A LUTA CONTINUA: What Now? - How Will The UN Stop Gaddafi & Should They?


Libya declares ceasefire but fighting goes on
Gaddafi's government says it will end military operations in line with UN resolution but reports of attacks continue.

 

Last Modified: 18 Mar 2011 17:23
Libya''s ceasefire was announced shortly after Britain said it was sending fighter jets to Mediterranean bases [AFP]

Libya's government has announced an immediate ceasefire against pro-democracy protesters, hours after the United Nations Security Council authorised a no-fly zone over the country.

In a statement televised on Friday, Moussa Koussa, the Libyan foreign minister, said his government was interested in protecting all civilians and foreigners.

"We decided on an immediate ceasefire and on an immediate stop to all military operations," he said, adding "[Libya] takes great interest in protecting civilians".

Koussa said because his country was a member of the United Nations it was "obliged to accept the UN Security Council's resolutions".

Despite the announcement, there were reports late on Friday that government forces were closing in on the eastern city of Benghazi, where witnesses reported a loud blast followed by anti-aircraft fire.

But Libya's deputy foreign minister told reporters that the presence of forces around Benghazi did not constitute a violation of the ceasefire.

"As for the presence of the army in Libyan cities, we consider that important for the security of citizens. It does not violate the ceasefire," the Reuters news agency quoted Khaled Kaim as saying.

Read the Libya Live Blog

However earlier on Friday, pro-Gaddafi forces fired on the rebel-held western city of Misurata, witnesses said, where an earlier attack claimed the lives of at least 25 people.

Abdulbasid Abu Muzairik, a resident in the western coastal town, told Al Jazeera there was shelling from artillery and tanks.

"The Gaddafi forces are at the outskirts of the city but they continue to shell the centre of the city," he said. "The ceasefire has not taken place; he [Gaddafi] is still continuing up until now to shell and kill the people in the city."

'Buying time'

Anita McNaught, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Tripoli, said the government's statement was "very carefully crafted ... very deliberate, almost forensic".

"Clearly the Libyans have been poring over their United Nations charters to decide which bits to disagree with and on the whole they can't find very much."

"My hunch is that it is an effort to buy time because the Libyans, I think, have been taken completely by surprise by this sudden resurgence of an [international] consensus on action."

The ceasefire declaration also contrasted with earlier comments by Muammar Gaddafi, the country's leader, who warned residents of Benghazi, the eastern rebel stronghold, that his forces would show "no mercy" in an impending assault on the city.

"We will track them [fighters] down, and search for them, alley by alley, road by road," he said in a radio address on Thursday.

Caution over 'ceasefire'

Tony Birtley, Al Jazeera's reporter in Benghazi, said pro-democracy fighters there were positive but cautious about the ceasefire.

France, one of the permanent members of the Security Council that will use planes to enforce the no fly-zone, said it was wary of the ceasefire announcement.

"We have to be very cautious. He [Gaddafi] is now starting to be afraid, but on the ground the threat has not changed," Bernard Valero, foreign ministry spokesman told the Reuters news agency.

The UN Security Council backed a resolution authorising a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians late on Thursday.

The intervention, which is expected to be enforced by Britain, France, the US, Norway and Qatar, bans military aircraft from flying in Libyan airspace, but not commercial or humanitarian flights.

Follow our coverage of the Libya uprising

The Arab League has reiterated its support for the no-fly zone, but it is not clear to what extent Arab nations will be involved in the operation.

Paul Brennan, Al Jazeera's correspondent in London, said the military preparations by international forces were going to continue regardless of Koussa's announcement.

"It could make it more difficult to actually launch attacks, but from the idea of preparation I don't think it's going to deflect the coalition forces at all.

"What they need to do at this early stage is get the forces into position so they can enforce a no-fly zone as authorised by the UN Security Council.

"They'll decide at some point whether they attack any forces on the ground and that will depend largely on what Gaddafi''s forces are doing."

Western countries pledged support for the no-fly zone on Friday, with many including France, Belgium, Spain and Canada saying they would deploy fighter jets and other military to the region.

Italy has also said it would make its military bases available and take an active role in any operations against Libya.

Eurocontrol, Europe's air traffic agency, said earlier the Libyan government had closed its airspace to all traffic in response to the UN resolution. Egypt also confirmed that it had begun to enforce the no-fly zone and that all flights to Libya from Egypt have been halted.

 
Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies

__________________________

One family against Gaddafi
 
Five brothers held in Libya's most notorious prison describe how they hope to overthrow the regime, or die trying.
 Last Modified: 18 Mar 2011 15:49
The Jidran brothers (from left to right): Salem, Ibrahim, Khalid - who was not imprisoned - Jamal, Osama and Muftah[Evan Hill]

Amid a bleak scene at the roundabout in central Ajdabiya, a conservative town near the Mediterranean coast in rebel-held east Libya, 34-year-old Salem Jidran stands in a neatly pressed, gray galabiyya. Over it, he wears a light brown vest, knitted with raised thread in a flowing pattern that shines in the sunlight. His curly hair is newly cut, buzzed on the sides and trimmed on top. He smiles broadly. Jidran is celebrating - he and four of his brothers just returned home from Abu Slim, the country's most notorious prison.

It is a week into the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi's 41-year rule, and untrained rebels have swept west with ease, snatching up key oil refineries and naively predicting a push on Tripoli, the heavily defended capital.

Spirits are high in Ajdabiya. In the centre of the roundabout, a fluttering, tri-color flag - the symbol of the revolution - protrudes from the top of a waterless fountain. Beneath it, children play near the broken wing of a downed Gaddafi jet. Men speak openly of the regime's coming downfall.

