al-Baida, Derna, Ijdadia are all marginalised and are not beholden to Gaddafi, as they have not gained from his rule. Tripoli’s poorest suburbs, Zintan and Zawiya, which have come under heavy fire, are leading the rebellion in the capital. Why is the revolution that ousted Tunisia's Ben Ali proving to be infectious? The reasons can be summed up by the following factors: the presence of a Ben Ali-type hegemon; dynastic and nepotistic rot; monarchical republicanism; rampant corruption; the marginalisation of young people; human rights violations; information control and a police state. All of these conditions apply to Libya. The only good in Gaddafi’s Libya is the absence of elections, which spared the Gaddafi’s revolutionary committees the additional misdemeanour of rigging them. In addition to these factors, the eastern region, namely Benghazi, has been deprived of the dividends of petroleum. In a country with one of the longest stretches of coastline and high oil production, income and opportunity should be available to citizens. But this is has not been the case. Now, Gaddafi is reaping what he has sown. |
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Libya's falling tyrant
Crushing Libya's revolt
| The unrest in Libya started as a series of protests, but was met by a fierce security crackdown. Inside Story Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 12:59 GMT |
| Across Libya, protesters are still calling for Muammar Gaddafi to leave. More than 200 anti-government protesters were killed during the last few days of violence in the Libyan city of Benghazi. Witnesses from Benghazi say that dozens of people were killed on Saturday when troops opened fire on anti-government protesters in the city. They also spoke of snipers firing at protesters from rooftops and a number of foreign mercenaries from sub-Saharan Africa being brought in to attack protesters. Some of those mercenaries were caught by protesters and confessed that they had received instructions to fire live bullets at demonstrators. Will Muammar Gaddafi's regime prevail where others fell to the will of the people? Joining us to discuss these issues are: Aly Khan Satchu, a financial analyst and the CEO of Rich Investment; Ian Black, a Middle East editor of The Guardian; and Ashur Shamis, a Libyan opposition activist. This episode of Inside Story aired from Sunday, February 20, 2011. |
The Clinton doctrine
| US reaction to events unfolding in the Arab world reveals the emergence of more insidious approach. Maximilian Forte Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 15:04 GMT | ||
Few Arabs wish to continue being sacrificed for the sake of American "counter-terrorism," in the name of US and Israeli national security, forced to protect American interests over, above and against their personal freedoms and feeding their families. On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama said in his coronation speech: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." But who clenched the fist of the Arab regimes against their own people? Which American defence contractors helped to build the fist, with what amount of US military aid, and with how much Israeli armour plating? Tunisia under the 31-year rule of dictator Habib Borguiba, the predecessor of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, received approximately $750mn annually, and advanced military support as well. Between 1987 and 2009, under Ben Ali, the US signed $349mn in sales of military hardware to Tunisia. After 2009, with Obama in office, Tunisia was to be sold military helicopters in a $282mn sale. The Pentagon announced: "This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for economic and military progress in North Africa." Ben Ali's Tunisia was a "model US client". When it was already too late to salvage its allied regime in Tunisia, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, made the familiar reformist sounds, with an emphasis on order and crisis management. Once the Tunisian revolution happened, then Obama expressed his support for it. In the case of Egypt, the extreme level of support the US showed the Hosni Mubarak regime over the decades is well known. It provided Egypt with $1.3bn a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815mn a year in economic assistance; in total, Egypt has received about $50bn from the US since Mubarak took power. A report from the US Congressional Research Service put the US economic assistance figure at over $2bn annually, a sure sign to Mubarak that he could put off any "reform" indefinitely as long as Washington bankrolled his power. Egyptians all knew about the clenched fist, and who paid to clench it. Bet-hedging When it came to Egypt’s recent uprising, Joe Biden, the US vice-president, now infamously declared that Mubarak was not a dictator, and then cast doubt on whether the protesters had any legitimate demands at all. Clinton stated that "our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people". US narratives began to shift, slowly at first but then much more quickly. What we see at work in Egypt is evidence of a Clinton doctrine: It is a relatively novel approach, one that is much more insidious and yet appropriate to a weakened and recessionary empire. Simply put, the Clinton doctrine involves hedging US bets by keeping a foot in almost all camps, maintaining contact with different sectors in the society, emphasising "stability" when regime survival seems possible, and then emphasising "orderly transition" when change seems probable. It is a mixture of realism and opportunism