GADDIFI TOPPLED!!!!!TRIPOLI CELEBRATING!!!!!!!!

A very interesting article from Al Jazeera's Opinion Section, written in March 2011:

Gaddafi, moral interventionism and revolution
Intervening in Libya now will set a poor precedent on when the use of force is justified.
Richard Falk

Although the use of force in Libya is now legally binding due to a UN security council resolution, it may well be an act of imprudence, setting a poor precedent for potential future interventions.

Long ago, Gaddafi forfeited the legitimacy of his rule, creating the political conditions for an appropriate revolutionary challenge.

Recently he has confirmed this assessment, referring to his own people as "rats and dogs" or "cockroaches", and employing the bloodthirsty and vengeful language of a demented tyrant.

Such a tragic imposition of political abuse on the Libyan experience is a painful reality that exists beyond any reasonable doubt, but does it validate a UN authorised military intervention carried out by a revived partnership of those old colonial partners – France and Britain – and their post-colonial American imperial overseer? I think not.

Let us begin with the unknowns and uncertainties.

Unknowns

There is no coherent political identity that can be confidently ascribed to the various anti-Gaddafi forces, loosely referred to as 'rebels'.

Just who are they, whom do they represent, and what are their political aspirations. It is worth observing that unlike the other regional events of 2011, the Libyan rising did not start as a popular movement of a spontaneous character, or a specific reaction to some incident as in Tunisia.

It seemed, although there is some ambiguity in the media reports, that the Libyan oppositional movement was violent from the start, and was more in the nature of a traditional insurrection against the established order than a popular revolution inspired by democratic values.

Such a political reaction to Gaddafi's regime seems fully justified as an expression of Libyan self-determination, and likely deserves encouragement from world public opinion.

By and large, the international community did not resort to interventionary threats and actions until the domestic tide turned in favour of Tripoli, which means that intervention was called upon to overcome the apparent growing likelihood that Gaddafi would reestablish order in his favour.

The main pretext given for the intervention was the vulnerability of Libyan civilians to the wrath of the Gaddafi regime.

But there was little evidence of such wrath beyond the regime's expected defence of the established order, although admittedly being here undertaken in a brutal manner, which itself is not unusual in such a situation.

How is this different than the tactics relied upon by the regimes in Yemen and Bahrain, and in the face of far less of a threat to the status quo, and even that taking the form of political resistance, not military action.

A difference in resistance

In Libya the opposition forces were relying almost from the outset on heavy weapons, while elsewhere in the region the people were in the streets in massive numbers, and mostly with no weapons, and in a few instances, with very primitive ones (stones, simple guns) that were used in retaliation for regime violence.

It may have been the case that the Libyan governmental response was predictably brutal and militarist, and that the rebel opposition felt that it had no choice.

But it should have been clear from the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan that military intervention against a hated and brutal regime is not the end of the story, and before the ending is reached violence cascades to heights far beyond what would have likely resulted had there been no intervention producing heavy civilian casualties and massive displacements among the population.

In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.

But it can be asked, what about Rwanda and Bosnia (especially, the massacre at Srebrenica)? Are these not instances where humanitarian intervention should have been undertaken and was not? And didn't the NATO War in Kosovo demonstrate that humanitarian intervention does sometimes spare a vulnerable population from the ordeal of genocidal ethnic cleansing?

With respect to Rwanda and Bosnia, the threat of genocidal behaviour was clearly established, and could likely have been prevented by a relatively small-scale intervention, and should have been undertaken despite the uncertainties.

The facts surrounding the alleged genocidal threat in Kosovo remain contested, but there was a plausible basis for taking it seriously given what had happened a few years earlier in Bosnia.

But just as the Libyan rebels raise some suspicion by seeking Euro-American military intervention, so did the KLA in Kosovo engage in terrorist provocations that led to violent Serb responses, allegedly setting the stage in 1999 for NATO's "coalition of the willing".

NATO went ahead in Kosovo without the benefit of a Security Council mandate, as here, for military action "by all necessary means".

But with respect to Libya there is no firm evidence of a genocidal intention on Gaddafi's, no humanitarian catastrophe in the making, and not even clear indications of the extent of civilian casualties resulting from the fighting.

We should be asking why did Russia signal its intention to veto such authorisation in relation to Kosovo, but not with respect to Libya.

Perhaps, the Russian sense of identification with Serb interests goes a long way to explain its opportunistic pattern of standing in the way or standing aside when interventionary forces gather a head of steam.

Debating the use of force

One of the mysteries surrounding the Libyan intervention is why China and Russia expressed their opposition by abstaining rather than using their veto, why South Africa voted with the majority, and why Germany, India, and Brazil were content to abstain, yet seemed to express reservations sufficient to cast 'no' votes, depriving the interventionist of the nine affirmative votes that they needed to obtain authorisation.

Generally the veto is used promiscuously, as recently by the United States, to shield Israel from condemnation for their settlement policy, but here the veto could have prevented a non-defencive and destructive military action that at this stage seems imprudent and almost certain in the future to be regarded as a poor precedent.

The American debate on the use of force was more complex than usual, and cut across party lines.

Three positions are worth distinguishing: realists, moral interventionists, and moral and legal anti-interventionists.

The realists, who usually carry the day when military issues arise in foreign policy debates, on this occasion warned against the intervention, saying it was too uncertain in its effects and costs, that the US was already overstretched in its overseas commitments, and that there were few American strategic interests involved.

The moral interventionists, who were in control during the Bush II years, triumphantly reemerged in the company of hawkish Democrats such as Hilary Clinton and Joseph Biden, eventually prevailed in the debate, probably thanks to the push from London and Paris, the acquiescence of the Arab neighbours, and the loss of will on the part of Moscow and Beijing.

It is hard to find a war that Republicans do not endorse, especially if the enemy can be personalised and demonised as Gaddafi has been, and there is some oil in the ground!

The anti-interventionists, who doubt the current effectiveness of hard power tactics, especially under Western auspices, were outmanoeuvred, especially at the United Nations and in the sensationalist media that confused the Gaddafi horror show for no brainer/slam dunk reasoning as to the question of intervention, treating it as a question of 'how', rather than 'whether', again failing to fulfil their role in a democratic society by giving no attention to the anti-intervention viewpoint.

Finally, there arises the question of the UN authorisation.

Upholding the charter

The way international law is generally understood, there is no doubt that the Security Council vote, however questionable on political grounds, resolves the legal debate within the UN.

An earlier World Court decision, ironically involving Libya, concluded that even when the UN Security Council disregards relevant norms of international law, its decisions are binding and authoritative.

Here, the Security Council has reached a decision supportive of military intervention that is legal, but not legitimate, being neither politically prudent nor morally acceptable.

The states that abstained acted irresponsibly, or put differently, did not uphold either the spirit or letter of the Charter.

The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.

But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.

Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.

Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.

It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.

We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.

It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008).

He is currently serving his third year of a six year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

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

Reuters:

Gaddafi forces pound Misrata (1:46)

June 29 - Seven rockets strike rebel-held Misrata, Libya overnight -- killing one and injuring several. Deborah Lutterbeck reports.

Link as video not on you tube: http://www.reuters.com/video/2011/06/29/gaddafi-forces-pound-misrata?videoId=216608375&videoChannel=1

Article from the Telegraph:

Why we cannot simply dismantle Gaddafi’s regime
Replacing the entire architecture of the Libyan state will lead only to further violence and chaos, argues George Grant.

For 42 years, the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi terrorised, oppressed and divided the Libyan people. When anti-regime protests flared up on February 17, the reaction was predictable enough: bloody slaughter.

Gaddafi said he wanted to “cleanse Libya house by house”. Using regime security forces, he started doing just that. Whatever the lunatic fringe from Stop the War Coalition would have you believe, it was the international intervention, led by Britain and France, which put a stop to this. Since then, Prime Minister David Cameron and other world leaders have been categorical in their assertions that Colonel Gaddafi must go.

So what to make of yesterday’s comments by our International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, about the importance of incorporating as much of the existing regime architecture as possible into any post-Gaddafi settlement?

“One of the first things that should happen once Tripoli falls is that someone should get on the phone to the former Tripoli chief of police and tell him he’s got a job and he needs to ensure the safety and security of the people of Tripoli,” he said at a news conference on June 28.

Controversial stuff. But the fact is that Mr Mitchell is absolutely spot on, and his comments are to be warmly welcomed. For the success both of the current campaign to protect civilians and remove Gaddafi, and for the security and prosperity of any post-Gaddafi Libya, encouraging regime figures that they can have an important part to play will be absolutely essential.

As Edmund Burke observed in the wake of the French Revolution, replacing a despotic leadership, even by force, is sometimes right and necessary. Replacing the entire architecture of the state, on the other hand, will lead only to further violence and chaos. We learned this lesson the hard way in Iraq in 2003, when almost every vestige of the Ba’ath administration was replaced wholesale, with the resultant dearth of knowledge and expertise proving catastrophic for the country’s subsequent development.

A repeat of this mistake in Libya could have equally deadly results. The opposition Transitional National Council (TNC), though long on ambition, is woefully short on expertise. Yes it has some notable former regime figures amongst its ranks, including its Chairman, the former justice minister Mustafa Jalil, but it is also populated by men with no prior experience of running a country whatsoever. Former university professors, lawyers and a clutch of PhD students hold some of the most important posts in the TNC, and with the best will in the world, they’re going to need some help.

This problem is still further compounded by the fact that Jalil, admirably in many ways, has stated that TNC office-holders should not take advantage of their current status and stand in the first post-Gaddafi elections. Others within the council, including its spokesman Abdul-Hafiz Ghoga, take a different view, but either way the problem remains.

As for the opposition police and security forces, their lack of expertise is well documented. Indeed, many Libyans privately maintain that the most competent fighting force on the opposition front line is the Islamist 17th February Brigade.

Moreover, if regime figures are to be persuaded to abandon Gaddafi now, they need to know that to do so won’t just be an exercise in out of the frying pan, into the fire. In spite of much-trumpeted rebel advances in recent days, by far the most desirable outcome to this conflict remains an internal coup d’état inside Gaddafi’s regime.

Monday’s announcement by the International Criminal Court (ICC) that it had issued warrants for the arrest of Colonel Gaddafi, his son Saif, and the country’s spy-chief, Abdullah al-Senussi, on charges of crimes against humanity, will doubtless have given those still loyal to Gaddafi pause for thought. Indeed, it is imperative that those charged with the most serious crimes are brought to justice. But it is equally important that others in the regime can be confident that they will not be tarred with the same brush, and that there can be an important place for them in a post-Gaddafi Libya.