In this atmosphere, it is tempting to think Libyans have outrun their past, erasing four decades of oppression in an instant. But they have not. Salem and his brothers carry the past with them.

The fighting family

The Jidran family home sits behind a brown, concrete wall on a shady corner where two unpaved, rocky streets intersect a few blocks from Ajdabiya's main square. As in many other cities across east Libya, Ajdabiya's urban infrastructure seems to have benefited little from the country's vast oil wealth.

Since the uprising began, visitors come and go frequently, offering congratulations and sharing stories. Every day, the brothers drive 200km west to deliver supplies to the ever-shifting rebel front lines - then somewhere in the desert near the major oil refinery at Ras Lanuf. The brothers spend half their time in camouflage. AK-47 assault rifles lean against a wall in the pink-painted first-floor reception room, where children peer over the arm of a couch to listen to the adults talk.

Salem and his 11 brothers and 11 sisters are all children of Colonel Sayyid Jidran, a well-known local civil defence officer who married four times. Just a few weeks ago, the family considered five of the brothers lost forever. Implicated in an armed opposition group, Jamal, Osama, Muftah, Ibrahim and Salem had been detained for six years inside Gaddafi's terrifying security apparatus. They spent most of their time in Abu Slim prison, where security forces allegedly massacred more than 1,000 inmates in 1996. The family had no hope for their release.

But in early February, there came rumblings of an uprising. Envoys from the regime phoned Ajdabiya and made entreaties to the Jidrans: We will give your sons back, you stay quiet. The brothers were released, as was the entire Ajdabiya inmate population, along with a handful of men from nearby towns.

But the gesture rang hollow. Local families refused to negotiate unless the regime completely emptied the prison. Days later, on February 17, three men died in Ajdabiya when protests against Gaddafi broke out across the east. Residents drove the security forces out of town, and Ajdabiya fell to the opposition.

For the first time, the Jidran brothers were able to describe their ordeal freely to a visiting reporter. The story they told offered a glimpse inside the ongoing struggle against one of the world's most secretive and oppressive regimes.

The detention begins

Ibrahim was the most closely involved in the armed opposition group's activities [Evan Hill]

Libya's internal security forces came for Ibrahim and Osama in February 2005. They caught Ibrahim in a town called Abyar, 15km east of Benghazi - Libya's second-largest city and the seat of the revolt.

Outside the workshop where Ibrahim had come to have his car repaired, dozens of men arrived in vehicles and swarmed around him. They beat him with metal bars. When he tried to fight back, some fired their guns into the air. The attack forced him to the ground. One of the men picked up a spare tire and brought it down on his head, knocking him out.

When Ibrahim woke, he had not been moved, but he was blindfolded and naked, his legs and hands bound with rope. He could hear men celebrating nearby, shooting guns and shouting praises for Gaddafi.

They put him into the back of a covered pick-up truck and drove him to a building used by the security forces. There, despite the rainy and cold winter conditions, the men threw him naked into the building's courtyard and beat him into unconsciousness again. He would spend the next three days naked.

For years, Ibrahim and Osama had been involved in a loosely-knit network of religiously minded men intent on overthrowing Gaddafi's regime. The group had no name. Though the members were pious, they were not extremists and identified closely with the politics-friendly philosophy of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the Jidrans told me.

They claimed their group had been open to negotiations with Gaddafi's ostensibly reform-minded son Saif al-Islam, but that Saif had proven a hypocrite. The 38-year-old PhD graduate of the London School of Economics had served Libya ably as a palatable intermediary with the West, but he had done little to open political space at home. Armed resistance was the only path to change, the brothers said.

The Jidran's group sprang from a long and storied history of rebellion in Libya's east, where the current uprising has been strongest, and locals trace their proud resilience from the Ottoman era through the end of the modern Italian colonial occupation.

In the 1990s, Libyan mujahideen returned from battling the Soviets in Afghanistan and began a guerrilla campaign against the Gaddafi regime, based out of cities such as Derna and Baida along the north-east coast, in an area known as the Green Mountain. 

Calling themselves the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), the guerrillas struck at the regime's military and police posts in rural eastern land and in 1996 reportedly attempted to assassinate Gaddafi in his hometown of Sirte - though the rocket-propelled grenade they shot struck the wrong car.

Gaddafi cracked down on the LIFG after the attempt on his life, and the group was blacklisted by the United Nations and the United Kingdom in 2001 for allegedly maintaining ties with al-Qaeda. Many fighters fled, while others were thrown in jail. At least 90 imprisoned members were released in 2008, reportedly after negotiating with Saif al-Islam's Gaddafi International Foundation for Charity Associations.

"What appears to have happened is that those that fled Libya diverged from those that remained behind in jail," said Henry Wilkinson, an associate director of the UK-based Janusian security consultancy.

Some Libyan fighters who left the country have been "ascendant" in al-Qaeda's leadership, he said, but those that remained renounced violence.

Osama was arrested with Ibrahim; catching them was apparently a coup for the security forces [Evan Hill]

The LIFG was only one slice of a broad opposition movement that has been plotting to bring down the regime for more than a decade, and its dismantling did not mean the end of armed clashes with security forces, which continued throughout the past decade.

The Jidrans' group of around 60 men were "well-behaved" Muslims, Ibrahim said, not radicals. Two or three once belonged to the LIFG, but more had been pushed toward armed resistance after spending years in Libya's prisons, he said.

They consider themselves aligned with the uprising, which has so far evinced only secular aims. They too want political freedom and democratic reform, Ibrahim said, and in their view, it is an obligation of observant Muslims to bring those freedoms to the people.

"All the responsibility lay on our shoulders," he said.

Breaking the opposition

It was one of the inmates-turned-militants who, through an accident, caused the group's unravelling.

