The biggest difference between the events in Libya and those of its neighbours is the society. Libya, much like Yemen, is a tribal society at heart, whereas Tunisia and Egypt follow social hierarchies far more similar to those of European nations, making them far more relateable, in that they are divided by class, rather than by tribe. In these class-based societies, the protests were the voice of a middle class group, spurred on by social networking, angered by the corruption, oligarchy and so on which deprived them of the same lifestyle benefits as their European counterparts.
Libya is not quite so simple, and approaching it in the same way would be foolish. Because, where Libya is tribal, the opposition is not the voice of a middle class spurred on by Western ideals - it is the voice of the the tribes of Cyrenaica, the eastern part of Libya. These tribes previously controlled Libya during the reign of King Idris, and it is here that opposition to Gaddafi and his regime is strongest. Idris, as a ruler, was subservient to the West - this was his downfall.
Gaddafi, on the other hand, is originally from a tribe from the Fezzan area deep in the Sahara (he was born near Sirte but the Qadhadhfa originate from Sabha), though he has closely allied himself with the tribes of Tripolitania, and he has an appeal and identity that spans both groups of tribes. Thus, his rule has been very much one of tribal dominance over Cyrenaica, and this civil war is an attempt by Cyrenaican tribes to regain the tribal hegemony they lost 41 years ago.
This is why the majority of rebel-held areas are in Cyrenaica - Benghazi, Tobruk, etc - with the exceptions (such as Misrata) being in Tripolitania. It is no conincidence that the Fezzan tribal areas are completely controlled by Gaddafi. In his 22 February address, Gaddafi's statement of "I have millions who support me", disparaged by the Western media as 'mad', makes more sense to our culture in the light of this.
The Cyrenaican tribes have seized the chance to reestablish themselves in the light of recent events, because they can use the cover of democracy and garner significant attention from the world. They present themselves in suits, as democratic men, but in reality they are just as tribal as Gaddafi in his robes. The Western leaders have been played the sympathy card by these tribes, and the press have ensured that any attempt to dodge military involvement is subject to derision.
This reality also opens our eyes to the fact that Gaddafi's rule over Libya has been very constructive and peaceful, considering the tribal nature of its society. If we compare Libya with the other notable Arab tribal nation - Yemen - the starkness of the contrast goes some way to illustrating this difference. Gaddafi has been criticised for decentralising Libyan society, but this is perhaps a good way to avoid conflicts between tribes. Yemen is full of strife and tribal violence, it is an al-Qaeda hotbed and unemployment is massive. Libya is Africa's most prosperous country, with Africa's highest standards of living, clean water, wealth, low unemployment, and so on. The Libyan economy remained strong despite Western efforts to cripple it with sanctions, and Gaddafi's spending on public works has greatly improved his people's quality of life. True, this is in part due to Libya's oil, but Gaddafi's determination in forcing oil companies to renegotiate contracts ensured a fairer deal for Libya that meant they got more out of their oil than they did with King Idris.
I find the West's pious approach to Libyan state sponsored terrorism distasteful. The USA bombed Libya in '86 on flimsy evidence that Libya was behind a bombing in Berlin which killed 3 people. 'Operation El Dorado Canyon' killed 45 soldiers and 15 civilians, including Gaddafi's own adopted baby daughter, and tried to kill Gaddafi. I needn't remind you that the assassination of heads of state is illegal by international law, and it's typical of American foreign policy at the time to ignore this. Gaddafi supported the IRA in Ireland (killed 1,800 people) and Bokassa, the mad but relatively harmless dictator (100 killed) of the Central African Republic/Empire, as well as Ethiopia's Haile Mariam, who killed around 2,000 people during his incumbency.
This is, of course, an awful thing, but it pales in comparison to the list of dictators and terrorists backed by the USA. Ngo Dinh Diem (South Vietnam) killed 50,000 people. Chiang Kai-shek (China, then Taiwan) killed 12,000 people in Shanghai in April 1927. Francois Duvalier (Haiti) killed 30,000. Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic) killed at least 50,000. Idi Amin (Uganda) killed over 300,000. Augusto Pinochet (Chile) killed 1,000-3,000 or so. I don't think that the USA can honestly take the moral high ground in this instance.
The media also tries to convince us is that Gaddafi has no support, and the National Transitional Council has all the support, and things are one-dimensional. They assume this because Gaddafi uses mercenaries in his armed forces. But it is simply not the case. Throughout his rule, Gaddafi, who came to power via (bloodless) coup, has kept the military weak so that the same does not happen to him. It may be a little paranoid, but its sensible. As a result, Gaddafi has used his wealth to hire mercenaries to ensure his army is well equipped to fight the rebels; he could use civilians in the way the rebels do, but who can honestly say that they are an effective fighting force? Gaddafi has the means, and he has used them, and he has stopped his supporters from being killed in doing so. Large numbers of tribes in Fezzan and Tripolitania support Gaddafi, and the massive pro-Gaddafi rallies in Tripoli - a huge proportion of the Libyan population - are evidence that a significant demographic of the Libyan people still support him.
One other criticism is that Gaddafi has used force against civilians. The fact is, the Cyrenaican civilians have been very quick to take up arms against Gaddafi, and he has simply responded to violence with violence. I recall a video of a small protest in Tripoli; the Western media derided the police for using tear gas against protesters who had burnt a car. In reality, it's not much of a crime outside of the Western psyche of piety and superiority. Again, Gaddafi's use of human shields is out of pragmatism rather than sadism; in the face of all the firepower of NATO, what choice does he have? And what right have we, in our comfortable capitalist cocoon, to judge him for it?
I am not trying to say that Gaddafi is a saint, but I am merely trying to dispel the false accusations and exaggerations which permeate the media. It seems inevitable that even the defiant Gaddafi will fall, as NATO bombing continues to intensify, and the Cyrenaican tribes will have their vindication. Rest assured, post-Gaddafi Libya will be ruled from Benghazi, by Cyrenaican tribes which put their duty to the USA above their duty to themselves, under a facade of a 21st century democracy. The idea that the rebels are fighting simply for Western democracy is farcical; it is a thin veneer which conceals the tribality of their cause. Meanwhile, our bombs continue to fall on yet another Muslim nation, whose culture we do not understand, in order to spread our ideals, and yet we are surprised that there are those in the Muslim world that resent us. The International Criminal Court is judging Gaddafi and his regime according to a set of Western values imposed upon the world. Yet where are the arrest warrants for Bush, Blair, or Netanyahu? The Libyan Civil War continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment