The new Libyan reality
28/3/12 00:03![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mahnmut.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe Libyan rebel forces who ousted Gaddafi are responsible for numerous war crimes and human rights abuses, this was the "sensational" conclusion of a report made by the expert commission appointed by the UN, published by AP earlier this month. The report was done under the chairmanship of Philippe Kirsch, a Canadian judge, and it investigated the atrocities on both sides during the conflict in Libya.
The report notes that the rebels, even after the official end of the hostilities, continue to commit crimes against prisoners of war and the civil population in a number of regions. What's more, these crimes are increasing with time, and the control on the various armed groups of "rebels" is decreasing.
We should clarify something though. What's so sensational about this report is not its contents but the very fact it was published. In fact it doesn't contain anything particularly new and shocking that we didn't already know. The lack of regular military, police and courts in Libya and the complete impunity of the armed groups, the mass deaths of captured Gaddafi loyalists in the Libyan prisons - all of this has already been reported or at least hinted, and those who cared to look closer into it are already well aware of it. But, as much as the rules of Realpolitik dictate that for the majority of Western politicians the struggle for some abstract "human rights" is usually related to concrete political interests, the publishing of this report by AP can only be explained in one way. Namely, the amount of evidence about the atrocities committed by the "Libyan friends" of the US, UK, France and the Gulf monarchies, has passed a certain threshold beyond which it's already pointless to try to conceal or whitewash it.
Indeed, there's a ceaseless stream of piling evidence about the "revolutionary terror", both from individual witnesses and from reputed organizations like Human Rights Watch. Some statements from the latter make the actions of the winner militants look frighteningly similar to the activities of the likes of Dr Mengele and maybe the Japanese Unit-731. For instance in January the Doctors Without Borders announced that they were ceasing work in the Libyan prisons, because the winners of the Libyan war continue to torture the Gaddafi loyalists who are held there. They stated that their job is to provide medical assistance to the injured and the ill among the prisoners, not to heal multiple times the same prisoners who are repeatedly tortured. Things reached a point where even the former Libyan ambassador to France perished after being tortured in a prison in Tripoli.
According to UN data, presently there are 60-70 prisons in Libya, where more than 9000 detainees are held. Most of them are accused of loyalty to the Gaddafi regime.
Amnesty International reports that the 1st anniversary of the Libyan revolution was met with a dubious record - the number of civilian deaths is getting out of control, while the official data talks about "only" 10-15 per day. And that, after the end of the war. The fate of the "arrested" without charges and trial (if we could use such a word as "arrested") is more than bleak. Torture is wide-spread both among the official security forces and the numerous rogue squads of armed militants who roam the towns and who don't obey any rules and laws. As a reference for comparison, in January 2011 the UN General Assembly issued Document A/HRC/WG.6/9/L.13 where they were acknowledging the "exceptional contribution" of Muammar Gaddafi for the building of a "democratic and lawful society". HUH!? They even proposed to give him a prize for his respect for human rights! And now? The new Libyan situation must seem like an even more "democratic" society in their eyes? How about that.
If Gaddafi's activities, which the General Assembly was about to reward with a medal, are now declared "dictatorial", then maybe for the internal policies of the winners in the Libyan war a whole new terminology must be devised.
Sadly, the main target of repression from the new Libyan "democrats" now happens to be the black immigrant population coming from Africa's interior, and who used to flock into the country during the times of economic prosperity, when labor force was badly needed. Many of those people have lived there for decades and have pretty much integrated into the Libyan society. But now, any black on the streets of Misrata, Tripoli and other towns is instantly labeled "Gaddafi's mercenary" and gets targeted and harassed, even hijacked and often killed. The town of Tawergha which was built from scratch under Gaddafi was practically 100% donated to the new settlers. Now it's leveled to the ground.
Human Rights Watch reported that last October some of their workers were traveling with the rebels near Tawergha. The rebels assured them that they were only "guarding" the town from marauders. But meanwhile they witnessed convoys of rebel vehicles leaving the town, filled to the top with furniture and belongings, obviously taken from the local inhabitants. The rebels were shouting triumpantly, bragging with their new acquisitions. So yeah. That was before Gaddafi fell. You can imagine what happened between that moment and today, when Tawergha is completely demolished, and most of its population lives in refugee camps in the desert, or in the prisons in Tripoli and Benghazi. Later it was found that the rebels had been shooting at unarmed civilians in the town.
30000 former residents of Tawergha are now either partially exiled or partially put into refugee camps. One of the biggest camps is set up in the place of the former Naval Academy. Many Tawergha residents are stuck there, banned from returning to their homes under a death threat. But they're not safe even in the camp itself. Occasionally the camp gets shelled with missiles by the nearby revolutionary gangs. Several black residents of Tawergha are held in a cage in the Tripoli Zoo and force-fed flags to the joy of the spectators, and the jubilant Libyans can go and take photos that they could show to their friends. That's sweet, isn't it?