The key now will be to hear similar remarks to Mr Mitchell’s from the TNC itself. Understandably perhaps, many amongst Libya’s opposition hold deep reservations about such a strategy. Within Benghazi itself, there have been serious divisions in recent weeks over the question of whether or not to employ former regime security forces, and there have also been sporadic assassinations of former regime figures; a telling microcosm of what might be in store down the road.

But for the sake of all Libyans, in east and west, it is imperative that such divisions are put to one side. This troubled country simply cannot afford revenge and retribution. Mr Jalil and others within the TNC need to have the courage to extend the olive branch, both publicly and through private channels. Failure to do so will be costly indeed.

George Grant is the Director for Global Security at The Henry Jackson Society, and the author of “Towards a Post-Gaddafi Libya”, a report on the conflict released in April 2011.

I would think there is a huge difference between keeping on Government employees who run, say, the Tripoli sewage system, and the head of the secret police...

bb1 wrote:I would think there is a huge difference between keeping on Government employees who run, say, the Tripoli sewage system, and the head of the secret police...

After WW2 the Allies purged the 'big boys' but the less involved were denazified and then reinstated; for instance, in France the police were actually reinstated en masse, despite Drancy and their involvement in the deportation of Jews to Auschwitz. In West Germany many old Nazis just got their old jobs back, ditto Austria. Kurt Josef Waldheim, who was President of Austria in the mid-1980s, was outed as an intelligence officer in the Wermacht, for instance, and there are records of some of the French Presidents actively 'covring up' for ex-French Nazis, the same in East Germany and many of the Soviet controlled East Europe countries. It is easier to look away from what people have done, especially if you have to rebuild a country from scratch. Possibly better the devil you know than the one you don't?? LL

It's a very grey area, isn't it, LL? To go back to de nazification, there is a clear difference between some 16 year old who was conscripted, and someone who actively chose to participate in atrocities.

I am not sure just where you draw the line, though - not choices I would like to have to make.

Very grey area indeed. Might I recommend a book which you might find interesting - "The Perfect Nazi" by Martin Davidson, Penguin History, £9.99p. The author is Scots on his father's side and German on his mother's; her father was a card carrying Nazi SS Officer. It paints a very riveting picture of the life of someone who, even to his dying day, still was first and foremost a National Socialist. The grandson pulls no punches, he tells it as it was and and how they dealt with it. LL

Reuters today:

Wed 29 Jun 2011 | 17:51 GMT

UPDATE 1-Libyan rebels would review Gaddafi contracts
Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:09pm GMT

* Rebels says review would include oil deals

* Nations that helped rebels will benefit most post Gaddafi

* Says received funds from Qatar

By John Irish

PARIS, June 29 (Reuters) - Libya's rebel council said on Wednesday it would review all contracts, including lucrative oil deals, signed under Muammar Gaddafi's government were it to come to power and axe any where it found signs of corruption.

Speaking in Paris after rebel chief Mahmoud Jibril and his defence attache met French officials including President Nicolas Sarkozy, Information Minister Mahmoud Shammam also told reporters the rebels had received their first funds pledged internationally -- a $100-million loan from Qatar.

"With regards to the future, contracts agreed by Libya will be put under review and if there appears to be proof of commissions or financial corruption we will consider ourselves free from them," Shammam told reporters.

Companies with contracts in Libya include oil companies Total , Eni , BP Plc and Conocophillips , and some Turkish and Brazilian construction firms.

Officials in the rebel leadership have previously played down the likelihood that they will tear up Libya's revenue sharing agreements with foreign oil majors, saying they will respect contracts signed by the National Oil Company (NOC).

"Of course, (it includes) oil (contracts)," Shammam told Reuters. "If people steal your money are you going to let them get away with it?"

He said if companies were found to have won their contracts illegally, they would be given the option to pay back "funds to the Libyan people."

He also said: "We will give priority to the countries that were on our side. We will not make equal those who helped us and those who sat with their arms crossed watching. This is a clear message to those who still do not support us and do not recognise us."

QATARI LOAN ARRIVES

The rebels, who urgently need between $2-$3 billion to cover salaries and other needs, have won promises of about $1.1 billion in financial assistance from its Western and Arab supporters for their bid to wrest power from Gaddafi, but few pledges have come through.

Libya's economy relies on oil exports and the rebels have struggled to make ends meet as damage to energy infrastructure caused by the civil war has brought production to a halt in what used to be a major OPEC oil producer in North Africa.

Shammam said he hoped the rebels would receive all these funds by the start of the holy month of Ramadan in August. It received $100 million from Qatar on Monday backed by a guarantee of $800 million sitting in Qatari banks belonging to the Libyan sovereign wealth fund, Shammam said.

A multi-nation contact group, which includes Western and Arab countries as well as organisations such as the United Nations, will meet again on July 15 in Turkey to discuss the latest financial, political and military situation.

More than 90 days into a NATO bombing campaign, Gaddafi is refusing to relinquish power, leaving Western and Arab states counting on a combination of rebel advances on Tripoli and an uprising in the city itself to dislodge him.

However, Shammam, who last week had suggested the rebels could accept Gaddafi staying in Libya were he to step down, said this was no longer an option.

"After the ICC decision it seems that all the initiatives are at an impasse ... it seems the possibility for contact with a third party has completely disappeared and the door has closed," he said.