and a desire to intervene without being seen to intervene. It is a low cost foreign policy. By maintaining open and positive channels of communication (with Mubarak, the military, the April 6 Movement, Mohamed ElBaradei, and even the Muslim Brotherhood) the US made sure that no matter what resulted, it would remain in the picture as a continued player of importance. Indeed, when Clinton insisted that the outcomes in Egypt were "a matter for Egyptians to decide" one has to wonder if in her mind she quietly added: "And by Egyptians I mean me." On the momentous February 11, 2011, with Mubarak finally gone, Obama declared: "The United States will continue to be a friend and partner to Egypt. We stand ready to provide whatever assistance is necessary and asked for to pursue a credible transition to a democracy." What kind of friend to Egyptians has the US been? How credible is its record of supporting democracy in Egypt? Does Obama believe the US will not be called to account? History is being written by those who were always on the wrong side of it. |
Sins of the father, sins of the son
| While Gaddafi has relied on empty revolutionary slogans to maintain power, his son looks to oil money for his. Lamis Andoni Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 10:53 GMT | ||
Ever since his ascension to power, through a military coup, in 1969, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has used every piece of revolutionary rhetoric in the book to justify his actions, which include consolidating power in the hands of his relatives and close associates and creating a network of security forces and militias to coerce Libyans into conforming to the whims of his cruel regime. Through his support for revolutionary movements in different parts of the world - ones, of course, which did not endanger his own rule - he has sought to portray himself as the 'defender of the oppressed', earning the wrath of the West in the process. But the people now courageously defying his regime's savage suppression are sending the message that anti-Western slogans, even if occasionally backed up by support for just causes, can no longer sustain oppressive regimes in the region. A new era is underway in which leaders will be judged on their ability to represent the aspirations of the people and in which they will be held accountable for their actions. Issuing rallying cries against a foreign enemy, even when that enemy is very real, while inflicting injustice on one's own people will no longer be permitted. Post-colonial Arab regimes, including those that rode the waves of or even at one point genuinely represented anti-colonial resistance, have had to resort to a reliance on secret police and draconian laws to subordinate their subjects. The lesson is clear: Without a representative democracy, Arab republics have metamorphosed into ugly hereditary dynasties that treat their countries like their own private companies. While trampling over the interests of his own people, Gaddafi has modeled himself as the champion of the Palestinian cause, reverting to the most fiery verbal attacks on Israel. But this is a recurring theme in a region where leaders must pay lip service to the plight of the Palestinians in order to give their regime the stamp of 'legitimacy'. Gaddafi's 'support', however, did not prevent him from deporting Palestinians living in Libya, leaving them stranded in the dessert, when he sought to "punish the Palestinian leadership" for negotiating with Israel. But even more cynical than his "pro-Palestinian" stand is his exploitation of the plight of the African people by anointing himself the leader of the continent. It is tragic, if reports prove to be true, that he used migrant sub-Saharan African labourers against the Libyan protesters. But it is, sadly, very believable that a ruthless dictator, driven hysterical by the prospect of losing his wealth and power, might pit the poor and marginalised against the poor and oppressed. The darling of the West Seif al-Islam, Gaddafi's son who appeared on Libyan state television to warn that the demonstrators threatened to sink Libya into civil war, unlike his father, does not need to pretend to endorse the world's underprivileged. For his power derives from something altogether different. When Seif warned that "rivers of blood" would flow if the protests did not stop, he was giving himself the right, merely by virtue of being his father's son, to dismiss the grievances of millions of people and to issue outrageous threats. Seif may look and sound more sophisticated than his erratic father, but his performance was one of a feudal lord unable to fathom why his serfs would defy his authority. He has no need to employ his father's tactic of invoking vacuous revolutionary rhetoric, for Gaddafi has successfully used the country's Revolutionary Command Council and Revolutionary Committees - which are supposed to represent the interests of the people - to cement the power of his family and as tools with which to subjugate the masses. But Seif's role has been secured not only by his power within the country. According to Vivienne Walt, a writer for Time Magazine, since the lifting of Western sanctions against Libya in 2005, Seif has acted "as an assurance" to the oil companies that have poured millions of dollars into the country. "In interviews with oil executives, all say that Seif is the person whom they would most like to see running Libya. He has made occasional appearances at the World Economic Forum. And during two visits to Libya, I've seen countless corporate executives from the US