Hatim, a police detective from Benghazi, had been a drinker before he was arrested and taken to Abu Slim for the crime of giving 50 Libyan dinars ($40) to a wanted man, Ibrahim said. After five years, he emerged from prison a more observant Muslim and an anti-government campaigner.

Ibrahim often hosted wanted activists and men like Hatim at his home, where they planned and prepared for strikes against symbolic government institutions like administration buildings and police barracks. Hatim was in Ibrahim's home one day making joulateen - cans packed with TNT that are often used to kill fish, but have been used as weapons in the revolt - when one exploded in his face. His friends took him to a private clinic in Benghazi, where doctors referred him to Egypt for more intensive treatment.

News about Hatim's injuries evidently spread; when he returned to Libya, internal security officers arrested him in Baida. In his weakened state, he divulged everything, Ibrahim said.

A day after security forces took Ibrahim, they arrested Osama. Soon after, they asked the entire family in Ajdabiya to come in for questioning. Salem was visiting the southern town of Sabha when the call came. A relative told him the family was being investigated.

"We knew what that meant exactly," Salem said.

He knew he would be implicated in the group, since he was Ibrahim's brother and had once arranged to provide him with a car and money.

Lacking his Libyan passport, Salem fled illegally into Niger, assuming he could never return. For a year, he travelled through neighbouring countries, looking for a place to settle. While he was gone, in August 2005, his brothers Jamal and Muftah were also arrested.

Rounding up the family

 Jamal was known to encourage and offer support to other young men who wanted to travel to Iraq to fight US troops, and Muftah had once visited the United Kingdom for a year-long enrichment course provided by his employer, the Arabian Gulf Oil Company. Both would be red flags for Libya's internal security apparatus, the brothers said.

Just 19 years old and unmarried, Jamal still lived at the family home. Security forces arrived late on a Friday night that August and took him away. They drove him to their headquarters in Ajdabiya, where Jamal found two young acquaintances who had planned to go to Iraq. More were brought in later that night.

Jamal's interrogation began without a blindfold, but once higher-ranking officers arrived from Tripoli some hours later, they ordered one to be put on. Ibrahim and Osama's arrest had been well-known in the local community, and the security forces apparently considered the break-up of their group a significant success. The officers from Tripoli criticised their Ajdabiya colleagues for taking six months to arrest the other Jidran brothers.

On Jamal's second day in detention, the men tied a hood around his head, making it difficult for him to breath. They hung him upside down by cuffs around his ankles and beat him with electrical cables and hard plastic plumbing tubes and ordered him to implicate his father, the colonel, in the opposition.

For the first eight days, security forces held Jamal and eight other men in a dark basement room, where interrogators repeatedly asked the same questions: What is your ideology? How do you view the Gaddafi regime? What do you want to do to this country?

In one-on-one sessions, officers specifically asked Jamal about his interest in Iraq: Why do you give these people money? Why do you want to go to Iraq? Do you support al-Qaeda?

On a Friday afternoon, they loaded Jamal and the others onto a bus, blindfolded and handcuffed, and drove them to Tripoli. They arrived at dawn the next day and were taken first to al-Sika, an internal security building in the capital. Al-Sika was full, so they transferred the group to a wing for political inmates at a prison called Ain Zara, Jamal said.

For a week, he underwent interrogations before a judge, who then handed down a ten-year sentence for plotting to overthrow the regime. He was transferred to Abu Slim more than a year later.

During his time in Ain Zara, Jamal was kept in one room with three other men. They were not allowed outside and received food through a slot in the door. After the first 17 months of his incarceration, he was allowed to leave his cell and walk outside for 15 minutes each week. Eventually, the guards gave him one, then two hours outside. For two years, he was forbidden to use a phone, even to call his family.

Muftah's training in the United Kingdom was probably a red flag for the regime, the brothers said [Evan Hill]

Muftah, arrested two days after Jamal, tried to escape the headquarters building in Ajdabiya. On a trip to the bathroom, he bolted through the front door. He was barefoot, having left his slippers in the hallway inside. He climbed atop a shack and jumped the compound's walls, but as he landed, his ankle slammed against a car axle propped against the wall and broke.

He was taken to Ajdabiya Hospital, where doctors said he needed surgery. His guards refused and ordered the staff to put his ankle in a plaster cast. Muftah still walks with a slight limp.

In 2006, Salem was arrested in Niger near the border with Chad. Police drove him to Niamey, the capital, where Libyan external security officers were waiting to take him on an Afriqiyah passenger flight to Tripoli.

When Salem arrived, he was taken to an external security building and held in solitary confinement for two weeks. For the first three days, he was blindfolded. His only human interaction came when a fellow prisoner delivered food to his cell door.

He was interrogated, but his questioners focused on his activities outside Libya and did not seem interested in his brothers' group. During the interrogations, they brought dogs into the room and removed his blindfold so that Salem could see them snarling inches from his face. They brandished an electrical cord, one end plugged into a wall socket, the other stripped to the wires, and threatened to electrocute him.

They told Salem the worst was yet to come.

"We will take you to a place where you will confess everything," they said.

After four weeks, he was handcuffed, blindfolded and stuffed upside down into the back seat of a car, his head on the floor. He was taken to an internal security building and brought into a small room. His blindfold was removed. Eight men sat around him.

"You don't deserve life," one said. "You're an enemy of Gaddafi."

Salem said he would do whatever they wanted. They told him he would need to implicate others. It cost them a lot to get him, they said, and he needed to make it worth their while.