The Hague-based ICC issued warrants on Monday for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam and Libyan intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi on charges of crimes against humanity for their role in the killing of civilian protesters.

(Reporting by John Irish; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

Morning!

CNN Report on state of play in Libya:

Analysts blame faulty assumptions for prolonged Libya war
By Moni Basu, CNN
June 29, 2011 -- Updated 1921 GMT (0321 HKT)

(CNN) -- It was supposed to have been over in a few days. World powers would go in with fighter jets and the world's most sophisticated precision-guided weapons to render Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi powerless.

But that's not the way things happened.

As NATO's airstrikes crossed the 100-day mark, analysts blamed a host of faulty assumptions, including success based solely on surgical airstrikes, for a protracted war that some fear could drag on for more months.

"It's absolutely wrong to think that an air campaign can win this," said Andrew McGregor of the Jamestown Foundation and director of Aberfoyle International Security, a Toronto-based agency specializing in security issues related to the Islamic world.

The basic problem, McGregor said, stemmed from presuppositions about the fortitude of the Libyan opposition. "It's absolutely wrong to think that an air campaign can win this."

Buoyed by the successful uprisings to the east in Egypt and to the west in Tunisia, Libyan rebels believed they had the mettle to bring down Gadhafi. Western powers believed that with a little help, Libya could be freed from totalitarian rule.

But rebels launched an armed insurrection against a man who had spent four long decades preparing his state for unforeseen challenges. This wasn't a peaceful revolution of the masses against a government that had no public support.

"This revolt never really had the strength to succeed," McGregor said. "There was this feeling among the rebels that all we have to do is show up. But you should take a couple of years to get it organized first. If you're just going to run out on the streets, the results will be predictable."

Four months on, the rebels are not capable of supporting themselves, McGregor said. They are out of fuel, oil production has shut down, and they have few available resources. They will soon face even shortages of food and water, McGregor said.

President Barack Obama faces pressure at home to withdraw U.S. forces. There is debate, too, in Europe over the expensive air campaign.

The war may have been morally right, but NATO, said McGregor, is facing a conundrum.

Part of that failure was a lack of consideration of the makeup of the Libyan population, said University of Texas political scientist Alan J. Kuperman, author of "The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention."

"The fundamental error by the White House and NATO was to imagine that the Libyan people were united in opposition to Gadhafi," he said.

"In reality, Libya is divided along lines of clan and tribe, some of whom benefit greatly from Gadhafi, and therefore defend him fiercely," he said. "Any expert on ethnic conflict and intervention could have told the White House that ahead of time."

In that respect, said Thomas Donnelly, director of the Center for Defense Studies, the Libyan war has the potential for fallout that is worse than what happened after President George W. Bush declared "mission accomplished" weeks after Saddam Hussein's 2003 ouster in the Iraq war.

"To imagine that Libyans are going to come together -- is a hope, but not a plan," Donnelly said. "It was a mistake to get involved in such a feckless way."

Behind the rhetorical rallying cry of protecting civilians, Donnelly said, has always been the real aim of NATO -- to kill Gadhafi.

"If you made me bet my mortgage at gunpoint, I'd say we probably will get Gadhafi," he said.

But the question is when. And if it doesn't happen in a timely fashion, then NATO risks the erosion of public support for its campaign, Donnelly said.

"In some sense, 100 days is a short period of time," he said. "But when your political support is so tenuous and thin, and when your operations have heretofore been ineffective in achieving campaign goals, then taking ground forces off the table has not made the war any shorter or any less bloody."

The Libyan regime has also proven itself to be more robust and resilient than anyone imagined. It would be a mistake, said Donnelly, to assume that killing Gadhafi would mean a collapse of the entire system.

The Libya conflict has sometimes been compared to NATO's air war in the Balkans in the 1990s. Many people thought the Serbs would go down instantly once NATO began bombing. They didn't. And eventually, it was the threat of a ground invasion that led to the capitulation of then-Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

Gadhafi, however, faces no such threat. And some believe the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court this week will only help strengthen his resolve to stay in power.

"If Barack Obama had thought a hundred days ago that he would be where he is now, you have to wonder whether he would have made the same decision," Donnelly said. "How can you tell the American people we're going to start jumping over the fence and we have no idea where we are going to come down?"

But not everyone is pessimistic about prospects in Libya. Ali Ahmida, for one, stands by his belief that the Libyan opposition can defeat Gadhafi.

The rebels, he said, have made noticeable gains with the support of NATO air power. He cited recent rebel takeovers of western towns in the Nafusa Mountains and said Gadhafi is more isolated now than ever before.

"The Libyan people are capable of fighting this fight," said Ahmida, an analyst at the University of New England. "The consequences of this, even though it is more painful and brutal, will have a positive outcome in the end."

It has not been easy for Ahmida to watch the conflict unfold in Libya. But he is a strong proponent for self-determination who feels strongly that the Libyan people, not outside forces, must determine their fate.

"I warned against this from the start, that Libyan public opinion would not like it," he said, referring to the possibility of foreign boots on the ground. And Ahmida still questions the motivation of Western powers and the agendas of exiles who he fears may want to exploit oil-rich Libya.

"I'm optimistic but guarded," he said.

Ahmida said the bad news is that NATO lacked clarity in its mission and also in a negotiated exit for Gadhafi, which he said is more difficult now because of the arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity.