and Europe line up for appointments with Seif," she recently wrote. It is little wonder Seif feels confident enough to make threats against the Libyan people without possessing so much as an official title. His position as the darling of the West, he clearly believes, entitles him to trample on the lives of others. And it may also explain the West's hesitation over unequivocally condemning the sheer brutality of the Libyan regime. Thus, while the father ensured his grip on power by building a dictatorship with a claim to "revolutionary legitimacy," Seif has been expected to secure the Western stamp of legitimacy by keeping the door to the country's main source of wealth open for the oil companies to exploit. The father's repression in the name of the revolution and the son's status as an agent for the oil companies has created an oil-rich country where one-third of the population live below the poverty line and 30 per cent are unemployed. This is Gaddafi's Libya. But the Libyan people are now shouting a loud goodbye to the Libya of Gaddafi and his family and, with great sacrifices, are building a new, freer country. |
Medvedev warns Arabs of 'extremism'
| Russian president says rebellions could empower fanatics, break up states and "spread extremism in the future". Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 16:04 GMT | ||
Dmitry Medvedev's comments on Tuesday contrasted with those of Western leaders, who have largely expressed sympathy with pro-democracy protesters in North Africa and the Middle East. "The situation is tough. We could be talking about the disintegration of large, densely-populated states, talking about them breaking up into little pieces," he said in comments broadcast on state television. "These are not simple states and it is highly probable that there will be difficult events, including fanatics coming to power. "This will mean fires for years and the spread of extremism in the future. We need to look this straight in the eyes." Medvedev spoke at a security meeting in Vladikavkaz, a city in the heart of the North Caucasus, where Russian forces are fighting a predominantly Muslim separatist movement. He added that rebellions occuring in the Arab world could have a direct effect on Russia, but that attempts to repeat unrest in his country would be quashed. "They have prepared such a scenario for us before, and now more than ever they will try and realise it. In any case, this scenario won't succeed," he said. "Those who want blood can drown in their own blood." Russia has crushed separatists in two wars in Chechnya in the past 15 years, and continues to battle rebels in the predominantly Muslim Caucasus region, who have claimed responsibility for a series of deadly attacks in Moscow. The president had taken a guarded line on the historic convulsions shaking the Arab world, urging against violence but failing to show much enthusiasm over the fall of strongmen leaders such as Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president and Tunisia's Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. Protests that started in Tunisia in December 2010 have since spread to Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Iran, Sudan and Yemen. Medvedev's comments contrast with those of the European Union a day earlier, which said it "deplores the violence" and "repression" against pro-democracy protesters in Libya. |
Defiant Gaddafi vows to fight on
| In televised speech, Libyan leader blames youths inspired by region's revolutions for unrest and vows to die a "martyr". Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 16:53 GMT |
| Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, has vowed to fight on and die a "martyr", calling on his supporters to take back the streets from protesters demanding his ouster, shouting and pounding his fist in a furious speech on state TV. Gaddafi, clad in brown robes and turban, spoke on Tuesday from a podium set up in the entrance of a bombed-out building that appeared to be his Tripoli residence hit by US air raids in the 1980s and left unrepaired as a monument of defiance. "I am a fighter, a revolutionary from tents ... I will die as a martyr at the end," he said. "I have not yet ordered the use of force, not yet ordered one bullet to be fired ... when I do, everything will burn." He called on supporters to take to the streets to attack protesters. "You men and women who love Gaddafi ...get out of your homes and fill the streets," he said. "Leave your homes and attack them in their lairs ... Starting tomorrow the cordons will be lifted, go out and fight them." "From tonight to tomorrow, all the young men should form local committees for popular security," he said, telling them to wear a green armband to identify themselves. "The Libyan people and the popular revolution will control Libya." The speech, which appeared to have been taped earlier, was aired on a screen to hundreds of supporters massed in Tripoli's central Green Square. Shouting in the rambling speech, Gaddafi declared himself "a warrior" and proclaimed: "Libya wants glory, Libya wants to be at the pinnacle, at the pinnacle of the world". At times the camera panned out to show a towering gold-coloured monument in front of the building, showing a fist crushing a fighter jet with an American flag on it - a view that also gave the strange image of Gaddafi speaking alone from behind a podium in the building's dilapidated lobby, with no audience in front of him. |
Israeli media 'fears' the new Egypt