Salem visited the rebel front lines every day after being released from prison in late February [Evan Hill]

Violent interrogations followed. During one session, Salem remembered, he was blindfolded and made to stand against a wall. Security officers slapped him repeatedly in the face. One blow knocked him to the ground. The blindfold slipped from his eyes, and he saw four large men holding weapons: an aluminum bar, an iron pipe wrapped in rubber and wooden sticks.

They beat Salem as he lay on the floor. A man tipped a large wardrobe on top of him, and he tried to hide beneath it. They beat him where his body was exposed, so he scrambled to his feet and ran to the other side of the room, grabbing an air conditioner's power cord to hold onto in his panic. They dragged him away and continued the beating. The abuse ended when the men cuffed Salem's hands behind his back, raised his arms painfully behind him and hung him from a door by his wrists. His feet dangled half a metre from the ground.

Resisting Gaddafi, at home and in Iraq

 In Abu Slim, the brothers witnessed more violence perpetrated by a regime that refused to abide the slightest opposition. In October 2006, during Ramadan, a group of men who had been imprisoned for years without seeing a judge staged a sit-in outside an administration building, demanding to speak with a responsible official. 

The protest began at around 2pm, and within hours a force of around 30 blue-camouflaged central security forces arrived under the command of a colonel named Abdelhamid al-Sayeh, Ibrahim said.

The troops beat the protesters, who fought back. Al-Sayeh made a call, then ordered the troops to open fire. Other guards stationed atop the walls shot down at the prisoners. One man died, and others were wounded, the brothers said.

Their account was impossible to confirm. Alison Baddawy, a researcher writing for the Washington DC-based democracy watchdog Freedom House in 2007, described the Ramadan protest as a "riot ... sparked by a number of prisoners who are members of militant Islamist groups". But she too wrote that one man had died, while "a number" of others were injured.

Many of those held in Abu Slim were Libyans who had been caught on their way to Iraq. On just one day in 2007, at least 100 men who had been apprehended in Syria were brought into Abu Slim, the brothers said.

Libyans, especially those from the east, were known to be ready volunteers for the fight against US troops. A cache of biographical documents kept by "al-Qaeda affiliates" and seized in a 2007 US raid in the Iraqi town of Sinjar, near the Syrian border, showed that Libya was second only to Saudi Arabia in the overall number of men who had left for Iraq. Libya far outpaced every other Arab country in the per capita rate of volunteers.

Of the 595 men in the Sinjar files who listed their nationality, 112 came from Libya, and of the 88 Libyans who gave their hometown, 84 per cent came from Derna or Benghazi in the east.

US diplomatic cables sent from the Tripoli embassy in 2008 - released by WikiLeaks earlier this year - described eastern Libya as an impoverished region and a breeding ground for Islamic extremism.

One cable said Libyans from the east believed they had "nothing to lose" by sacrificing themselves in Iraq and were proud to carry on the east's history of fighting occupations, considering themselves heirs of the lionised Omar Mukhtar, the hero of the anti-Italian resistance.

In another cable, a US embassy officer described having lunch with a Derna resident who said that volunteering for "jihad" in Iraq was a way of striking a blow at Gaddafi when attacking the regime at home was considered a lost cause.

"There was a strong perception, he said, that the US had decided ... to support the regime to secure counter-terrorism cooperation and ensure continued oil and natural gas production," the embassy officer wrote.

One Libyan who spoke to a US embassy official in Derna in 2008 said it would be a "fool's errand" to confront Gaddafi, since "many easterners feared the US would not allow [the] regime to fall".

"Fighting against US and coalition forces in Iraq represented a way for frustrated young radicals to strike a blow against both Gaddafi and against his perceived American backers," the embassy official wrote.

A chance for a 'friend' in America

Ibrahim and Jamal agreed. Sending men to fight in Iraq showed Gaddafi that eastern youth "don't differentiate between life and death," Ibrahim said. If they can sacrifice themselves in Iraq, they are ready to sacrifice themselves in Libya.

Jamal was wanted by the regime for supporting young men who went to fight US troops in Iraq [Evan Hill]

Though Jamal never intended to travel to Iraq himself, he viewed the US presence there as an "injustice" and felt obligated to support other young men who wanted to go by giving them money and encouragement and offering his family home as an occasional place to stay in Ajdabiya.

Even so, he said, the US is not the Libyan people's enemy; in fact, it could be an ally against Gaddafi. Though he warned that Libyans would never tolerate a foreign military presence in their country, the people would consider the US "a friend" if it interceded to protect the uprising by launching air strikes against Gaddafi's troops and military buildings, Jamal said.

After Thursday's UN Security Council vote in favour of a no-fly zone and military action to defend Libya's populace, such strikes became much more likely. Though they carry the risk of civilian casualties, Libyans in the opposition have called for them for weeks. Some have even specifically suggested that US planes should bomb Gaddafi's residence and command centre in Tripoli, the Bab al-Azizia.     

The relationship between the US and the opposition in the long term remains cloudy. Despite the national opposition council's completely secular face, some US officials and commentators have expressed concerns about the forces behind the uprising, fearing it may be controlled or "hijacked" by the persistent US bogeyman in the Middle East: Islamic extremists.

The Jidrans may represent a real-life answer to those concerns. They are blunt about their religion: Islam guides their worldview, and they would like to achieve the democracy and freedom they desire for Libya in an Islamic context. But the brothers have not shut themselves off from the outside world. They are not cave-dwelling radicals in the mold of Osama bin Laden, waiting for the return of an Islamic golden age and worldwide dominion.

"Yes we are Muslim, but we can be modern too," Ibrahim said. "We need Islam, but in reality it's very difficult to achieve a caliphate. Now we have parliaments, and different movements of people."

"The Taliban and Algeria show it can't be done," Jamal said.

And for the moment, there are more pressing concerns than Libya's future political system: The Jidran brothers say their struggle must end in victory, because the alternative is death.