Still, Gadhafi's regime will fall, he said. Then the real battle for the future of Libya will just be starting.

Al Jazeera:

France confirms Libya arms drops
By arming civilians, France becomes first NATO country to admit supplying weapons to rebel-controlled areas in Libya.
Last Modified: 30 Jun 2011 01:01

The French military has confirmed that it airdropped weapons early this month to civilians fighting in rebel-held areas in the western part of Libya.

Colonel Thierry Burkhard, a spokesperson for the French general staff, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that the military had dropped assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers to groups of unarmed civilians it deemed to be at risk.

Earlier in the day, the Le Figaro newspaper and the AFP news agency reported that France had dropped several tonnes of arms, including Milan anti-tank rockets and light armoured vehicles.

The airdrops arrived somewhere in rebel-held towns in the Nafusa mountains, which run east-west from the Tunisian border around 100km south of the capital Tripoli.

The admission by France has already provoked a reaction from the African Union (AU).

"What worries us is not who is giving what, but simply that weapons are being distributed by all parties and to all parties. We already have proof that these weapons are in the hands of al-Qaeda, of traffickers," Jean Ping, the AU Commissioner, said. "These weapons will contribute to the destabilisation of African states."

Rebels control most of the Nafusa, up to the town of Yafran, while regime forces loyal to leader Muammar Gaddafi still hold Gharyan, a key town that lies astride the north-south road to the capital.

UN resolution mandate

On March 19, a coalition of NATO countries launched a military intervention in Libya under the mandate of a United Nations Security Council resolution aimed at protecting civilians from the onslaught launched by Gaddafi after mass protests broke out against his rule in mid-February.

The Security Council resolution established a no-fly zone, asset freeze and arms embargo on Libya and various regime entities.

The terms of the NATO mission in Libya have provoked controversy for months. The UN resolution 1973 authorising action says the NATO operation is to protect civilians, but France's admission raises major questions about how far that mandate goes.

Part of the UN resolution allows NATO the legal ability to provide weapons for protection or defence, but if those weapons are then used for attack, the rebels and those arming them could be criminally liable.

Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, told Al Jazeera that France's arms-supplying operations might arguably fall within the mandate.

"I think one of the key issues are whether the weapons supplied by the French are defensive weapons, or whether they're supplied with offensive use in mind," he said.

Rifles and ammunition

The French military spokesperson said France had become aware in early June that rebel-held villages had come under pressure from loyalist forces.

"We began by dropping humanitarian aid: food, water and medical supplies," he told the AFP news agency.

"During the operation, the situation for the civilians on the ground worsened. We dropped arms and means of self-defence, mainly ammunition."

Burkhard described the arms as "light infantry weapons of the rifle type" and said the drops were carried out over several days "so that civilians would not be massacred".

Though Burkhard framed the French weapons supplies as a method of protecting civilians in accordance with the UN mandate, it was still unclear whether such air drops violated the arms embargo.

NATO countries such as the United States have tried to emphasise that they are not taking sides in the conflict and that their strikes on Gaddafi's armour, anti-aircraft emplacements and command bunkers are only meant to protect civilians.

They have denied trying to kill Gaddafi, though US Admiral Samuel Locklear, a NATO commander in Naples, Italy, reportedly told a visiting US congressman in May that they were actively targeting and trying to kill him.

'Light armoured cars'

According to Le Figaro, which said it had seen a secret intelligence memo and talked to well-placed officials, the drops were designed to help rebel fighters encircle Tripoli and encourage a popular revolt in the city itself.

"If the rebels can get to the outskirts of Tripoli, the capital will take the chance to rise against [Gaddafi]," said an official quoted in the report.

"The regime's mercenaries are no longer getting paid and are scarcely getting fed. There's a severe fuel shortage, the population has had enough."

A well-placed non-government source told the AFP that 40 tonnes of weapons including "light armoured cars" had been delivered to rebels in western Libya.

France has taken a leading role in organising international support for the uprising against Gaddafi's four-decade-old rule, and French and British jets are spearheading a NATO-led air campaign targeting his forces.

Rebel forces are mainly based in Benghazi in the east of the country, and hold a besieged enclave supplied by sea in the western coastal town of Misurata, but have been unable to mount a convincing advance on the capital.

More boasting from Gadaffi's spokesman: Al Jazeera Live Blog:

15 min 6 sec ago - Libya

Government spokesperson Mousaa Ibrahim told reporters on Wednesday:

"Now we are fighting with ordinary civilians who have joined the battle against NATO. Now we have thousands upon thousands of tribes, of tribal individuals who have joined the armed forces and these volunteers constitute a huge number of fighting force at the front line at Brega, Misrata and in the Western Mountains as well. The war now against NATO is led now by the tribes of Libya."

Report from Human Rights Watch:

Gaddafi Forces Occupy Hospital, Terrify Patients and Staff
Posted on June 29, 2011 by admin

Libyan government forces mistreated medical staff and patients during an unlawful six-week occupation of a hospital in Yafran, a town in Libya’s western mountains, Human Rights Watch said today.

Government forces placed about 30 staff and three patients at grave risk by preventing them from leaving and deploying military weapons in the hospital compound, Human Rights Watch said. The failure to respect and protect the hospital violated international humanitarian law.