| Israel's media presents Egyptian democracy as a threat, with one commentator lamenting the end of colonialism. Neve Gordon Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 16:04 GMT | ||
During the climatic days of the unprecedented demonstrations, television news programmes spent most of their airtime covering the protests, while the daily papers dedicated half the news and opinion pages to the unfolding events. Rather than excitement at watching history in the making, however, the dominant attitude here, particularly on television, was of anxiety-- a sense that the developments in Egypt were inimical to Israel's interests. Egypt's revolution, in other words, was bad news. It took a while for Israel's experts on "Arab Affairs" to get a grip on what was happening. During the early days of unrest, the recurrent refrain was that "Egypt is not Tunis". Commentators assured the public that the security apparatuses in Egypt are loyal to the regime and that consequently there was little if any chance that President Hosni Mubarak's government would fall. Media switch Once it became clear that this line of analysis was erroneous, most commentators followed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's lead and criticised President Barack Obama's Administration for not supporting Mubarak. The Foreign News editor of one channel noted that: "The fact that the White House is permitting the protests is reason for worry;" while the prominent political analyst Ben Kaspit expressed his longing for President George W. Bush. "We remember 2003 when George Bush invaded and took over Iraq with a sense of yearning", Ben Kaspit wrote. "Libya immediately changed course and allied itself with the West. Iran suspended its military nuclear program. Arafat was harnessed. Syria shook with fear. Not that the invasion of Iraq was a wise move (not at all, Iran is the real problem, not Iraq), but in the Middle East whoever does not walk around with a big bat in his hand receives the bat on his head." Israeli commentators are equivocal on the issue of Egyptian democracy. One columnist explained that it takes years for democratic institutions to be established and for people to internalise the practices appropriate for democracy, while Amir Hazroni from NRG went so far as to write an ode to colonialism: "When we try to think how and why the United States and the West lost Egypt, Tunis, Yemen and perhaps other countries in the Middle East, people forget that. The original sin began right after WWII, when a wonderful form of government that protected security and peace in the Middle East (and in other parts of the Third Word) departed from this world following pressure from the United States and Soviet Union... More than sixty years have passed since the Arab states and the countries of Africa were liberated from the 'colonial yoke,' but there still isn't an Arab university, an African scientist or a Middle Eastern consumer product that has made a mark on our world." Fear and the brotherhood While only a few commentators are as reactionary as Hazroni, an Orientalist perspective permeated most of the discussion about Egypt, thus helping to bolster the already existing Jewish citizenry's fear of Islam. Political Islam is constantly presented and conceived as an ominous force that is antithetical to democracy. Thus, in the eyes of Israeli analysts, the protestors- that Facebook and Twitter generation- are deserving of empathy but also extremely naïve. There is a shared sense that their fate will end up being identical to that of the Iranian intellectuals who led the protests against the Shah. Channel Two's expert on "Arab Affairs" explained that: "The fact that you do not see the Muslim Brotherhood does not mean they are not there," and another expert warned his viewers not to "be misled by ElBaradei's Viennese spirit, behind him is the Muslim Brotherhood." According to these pundits, the Muslim Brotherhood made a tactical decision not to distribute Islamists banners or to take an active part in leading the protests. One commentator declared that if the Muslim Brotherhood wins, then "elections are the end of the [democratic] process, not its beginning," while an anchorman for Channel Ten asked former Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer whether "the person who says to himself: 'How wonderful, at last the state of Egypt is a democracy,' is naïve?" The Minister responded: "Allow me even to laugh. We wanted a democracy in Iran and in Gaza. The person who talks like this is ignoring the fact that for over a decade there has been a struggle of giants between the Sunni and Shia with tons of blood spilled. The person who talks about democracy does not live in the reality we live in." Democratic threat Ben-Eliezer's response is telling, not least because it is well known that Israel supported the Shah regime in Iran and has not proven itself to be a particularly staunch supporter of Palestinian democracy. Democracy in the Middle East is, after all, conceived by this and prior Israeli governments as a threat to Israel's interests. Dan Margalit, a well-known commentator, made this point clear when he explained that Israel does not disapprove of a democracy in the largest Arab country but simply privileges Israel's peace agreement with Egypt over internal Arab affairs. Israel, one should note, is not alone in this self-serving approach; most western countries constantly lament the absence of democracy in the Arab world, while supporting the dictators and helping them remain in office. In English this kind of approach has a very clear name - it is called hypocrisy. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