"Gaddafi's regime gave us two choices: To rule us as a dictator, or to kill us," Muftah said. "The Libyan people have a message for Gaddafi: We are ready, we are six million people, we are ready for five million of us to die, so the other million will live in dignity."

 
 
Source:
Al Jazeera
 

__________________________

West overzealous on Libya
 
Al Jazeera's senior political analyst discusses the risks and opportunities inherent in UNSC Resolution 1973.
 Last Modified: 18 Mar 2011 14:02
Five countries abstained from voting in favour of the UNSC resolution calling for a no-fly zone in Libya  [AFP]


Now that the United Nations Security Council resolution for a no-fly zone has been passed, how will it be implemented?

The UNSC Resolution 1973 has made it legal for the international community to protect the Libyan people from Muammar Gaddafi's lethal and excessive force - by, among other things, imposing a no-fly zone and carrying out military strikes and other military action short of occupation.

However, the overzealousness of certain Western powers like Britain, France and, as of late, the US, to interpret the resolution as an open-ended use of force, is worrisome. With their long history of interference and hegemony in the region, their political and strategic motivation remains dubious at best. Likewise, their rush to use air force individually or collectively could prove morally reprehensible - even if legally justified - if they further complicate the situation on the ground.

This sounds like 'damned if they do, damned if they don't'?

Well, the onus is on these Western powers to prove that their next move and actions are based on a strictly humanitarian basis and are not meant as a down payment for longer-term interference in Libyan and regional affairs.

They need to demonstrate how their 'change of heart' from supporting the Gaddafi dictatorship over several years to condemning him as a war criminal and acting to topple him, is not motivated by more of the same narrow national and Western strategic interest.

Unfortunately, the Libyan dictator's statements and actions (and his recent cynical and contradictory threats and appeals) have played into Western hands, making it impossible for Libyans, like Tunisians and Egyptians before them, to take matters into their own hands.

Those who abstained at the UN Security Council, including Germany, India and Brazil, wanted to co-operate in charting a brighter future for Libya, but are also suspicious of the overzealous French and British eagerness to jump into a Libyan quagmire with firepower.

What then should Libyans, Arabs and other interested global powers do to help Libya avoid a terrible escalation to violence or a major humanitarian disaster?

Now that the international community has given the Libyan revolutionaries a protective umbrella that includes a full range of military and humanitarian actions, it is incumbent upon the Libyan opposition to mobilise for mass action in every city and town both in the east and west and challenge the regime's militias.

As the Libyan regime loses its civilian, tribal and international legitimacy, so will his security base be shaken over the next few days and weeks.

In fact, if the Libyan revolutionaries avoid complacency and exploit their newly gained legitimacy and protection in order to work more closely with their Arab neighbours and to demonstrate their political and popular weight in the country, the regime could very well implode from within.

The most effective and constructive way to use the newly mandated use of force by the UN Security Council is to use as little of it, as accurately, as selectively as possible, and ideally not use it at all. It is still possible for the threat of the use of international force, coupled with domestic popular pressure, to bring down the weakened regime.

An escalation to an all out war is in no one's interest, especially Libya's.  
 
Source:
Al Jazeera
 

__________________________

 
De-racialising revolutions
 
Revolutionaries often struggle to reconcile their accomplishments against those of competing 'others'.
 Last Modified: 14 Mar 2011 15:09 GMT
The roots of Arab and Iranian racism towards each other, as well as towards 
'black Africans', are troubling [GALLO/GETTY]

Soon after the brutal crackdown on Iran's post-electoral uprising in June 2009, rumours began circulating in cyberspace and among ardent supporters of the Green Movement that some of the Islamic Republic's security forces, recruited to viciously attack demonstrators, were, in fact, not Iranians at all, but "Arabs".

Snapshots began circulating with red circles marking darker-skinned, rougher looking members of the security forces, who it was said were members of the Lebanese Hezbollah or Palestinian Hamas. Iranians, like me, who come from the southern climes of our homeland, look like those circled in red and remember a long history of being derogatorily dismissed as "Arabs" by our whiter-looking northern brothers and sisters, were not convinced by the allegations.

We also recalled that in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the massive influx of Afghan refugees into Iran all sorts of crimes and misdemeanours were attributed to "Afghanis", with that extra "i" carrying a nasty racist intonation in Persian.

Cut to almost two years later, when "the mercenaries" who were deployed by the Gaddafi regime to crush the revolutionary uprising engulfing Libya were reported to have been "African". "As nations evacuate their citizens from the violence gripping Libya," Al Jazeera reported, "many African migrant workers are targeted because they are suspected of being mercenaries hired by Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader." The Al Jazeera report further specified: "Dozens of workers from sub-Saharan Africa are feared killed, and hundreds are in hiding, as angry mobs of anti-government protesters hunt down 'black African mercenaries', according to witnesses." 

Revealing the 'other'

These travelling metaphors of racially profiled acts of violence - that violence is always perpetrated by "others", and not by "oneself" - now metamorphosing as they racialise the transnational revolutionary uprisings in our part of the world are a disgrace, a nasty remnant of ancient and medieval racism domestic to our cultures, exacerbated, used and abused to demean and subjugate us by European colonialism to further their own interests, and now coming back to haunt and mar the most noble moments of our collective uprising against domestic tyranny and foreign domination alike. 

The manifestations of this racism are multifaceted and are not limited to the revolutionary momentum of street demonstrations or the anonymity of web-based activism. It extends, alas, well into the cool corners of reasoned analysis and deliberations.