“Occupying a hospital and terrorizing the patients and staff is illegal and inhumane,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “To minimize the horrors of war, hospitals need to be kept free of fighters, and doctors and nurses need to be assured of their safety.”

Government forces occupied Yafran General Hospital from April 19, 2011, until the beginning of June. By then most Yafran residents had fled the town, following at least two weeks of government shelling. The approximately 30 doctors and nurses at the hospital, most of them Bangladeshi or Ukrainian, remained largely because they did not feel safe enough to leave. Three patients were also unable to leave due to their medical conditions.

Hospital staff told Human Rights Watch that the hospital was initially occupied by a paramilitary group known as Haras al-Shabi (the Civil Guard), which had engaged in looting after it captured Yafran on April 18. A doctor told Human Rights Watch that the Civil Guard aggressively entered the hospital and broke down locked doors in a fruitless search for rebel fighters. He said he saw the soldiers beat a wounded Egyptian worker they had found in the intensive care unit. “We were astonished how they dealt with him,” the doctor said.

The Civil Guard refused to let the hospital staff leave, the hospital workers said. Over the course of six weeks, the hospital staff primarily treated injured Libyan government forces. Hospital workers described a climate of fear from abuses and threats by the Civil Guard.

One of the patients who was getting medical care at the hospital when the Civil Guard arrived said the fighters entered his room and threatened to torture him and shoot him if he left the hospital. “They did that all the time,” he said. “I was scared that one of them would come back at nighttime and shoot me, so sometimes I would change which bed I slept in.”

In May, the Civil Guard arrested a nurse, who was then detained for more than three weeks, including time in Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison, and on occasion was tortured. “They told me they captured me because I had treated rebel fighters at the hospital,” the nurse told Human Rights Watch.

Witnesses said the Civil Guard moved military weapons into the hospital compound, including automatic weapons, machine guns, and anti-aircraft weapons. One doctor said that three large-caliber weapons were positioned in the compound: one at the front gate, one next to the kitchen, and one near the main entrance. Human Rights Watch viewed a video filmed by a medical worker on his cell phone in late April that showed a high-caliber machine gun mounted on a jeep in the hospital compound.

In late April or early May, at least 14 soldiers from the army’s Reda Brigade assumed control of the hospital from the Civil Guard. The treatment of medical workers and patients improved with the arrival of the regular armed forces, hospital staff said, but food and water remained in short supply. The soldiers gave the staff and patients two cups of water a day, as well as rice in the morning and pasta in the evening. The army allowed the nurses and doctors to leave the compound with permission, they said, but they could not go far because of the government forces in town. The Reda Brigade soldiers mainly had small arms, but a doctor said that one day in mid May they twice fired high-caliber machine guns from the hospital gate at an unknown target.

Human Rights Watch found about two dozen 7.62 mm bullet casings, which are used in AK-47 assault rifles, in various parts of the hospital grounds, including one in a position overlooking the hospital entrance. Medical staff said they had already removed other bullet casings from the grounds. The glass doors at the hospital’s entrance and the exterior gate had bullet holes, apparently from fighting between government and anti-government forces in the beginning of June.

Government forces fled Yafran when rebels took the town on June 2. As of June 24 rebel fighters kept three to five armed guards outside the hospital, though they occasionally went inside the building with their weapons. The hospital staff, interviewed in private, said they had not experienced any threats or violence from the rebel fighters.

International humanitarian law – the laws of war – applicable in the armed conflict in Libya, provides special protection for hospitals and medical workers. The occupation of the hospital and mistreatment of the medical workers by the government forces violated the duty to respect and protect medical facilities and personnel in all circumstances. It was also unlawful to deploy military weapons in the hospital. Preventing medical workers, who are civilians, from leaving the hospital violated the prohibition against placing civilians at unnecessary risk and may have amounted to “human shielding,” which is a war crime. Specific acts of abuse against medical workers and patients, including arbitrary arrest and physical abuse, are laws-of-war violations that may also amount to war crimes.

“Government forces committed a long list of international law violations in their abusive occupation of Yafran hospital, putting a lot of lives at unnecessary risk,” Stork said. “All parties to Libya’s conflict need to protect, hospitals, medical workers, and patients under all circumstances.”

Witness Accounts from the Hospital

Human Rights Watch visited Yafran General Hospital from June 19 to 24, and interviewed four doctors, six nurses, and a patient present during the hospital’s occupation by government forces. All but one asked that their names not be used because they feared that government forces might return. Human Rights Watch also interviewed in private a captured government soldier who had taken part in the hospital occupation.

A hospital patient in his 40s from the nearby town of Zintan said:

"No one could leave the hospital, especially me, since I was locked up inside my room for seven days because I am from Zintan. They threatened that if I went outside my room, they would shoot me. They came to my room with guns. They would shoot from inside the grounds, just outside my window, with a Kalashnikov [AK-47 assault rifle]. They never actually hurt me but they would insult me, threaten me, say they would cut off my ears or my fingers. They did that all the time. I was scared that one of them would come back at nighttime and shoot me, so sometimes I would change which bed I slept in."

A foreign doctor who had brought his family to the hospital for safety after the Civil Guard looted the town told Human Rights Watch:

"When the Haras al-Shabi came [to the town], they robbed and destroyed all the homes. We were terrorized. They stole my television, fridge, washing machine, everything. We couldn’t move, leave or sleep. They were in the hospital, and I was afraid they would be violent to our wives and daughters."