The rebels-now-turned-rulers explain their disdain for the black Libyan population with two reasons: first, they belong to another race (no shit?) And second, they're all "mercenaries", and that's an insult to the Revolution! So they must pay for their sins with suffering and blood. Meanwhile, we're being told that a new political culture is being built in New Libya, one that will set the stage for democracy.
And while we're about this mercenari-ness or something, a couple months ago some rebel militants went on a protest, demanding that they should receive their "salaries" for the months they had fought in the Revolution. HUH!? Seems like they were sincerely convinced that they were owed some kind of compensation for their participation in the civil war. And the new minister of Oil & Finance, Ali Tarhouni indeed promised such a settlement. So, turns out the winners in the civil war, according to their own definition of themselves, happen to be... mercenaries. Right? By this logic, it's kind of weird that they'd stick derogatory labels to "Gaddafi's mercenaries" and somehow that's supposed to call strong feelings of righteous indignation in the listener. But that's the least striking of all paradoxes in the whole Libyan situation.
The UN, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch and a number of other organizations are simply compelled to acknowledge the shocking discrepancy between the real state of affairs in Libya and the preliminary optimistic interpretation of the events that used to occupy both the mainstream media and the official circles in all countries involved - most of all France, but also Britain, Italy and the US. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron almost immediately recognized the Libyan rebels and recommended financial aid for them, and kept assuring the public that they were good people who can rely on the full trust and support of the civilized world, unlike the thugs who were fighting for the "tyrant" Gaddafi. There's at least some reason to contemplate - what exactly are these mysterious criteria for "trust" that exist in international (Real)politik?
And by the way it's not like the people who are responsible for this situation are "unknown" or something. It's pretty clear who's at the top of this (dis)organization, and that's the leaders of the "New Libya".
A slight tangent here. Looking at Syria now, even that won't be the case. Despite the similarly nice (and equally assuming) statements of support by Hillary Clinton, the US still doesn't know how to define the Syrian opposition. What exactly is the Syrian opposition? What are they fighting for, exactly? Which group can/should we talk to? There are many groups that hardly talk to each other and who are apparently fighting for different causes. Despite all these uncertainties and all the staggering ignorance on the subject, the public opinion in the West in general seems to have already made up its mind about it. Let's just cut that Assad tumor first, then we'll think what next. And let's ignore all warnings coming from allies who might be a bit more well versed in the matter. I mean what could possibly go wrong? It's the typical head-on plunge type of approach to such matters that has brought such curious results in Afghanistan and other places. And if in Libya about 10-15 people are dying a day (officially!) as a consequence of the "pacifying" actions of the new rulers, we can only begin to imagine how a similar post-civil-war situation would look like in Syria. But after all, Freedom & Democracy requires sacrifices, hey? Especially when it's all happening in some obscure corner of the world that's not Mexico. The details don't matter that much, as long as the Bigger Picture is the right one. That is, the one we like.
The report notes that the rebels, even after the official end of the hostilities, continue to commit crimes against prisoners of war and the civil population in a number of regions. What's more, these crimes are increasing with time, and the control on the various armed groups of "rebels" is decreasing.
We should clarify something though. What's so sensational about this report is not its contents but the very fact it was published. In fact it doesn't contain anything particularly new and shocking that we didn't already know. The lack of regular military, police and courts in Libya and the complete impunity of the armed groups, the mass deaths of captured Gaddafi loyalists in the Libyan prisons - all of this has already been reported or at least hinted, and those who cared to look closer into it are already well aware of it. But, as much as the rules of Realpolitik dictate that for the majority of Western politicians the struggle for some abstract "human rights" is usually related to concrete political interests, the publishing of this report by AP can only be explained in one way. Namely, the amount of evidence about the atrocities committed by the "Libyan friends" of the US, UK, France and the Gulf monarchies, has passed a certain threshold beyond which it's already pointless to try to conceal or whitewash it.
Indeed, there's a ceaseless stream of piling evidence about the "revolutionary terror", both from individual witnesses and from reputed organizations like Human Rights Watch. Some statements from the latter make the actions of the winner militants look frighteningly similar to the activities of the likes of Dr Mengele and maybe the Japanese Unit-731. For instance in January the Doctors Without Borders announced that they were ceasing work in the Libyan prisons, because the winners of the Libyan war continue to torture the Gaddafi loyalists who are held there. They stated that their job is to provide medical assistance to the injured and the ill among the prisoners, not to heal multiple times the same prisoners who are repeatedly tortured. Things reached a point where even the former Libyan ambassador to France perished after being tortured in a prison in Tripoli.