The racist identification of certain "Arabs" among the security apparatus of the Islamic Republic by some pro-democracy activist Iranians was in turn reciprocated by some leading Arab public intellectuals (by no means all) who are still on the record for having dismissed the massive civil rights uprising in Iran as a plot by the US and Israel and funded by Saudi Arabia, condescendingly equating it with the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon.

That astonishing sign of barefaced inanity was in turn reciprocated by equally (if not more) inane reactions on the part of some Iranian activists who have ridiculed and dismissed the Egyptian or Tunisian revolutions as a "glorified military coup" or else boasted that "Arabs" were doing now what "we" did 30 years ago, concluding that "they" are backward at least by a factor of a 30-year cycle. 

This closed-circuit cycle of racism feeds on itself, and its cancerous cell must be surgically removed from our body-politics.

The Arab 'other'

The roots of Arab and Iranian racism towards each other, and of both Arab and Iranian racism towards "black Africans" are too horrid and troubling to deserve full exposure at these magnificent moments in all our histories. Aspects and dimensions of these pathologies need to be addressed only to the degree that they point to a collective emancipation from the snares of racism transmuting into cycles of racialising violence. 

On the Arab side, as Joseph Massad has demonstrated in his Desiring Arabs (2007), in the course of Arab nationalism, the trope of "Persian" was systematically racialised and invested with all sorts of undesirable and morally corrupt and corrupting "sexual perversions", and thus a "manly" and "straight" heteronormativity was manufactured for "Arabs".

In much of the dismissals and derisions heaped on Iran's Green Movement, Massad's insight has been on full display. Iranians in this estimation have in effect been considered to be too feminine, too pretty, too weak, too middle class bourgeois, too chic (look at all those pretty women and their hairdos and sunglasses) to have their own uprising, and like all other women they needed help from the superpower.

The "real revolution" was what "the real men" did in the "Arab world", not only without American help but in fact against American imperialism.

As the Iranian Green Movement was thus feminised (by way of dismissing it as feeble, flawed, and manipulated by "the West"), the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions are assimilated aggressively into a pronouncedly masculinist Arab nationalism.

The homophobic anxieties of the Arab masculinist nationalism, if we were to extend Massad's crucial insights, thus protest too much by dismissing the Green Movement as something effeminate, soft, middle class, bourgeois, and above all supported by the "superpower".

The Iranian 'other'

The pathology of Iranian racism has a different genealogy. Engulfed in the banality of a racist Aryanism, a certain segment of Iranians, mostly monarchist in political disposition, has been led to believe that they are in fact an island of purebred Aryans unfortunately caught in a sea of Semitic ruffians, and that they have been marred by Arab and Muslim invasion and need to reconnect with their European roots in "the West" to regain their Aryan glory.

Predicated on the historic defeat of the Sassanid Empire (224-651) by the invading Arab army in the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah (636) in particular, this national trauma has always been prone to xenophobia of the worst kind.

Not just "Arabs" but "Turks" and "Mongols" - corresponding to successive invasions of Iran from the seventh to the 13th century - have been the repository of Iranian racism. This racism also has an internal manifestation in the derogatory and condescending attitude of self-proclaimed "Persians" towards the racialised minorities like Kurds, Azaris, Baluch, etc.

The external and internal racism then comes together to manufacture a fictitious "Persian" marker that is the mirror image of its "Arab" invention. The binary Persian/Arab, rooted in medieval history and colonially exacerbated, in turn becomes a self-propelling metaphoric proposition and feeds on itself. 

Racialising revolutions

Predicated on these dual acts of racialised bigotry, pan-nationalist political projects have been the catastrophic hallmark of our post-colonial history over the last century.

As pan-Iranism has competed with pan-Turkism in Central Asia and exacerbated pan-Arabism in West Asia and North Africa, their combined calamity, mimicking "the West" they have collectively helped manufacture to loathe and copy at one and the same time, comes together and coalesces in an identical act of bigotry against "black Africans". 

The current proclivity towards the racialisation of transnational revolutionary uprisings in our world partakes in that ghastly history and if we do not surgically remove it, it will send us on a goose chase precisely at the time when we think we are being liberated.

As the Zimbabwean journalist and filmmaker Farai Sevenzo has noted:

"In the violence of the last fortnight [mid-February 2011 in Libya], the colonel [Gaddafi]'s African connections have only served to rekindle a deep-rooted racism between Arabs and black Africans. As mercenaries, reputedly from Chad and Mali fight for him, a million African refugees and thousands of African migrant workers stand the risk of being murdered for their tenuous link to him."

Farai Sevenzo also reports: "One Turkish construction worker told the BBC: 'We had 70-80 people from Chad working for our company. They were cut dead with pruning shears and axes, attackers saying: 'You are providing troops for Gaddafi. The Sudanese were also massacred. We saw it for ourselves.'"

This ghastly manifestation of racialised violence is not exactly why millions of people from Senegal to Djibouti, from Morocco to Afghanistan, and from Iran to Yemen are dreaming for better days for their children.

Racialising violence

Racialising violence is the very last remnant of colonial racism that knew only too well the Roman, and later Old French Republic, logic of "divide and conquer", or "divide and rule" (divide et impera or divide et regnes), a dictum that was ultimately brought to perfection by Machiavelli in his Art of War (1520).

The criminal record of European colonialism in Asia and Africa is replete with this treacherous strategy. Germany and Belgium both put the dictum to good use by appointing members of the Tutsi minority to positions of power. The Tutsi and Hutu groups were re-manufactured racially, an atrocity at the heart of the subsequent Rwandan genocide. The British had similar use for the colonial maxim when they ruled Sudan and sustained a divide between the North and the South, which in turn resulted in successive Sudanese civil wars.