A nurse told Human Rights Watch that, on May 1, Civil Guard forces returned to the hospital and took him away. They detained him for 24 days in several places, including in Abu Salim prison in Tripoli, he said, and tortured him during interrogation:

"On May 1 three guys from Haras al-Shabi in forest camouflage came to the hospital in a car at 2 p.m. They entered the hospital and asked the military commander for permission to take me out of the hospital for investigation. They said they would then bring me back. They took me to [the nearby town of] al-Milayeb. The second day, they started beating me with iron rods and giving me electric shocks. At night, there were about six people who came and beat me up, punching me, kicking me, hitting me with a stick on my head.

The third day in the morning, they took me and 20 other people in the back of a truck and transferred us to Camp 77 [apparently a training camp for government security forces] in Tripoli. The driver told one of the Haras al-Shabi guys that he had a nurse, so the guy kicked me in my testicles. I was in my green hospital uniform, and one of the Haras al-Shabi guys came to me and started kicking me in the face and in the eyes. My left eye was swollen for seven days. The first two days I couldn’t see, then I started recovering. At 11 p.m. the same day, they transferred us to Abu Salim prison [in Tripoli]. Eventually they told me they captured me because I had treated rebel fighters at the hospital."

A nurse who stayed in the hospital during the military’s occupation explained the atmosphere of intimidation for female hospital staff:

"It was Friday [in mid-May] around 3:30 a.m. My friend and I were sleeping in my room. Some person knocked on my door. When I said, “Who is there,” no one answered. We thought maybe it was Bangladeshi nurses, but two men in uniform entered the room, and one of them sat on my bed. We were afraid of these army people because sometimes they did bad things. The way they looked at us around the hospital was not good. Sometimes they said something we didn’t understand, but we knew it was not good. [Afterward] we talked to the director about what happened, and he said that the army commander said sorry and that it would not happen again. He said he had punished the men. We didn’t see those guys after."

CNN:

Libya's Gadhafi calls for volunteers, women answer
By David McKenzie, CNN
June 30, 2011 -- Updated 0933 GMT

Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- Embattled Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is calling for fresh volunteers in a months-long war with rebels attempting to bring about an end to his 42-year rule -- and women of all ages are answering, CNN has learned.

Women from in and around Gadhafi's stronghold of Tripoli have been traveling south to a training facility in Bani Walid to practice with weapons, a common sight in a country where young girls receive military training in schools.

As NATO's airstrikes crossed the 100-day mark and rebels continue to fight to oust Gadhafi, he is tapping everything and everyone in his arsenal to hold on to power.

At the training facility in Bani Walid, women are training to "defend Moammar and the country," said Sgt. Faraj Ramadan, a woman who is training other women to properly handle weapons.

"They train to use it, assemble it and take it apart, and to shoot," she told CNN recently. "They were trained and got excellent scores."

At a recent graduation at the facility, 40-year-old Fatima Masoud said she like the training. She said she left her textile job every day at 4 p.m. to train.

"I liked training and defending my country, and now I'm am training women from all ages to use weapons," she said.

It is unclear how many have answered Gadhafi's call or how many had graduated from the program at Bani Walid, but women are fighting alongside government forces.

A woman, who did not want to identified, fresh from the frontlines, attended the graduation. She was still wearing a cannula in her wrist.

"Do not underestimate any woman in Libya, whether old or young," the woman said. "The woman is still able to perform more than you think."

Gadhafi's government claims it has handed out more than a million weapons to civilians since the uprising began. CNN cannot independently verify the claim.

Oh for God's sake - he is sending teenage girls and forty year old women to battlefields?

I can only hope that the rebels have more decency than he does when they realise who has been sent in like lambs to the slaughter.

That is disgusting - and a sure sign that his days are numbered.

Al Jazeera - Programme 'People and Power' - Libya: War and rape
Have Muammar Gadaffi's forces used rape as a weapon to suppress Libya's uprising?

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/06/201162964345738600.html

Another Al Jazeera programme 'Inside Story' - NATO's mission in Libya
How much longer can the military alliance keep operating in Libya, and will its mission be a success?

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2011/06/20116178921373319.html

These are the full programmes from Al Jazeera TV, each about 25mns long.

BBC World News/Africa/Libya

30 June 2011 Last updated at 15:22 GMT
Russia decries French arms drop to Libya rebels

Russia has strongly criticised France for dropping weapons to Libyan rebels and demanded an explanation from Paris.

"If this is confirmed, it is a very crude violation of UN Security Council resolution 1970," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

The African Union has also criticised the move, saying it risks causing a "Somalia-sation" of Libya.

The French military says it has dropped arms to Berber tribal fighters in the mountains south-west of the capital.

Mr Lavrov said Russia had formally requested information from France about the move, to check that it "corresponds with reality".

Mr Lavrov is due to meet French counterpart Alain Juppe in Moscow on Friday.
'Undefended populations'

Moscow abstained from the UN Security Council vote in March that authorised an international mission in Libya to protect civilians.

Russia and China have both criticised the Nato campaign in recent weeks, saying it had gone beyond the remit of UN resolution 1973.

Another resolution, 1970, had imposed an arms embargo on Libya.

But US and UK officials have argued that resolution 1973 could nonetheless allow weapons to be supplied to rebels fighting to topple Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

France is also said to have been concerned at the stalemate in the Libyan conflict, which began in February.