According to UN data, presently there are 60-70 prisons in Libya, where more than 9000 detainees are held. Most of them are accused of loyalty to the Gaddafi regime.
Amnesty International reports that the 1st anniversary of the Libyan revolution was met with a dubious record - the number of civilian deaths is getting out of control, while the official data talks about "only" 10-15 per day. And that, after the end of the war. The fate of the "arrested" without charges and trial (if we could use such a word as "arrested") is more than bleak. Torture is wide-spread both among the official security forces and the numerous rogue squads of armed militants who roam the towns and who don't obey any rules and laws. As a reference for comparison, in January 2011 the UN General Assembly issued Document A/HRC/WG.6/9/L.13 where they were acknowledging the "exceptional contribution" of Muammar Gaddafi for the building of a "democratic and lawful society". HUH!? They even proposed to give him a prize for his respect for human rights! And now? The new Libyan situation must seem like an even more "democratic" society in their eyes? How about that.
If Gaddafi's activities, which the General Assembly was about to reward with a medal, are now declared "dictatorial", then maybe for the internal policies of the winners in the Libyan war a whole new terminology must be devised.
Sadly, the main target of repression from the new Libyan "democrats" now happens to be the black immigrant population coming from Africa's interior, and who used to flock into the country during the times of economic prosperity, when labor force was badly needed. Many of those people have lived there for decades and have pretty much integrated into the Libyan society. But now, any black on the streets of Misrata, Tripoli and other towns is instantly labeled "Gaddafi's mercenary" and gets targeted and harassed, even hijacked and often killed. The town of Tawergha which was built from scratch under Gaddafi was practically 100% donated to the new settlers. Now it's leveled to the ground.
Human Rights Watch reported that last October some of their workers were traveling with the rebels near Tawergha. The rebels assured them that they were only "guarding" the town from marauders. But meanwhile they witnessed convoys of rebel vehicles leaving the town, filled to the top with furniture and belongings, obviously taken from the local inhabitants. The rebels were shouting triumpantly, bragging with their new acquisitions. So yeah. That was before Gaddafi fell. You can imagine what happened between that moment and today, when Tawergha is completely demolished, and most of its population lives in refugee camps in the desert, or in the prisons in Tripoli and Benghazi. Later it was found that the rebels had been shooting at unarmed civilians in the town.
30000 former residents of Tawergha are now either partially exiled or partially put into refugee camps. One of the biggest camps is set up in the place of the former Naval Academy. Many Tawergha residents are stuck there, banned from returning to their homes under a death threat. But they're not safe even in the camp itself. Occasionally the camp gets shelled with missiles by the nearby revolutionary gangs. Several black residents of Tawergha are held in a cage in the Tripoli Zoo and force-fed flags to the joy of the spectators, and the jubilant Libyans can go and take photos that they could show to their friends. That's sweet, isn't it?
The rebels-now-turned-rulers explain their disdain for the black Libyan population with two reasons: first, they belong to another race (no shit?) And second, they're all "mercenaries", and that's an insult to the Revolution! So they must pay for their sins with suffering and blood. Meanwhile, we're being told that a new political culture is being built in New Libya, one that will set the stage for democracy.
And while we're about this mercenari-ness or something, a couple months ago some rebel militants went on a protest, demanding that they should receive their "salaries" for the months they had fought in the Revolution. HUH!? Seems like they were sincerely convinced that they were owed some kind of compensation for their participation in the civil war. And the new minister of Oil & Finance, Ali Tarhouni indeed promised such a settlement. So, turns out the winners in the civil war, according to their own definition of themselves, happen to be... mercenaries. Right? By this logic, it's kind of weird that they'd stick derogatory labels to "Gaddafi's mercenaries" and somehow that's supposed to call strong feelings of righteous indignation in the listener. But that's the least striking of all paradoxes in the whole Libyan situation.
The UN, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch and a number of other organizations are simply compelled to acknowledge the shocking discrepancy between the real state of affairs in Libya and the preliminary optimistic interpretation of the events that used to occupy both the mainstream media and the official circles in all countries involved - most of all France, but also Britain, Italy and the US. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron almost immediately recognized the Libyan rebels and recommended financial aid for them, and kept assuring the public that they were good people who can rely on the full trust and support of the civilized world, unlike the thugs who were fighting for the "tyrant" Gaddafi. There's at least some reason to contemplate - what exactly are these mysterious criteria for "trust" that exist in international (Real)politik?
And by the way it's not like the people who are responsible for this situation are "unknown" or something. It's pretty clear who's at the top of this (dis)organization, and that's the leaders of the "New Libya".