The colonial history of the rest of Africa is replete with similar divides, as is the history of Asia - particularly in India where the British were instrumental not only in re-inscribing the caste system to their colonial benefits, but also in fomenting hostility between Muslims and Hindus, which ultimately resulted in the catastrophic partition of India and Pakistan along religious lines. 

The old colonial adage has renewed imperial usages. Soon after the US-led invasion of Iraq, a US military strategist, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, wrote an off-the-cuff analysis on the Sunni-Shia divide, The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam will Shape the Future (2006). He effectively blamed the carnage in Iraq on ancient Sunni-Shia hostilities and linked it to the strategic hostility between the Islamic Republic and Saudi Arabia - a well thought out strategic intervention that turned the US, in the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, into a good Samaritan and entirely innocent bystander.

The strategy was so successful that the book became a bestseller in the US, while its author was subsequently recruited into the US diplomatic meandering to find a similar lullaby out of the continued fiasco in Afghanistan.

Solidarity of a younger generation

But these tired old clichés are the dying metaphors falling behind the trails of a liberated world, free to map itself out into different, more embracing, horizons.

Today beyond the reach of these colonial and imperial treacheries, we as a people have a renewed rendezvous with history - and if these revolutions are allowed to be assimilated backward into outdated and dreadful racialising elements evident in pan-Arab, pan-Iranian, pan-Turkic, ad nauseum frames of references, we will all be back where we were two centuries ago and all these heroic sacrifices will be for naught.

Fundamental demographic and economic forces are driving these revolutionary uprisings from Asia to Africa to Latin America and even to Europe and North America. Events we have seen in Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, with vast and variegated resonances from Morocco to Bahrain and from Afghanistan to Yemen, are changing the very planetary configuration of who and what we are.

We cannot allow these nasty colonial vestiges to cloud the horizon of where and whence we are headed. And we will not: Not everything in our midst attests to our worst fears. Quite to the contrary: The younger generation of Arabs, Iranians, and Africans speak and act an entirely different language and sentiment. The transnational solidarity is what has ignited these uprising in the first place and what will sustain them for years to come. Evidence of that fact and phenomenon is abundant in the streets and squares of our Tahrir Squares and Meydan-e Azadi alike.

In reaction to the anti-Arab sentiments in the Green Movement, other activists wrote articles on the Palestinian artist Naji al-Ali's Hanzala and soon the Palestinian figurative hero appeared with a green scarf keeping demonstrators company in Tehran; and the day Hosni Mubarak left office, the first young Egyptian that the BBC interviewed said in solidarity with his Iranian counterparts that Iran would be next, as indeed Wael Ghoneim, the young Egyptian internet activist, sporting a green wristband when addressing the rallies in Tahrir Square, said he was delighted to know Iranians interpreted it in solidarity with their cause.

From their economic foundations to their political aspirations, these revolutionary uprisings are the initial sketches of a whole new atlas of human possibilities - beyond the pales of racialised violence, gender apartheid and, above all, obscene class divisions.

Hamid Dabashi is Hagop Kevorkian professor of Iranian studies and comparative literature at Columbia University in New York, and the author of Post-Orientalism: Knowledge and Power in Time of Terror.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

 
 
Source:
Al Jazeera

__________________________

Nic550772

Young Libyans hold images of their leader Moamer Kadhafi as they gather in Tripoli's Green Square as they celebrate victories over rebel forces claimed by Kadhafi's regime on March 6, 2011. AFP PHOTO/MAHMUD TURKIA (Photo credit should read MAHMUD TURKIA/AFP/Getty Image

>via: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brqnetwork/5510211085/

An alternative view

Why Gaddafi's overthrow

may be bloody

Correcting Western misunderstandings of Africa

Jenn Jagire
2011-03-17, Issue 521

Although the Western media has sustained negative and biased reports about the Libyan uprising, they are doing it from a neocolonial and Eurocentric view. Literally, they think as Europeans and the style of their thoughts is not very different from that of the 1884-1885 Berlin Conference, where European powers and their populations plotted to venture into Africa, to colonise, gain raw material, rule over Africans and plunder most of their resources to be taken to Europe for its development at the expense of African countries.

Basically, no country in Africa escaped colonialism. Even in Ethiopia – which the Eurocentric writers have written about as having not been colonised – there was some tacit colonisation in that the Europeans powers gave support to the Amharic Emperor to rule over other nationalities, for example, the Oromo, Anywak, or the Lou Nuer, among others, against their will. Africa as a whole, then, was colonised because of the greed of Europe. As Europeans ventured into Africa, they claimed that they were civilising ‘savage Africans’ even though earlier than that, from 1500, they had been trading with Africans until they decided to capture and deport millions of them across the Atlantic to go and work as slaves on plantations owned by European entrepreneurs and aristocrats. Some of the slaves were actually owned by the Anglican and Catholic churches in the New World. (The White House, for example, is said to have been built by Black African slave labour).

Moreover, the country we know today as Libya, did not escape colonisation because Italy moved in to colonise it. Before Gaddafi ever was, there was King Idriss, who was serving European interests as long as they left him on the throne. The coming of Gaddafi changed all that. Gaddafi plotted the downfall of Idriss for some time. For example, Gaddafi strategically joined the army and went for training at the elite Sandhurst Military Academy in England. Secondly, Gaddafi entered Benghazi University and read law. Gaddafi also meditated on and studied Machiavelli in preparation for the overthrow of King Idriss. It so happened that the intelligence of King Idriss was quite weak and he had not expected his imminent downfall. When King Idriss was holidaying in Italy, Gaddafi moved swiftly, together with the army officers that he had mobilised, to take power in a bloodless coup. Gaddafi also moved swiftly after the discovery of oil in the country to nationalise the oil wells, effectively putting it in the hands of the Libyans, which without doubt, was welcomed by the citizens. Before that it is said, Libya was as poor as any African country, with only desert dates for export. However, later under Gaddafi, Libya became an oil exporter. The organisation of leadership under people’s committees was also Gaddafi’s idea. It worked and dissent proved unpopular initially. The dissenters were propagating for Western style democracy, which was largely ignored by the majority of Libyans who were rather content with Gaddafi’s leadership for some time.


Today the Western countries are calling the anti-Gaddafi rebels ‘revolutionaries’. It is rather hypocritical to see Ronald Reagan’s slogan of yesteryears once more brought to the more to depict Gaddafi as ‘The mad dog of the Middle East’. Moreover, the flag that the rebels are hoisting is that of King Idriss who was overthrown more than 40 years earlier. How exactly revolutionary are the rebels at this juncture? The rebels are also said to hunt for people with darker skins, or Africans, accusing them of being ‘mercenaries’ for Gaddafi in a racist agenda previously mainly common in the West. In their fight for Western-style democracy in Libya, it is glaring that the Western countries also underestimated the influence Gaddafi’s anti-Westernism on sections of Libyans. Western countries, particularly the UK and USA, erroneously thought that Gaddafi, as a tyrant without any support, would fall within three to four days of the rebellion. The Western propaganda about ‘peaceful protestors’ standing up against Gaddafi was equally delusional. The protestors are not peaceful civilians but an armed insurrection that has sought to move and conquer or dislodge Gaddafi from Tripoli. USA, already overstretched to the limit with its army in Iraq and Afghanistan, would make another serious blunder in invading Libya in Africa.

Moreover, concerning the African Union (AU), Bill Richardson, now portrayed as former US ambassador to UN, has made another delusional statement on CNN that because African countries have well-trained air forces and armies, they would take action against Gaddafi. Looking at Bill Richardson’s face, it is to be remembered that he has been the immediate former governor of New Mexico who attempted to run as president. He was investigated for tax evasion. Therefore, Richardson’s statement depicts him as a neocolonialist who thinks that African countries are there at the disposal of the powerful, to be used to serve the interests of USA, when the US army is stretched thin and too busy in other countries, other than at home.

It is also amazingly hypocritical for the Western friends to start calling Gaddafi a dictator while they have been doing business with him until a few weeks ago. If Gaddafi is a dictator for staying long in power, in a position that Gaddafi himself describes as ‘honorary’ then he, Gaddafi, has the legitimate right to question how long the Queen of England has been on the throne. Moreover, the Libyan type of democracy of ‘rulership’ through the ‘people’s committees’ should not categorically be dismissed in favour of Western democracy or Greek democracy. Why should we always follow Western democracy to the letter when it is prescribed by the West and imposed on us all the time? The people who revolted in Benghazi are also using the ‘people’s committee’ style of leadership.

The other day, the British foreign minister, proverbially named Hague, admitted that he had covertly sent some SAS officers to escort a junior British diplomat to make contact with the rebels in Benghazi. Unfortunately, they were arrested and exposed, thereby bringing much embarrassment to the British Conservative government. This gesture has something to tell if the council in Benghazi is actually revolutionary or not.

On the other hand, Libya is an oil-rich country with per capita wealth higher than or rivalling that of USA. The uprising in Libya has forced oil prices higher in the West. The West has thought of dealing swiftly with Libya on behalf of the rebels to stop Gaddafi forces from ‘killing civilians’. This kind of swift action was not carried out when the Interahamwe were committing genocide in Rwanda or eastern Congo. This kind of swift military action has not taken place in Somalia, a country that everybody has shunned except for the AU countries of Uganda and Burundi. Both Rwanda and Somalia have no operational oil wells where oil companies from the West could invest in by sending expatriates to work there.

Again, viewing the exodus from Libya, it is quite proper to say that Libya has been offering employment to hundreds of thousands of foreign workers under Gaddafi. These people’s employment has been brought to an abrupt end as they go back to their countries having lost lucrative jobs. Libya employed hundreds of thousands of Egyptian workers, Bangladeshis, Americans, Britons etc. No wonder the West wanted a quick solution, either the quick overthrow of Gaddafi and his immediate replacement by the ‘Libyan National Council’ or a democratically elected government modeled on Western principles. Such a quick solution will be hard to come by immediately. In the meantime, more blood is being spilled and all the Western countries can do immediately is to pull their nationals out of Libya.

Meanwhile, Africans must say something about the butchering of Black or dark skinned people christened ‘mercenaries’ by the Libyan rebels. We know that Libya has a distinct population of Libyan Tuaregs who are Black and are citizens of Libya. The Tuaregs can be found as well in Algeria, Morocco, Mali and other countries in north-west Africa. Similarly, there are Black Libyans whose mother tongue is Arabic, just like the Nubians of Egypt who now mainly speak Arabic. Should the Libyan rebels continue executing Black people because of the colour of their skin? Should Africans get butchered in Libya because Gaddafi ditched pan-Arabism for Pan-Africanism?

Gaddafi, it is said, has apologised for Arab slave trade over Africans, whereas no European power has apologised for their slave trade in Africans. For us, who are of African descent, whom would we rather forgive? The one who apologises or the one who refuses responsibility for the enslavement of Africans whose legacy has evolved into entrenched racism? ‘Kiri Mutu’ is a Ugandan African proverb that says that it is the wearer of the shoe that knows where it pinches most. Tuaregs and other Africans in Libya today are targeted as ‘mercenaries’ fighting for Gaddafi. Africans guest workers should not be butchered by Libyan rebels.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Jenn Jagire is a doctoral student, from an anticolonial and antiracist standpoint.
* Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at Pambazuka News.