A slight tangent here. Looking at Syria now, even that won't be the case. Despite the similarly nice (and equally assuming) statements of support by Hillary Clinton, the US still doesn't know how to define the Syrian opposition. What exactly is the Syrian opposition? What are they fighting for, exactly? Which group can/should we talk to? There are many groups that hardly talk to each other and who are apparently fighting for different causes. Despite all these uncertainties and all the staggering ignorance on the subject, the public opinion in the West in general seems to have already made up its mind about it. Let's just cut that Assad tumor first, then we'll think what next. And let's ignore all warnings coming from allies who might be a bit more well versed in the matter. I mean what could possibly go wrong? It's the typical head-on plunge type of approach to such matters that has brought such curious results in Afghanistan and other places. And if in Libya about 10-15 people are dying a day (officially!) as a consequence of the "pacifying" actions of the new rulers, we can only begin to imagine how a similar post-civil-war situation would look like in Syria. But after all, Freedom & Democracy requires sacrifices, hey? Especially when it's all happening in some obscure corner of the world that's not Mexico. The details don't matter that much, as long as the Bigger Picture is the right one. That is, the one we like.
(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 19:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 19:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 19:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 19:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 19:18 (UTC)Or something.
I suppose my first question would be -- why are these atrocities not as bad as the original atrocities, in the eyes of the world-wide supporters of the opposition forces?
(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 19:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 22:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 19:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 21:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 21:20 (UTC)http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/08/22/gaddafi-under-siege-two-cia-backed-groups-al-qaeda-linked-lifg-top-power-stakes
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/24/libya.foreign.forces/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576237042432212406.html
A far cry from "zero collaboration with terrorists". And consider the West basically funded, trained and armed what would become al-Qaeda...yeah. Oh and now it seems the U.S. may be trying to use them in Syria (https://rt.com/news/us-al-qaeda-syria-otrakji-635/) as well...
(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 22:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 23:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/3/12 01:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/3/12 01:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 20:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/3/12 07:07 (UTC)And the reason it's "par for the course", is because their people do not hold them accountable enough (as just about all the power has been usurped from them).
Just saying.
(no subject)
Date: 28/3/12 20:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/3/12 10:37 (UTC)The reason Western power (actually coercive power regardless of hemisphere) *can* come through the barrel of the gun is *because* those on the other side are both disarmed of equal power and/or do not hold them accountable (either through apathy or self-preservation as they lack that power mentioned earlier to stand up to them unless they do it truly en masse).
And how would I know what their real objective is yet? I can only speculate, till it falls into place and a narrative emerges.
(no subject)
Date: 29/3/12 18:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/3/12 19:33 (UTC)Secondly, yes exactly. Which is why I said exactly "equal power" to refer to the fact of one side having far superior military hardware etc.
Also, I do not agree that Vietnam was not won by the U.S. because it. or USSR would not use nuclear weapons. It was lost by them because they could not overcome the Viet Cong's knowledge of the jungle terrain and their effective guerilla tactics, PLUS the fact that soldiers were becoming mentally unstable or downright treasonous there, in some cases executing their superior officers and deserting, PLUS the emergence of war footage being broadcast into people's living rooms and them seeing the true atrocities of the war, PLUS the fact that the domestic U.S. had a massive social uprising and antagonism raging in the streets in many places, including seemingly unstoppable bombing campaigns from groups such as the WUO, whose primary grievance seemed to be the war in Vietnam. And let's not forget Daniel Ellsberg.
(no subject)
Date: 29/3/12 20:26 (UTC)The difference in this as opposed to other scenarios is that in the past, when the USA had the opportunity to do things like cross the Yalu or invade North Vietnam, it would very much have done so. In the event that this unleashed nuclear war, it was unwilling to do that, while its army was too lousy in fighting terms to win the war on the battlefield. The USA lost the Vietnam War because it faced a doubly impossible logistics situation and the best general of the 20th Century. It wasn't domestic politics so much as a war started by and running on lies against a group that made the lies count every bit as much as was possible.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/12 11:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/3/12 16:26 (UTC)It's very hard for westerners to imagine this kind of stuff, especially Americans because none of us are alive today to remember what a real civil war in our own country was like.
(no subject)
Date: 28/3/12 20:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/3/12 00:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 21:57 (UTC)HA!
(no subject)
Date: 27/3/12 21:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/3/12 12:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/3/12 16:01 (UTC)WRT Syria, when I read that Obama asked the Saudi's to assist Syrian rebels, it immediately brought to mind another rebel group that Saudi Arabia funded in Afghanistan. I'll give you three tries to guess the name of the group.
(no subject)
Date: 28/3/12 16:25 (UTC)It's very unfortunate but it's sometimes a reality... :(
(no subject)
Date: 29/3/12 03:21 (UTC)Especially when it's all happening in some obscure corner of the world that's not Mexico.
speaking of which, you know the Pope was in Mexico recently to speak against the drug-violence and narco trafficking....u know that right? didn't i post some photage on that visit?
(no subject)
Date: 29/3/12 06:21 (UTC)