Libyan rebels have recently been making gains and hope to advance on Tripoli from the existing front line on the northern side of the Nafusa mountains about 65km (40 miles) from the capital.

French officials have said the arms dropped to rebels earlier this month were for the protection of civilians threatened at the time by pro-Gaddafi forces.

"It appeared that in certain zones the security situation was extremely tense for these undefended populations," French military spokesman Thierry Burkhard said on Thursday.

He said the supplies had been limited to ammunition and "light arms" including machine guns and rocket launchers. He denied a report in Le Figaro newspaper that anti-tank missiles had been parachuted in.

French media reports have said "light armoured cars" were also delivered to the rebels from Tunisia, and that France had not informed its allies about the move.

Earlier on Thursday, African Union chief Jean Ping listed a number of "problems" linked to France's decision to air-drop weapons to the rebels.

"The risk of civil war, risk of partition of the country, the risk of 'Somalia-sation' of the country, risk of having arms everywhere... with terrorism.

"These risks will concern the neighbouring countries," said Mr Ping, speaking at an African Union summit in Equatorial Guinea.

Al Jazeera live blog:

Libyan man shares proof of violence in Tripoli
Published 29 June 2011 22:59 1967 Views
As the pro-democracy fighters advance in Libya, news of what has been going on in Gaddafi-held areas is being revealed. Al Jazeera's Sue Turton has met one man who has managed to escape Tripoli, carrying extraordinary pictures of violence in the capital in his back pocket. Here is her report on Ali's return to his hometown of Misrata. Ali's face is concealed in this report for the protection of his family members who are still in Tripoli.

A powerful story, LL - thanks!

This is Music from a Different Time - http://alive.in/libya/
A Lybian rebel orchestra plays the TNC National Anthem.

http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/at2dPXxEOkRx/en-gb/128045/#close

BENGHAZI, LIBYA 6/21/2011 – For centuries, Libya’s position straddling the Arab and African world gave it one of the richest and diverse musical and artistic cultures. But under the regime of Colonel Gaddafi, this culture was actively suppressed in favor of propaganda glorifying the state.

The revolution in February lifted the restrictions on music, among other things, and Benghazi is now witnessing a resurgence of culture once forgotten or forbidden under the old regime.

One of the musical projects enabled by the revolution is Alzaman Al Jameel, a band in Benghazi that performs in the classic Libyan styles. The 14 member band, made up of former music students, performs traditional Libyan and Arabic songs, including some religious laments.

They recently performed the national anthem for members of the Transition National Council, Libya’s interim rebel government.

“Our aim is to support the revolution with music and art,” said Mohammed Othman, the band’s manager.

Alive in Libya visited Alzaman Al Jameel during one of its practice sessions to talk with the members about their band, how they started, and what their role is going forward.

Wikipedia:

Among Libyan Arabs, instruments include the zokra (a bagpipe), flute (made of bamboo), tambourine, oud (a fretless lute) and darbuka, a goblet drum held sideways and played with the fingers. Intricate clapping is also common in Libyan folk music.

Travelling Bedouin poet-singers have spread many popular songs across Libya. Among their styles is huda, the camel driver’s song, the rhythm of which is said to mimic the feet of a walking camel.

Daily Beast:

Libya hasn’t seen a resurgence of music like this since the late 1970s, when Col. Gaddafi really took Libyan politics by the throat. He had released his notorious Green Book and renamed the country. Those were the years the music died.

Now, Libya’s independence-era anthem came back roaring after being banned for four decades. A melodic song, “We Shall Remain Here,” has been the anthem most specific to this revolution. The courthouse in Benghazi that has been converted to a media center now houses several studios and practice rooms.

Maps of World:

Music is intimately connected with the traditional culture of Libya. This North African country is inspired by the Arabic culture and therefore the Libyan music is also influenced by the Arabic music. The Arabic music mainly rises out of the Arabic poetry dating back to the pre-Islamic period. Arabian people come from the most ethnic groups and they generally prefer to practice Arabian music. To have an idea about the rich storehouse of music in Libya, the tourists have to collect information about the cultural history of Libya. The proper study of the history will let you know about the music of 11th century, popularly known as Al-Andalus.

Andalusi music is locally popular as Malauf, Chabi and Arab classical music in Libya. The music became popular during the Al-Andalus period during 9th and 15th century. There are various kinds of folk and classical music which are included in Andalusi music. Ghazal is one of them which include mainly love songs. It is an important part of the Arabian music and also in the music of Libya. The classical music of Andalusia reached Libya and to entire North Africa through cultural exchange.

Morning! Al Jazeera Live blog:

7 hours 10 min ago

Russia has criticised France for air-dropping weapons in Libya's rebel-held areas, saying it violated a United
Nations resolution.

It said on Thursday that France has committed a "crude violation" of a UN weapons embargo.

Sergey Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, said: " We are awaiting a response. If it is confirmed, it's a "flagrant violation", of the resolution".

10 hours 37 min ago

Brahim Beitelmal, the head of Misurata's military council, has told Al Jazeera's Sue Turton that the rebels there are talking with French authorities in the hopes of being supplied with weapons, much like their co-revolutionaries to the south in the Nafusa Mountains have been receiving machine guns and RPGs by air drop.

Beitelmal said he hoped the French would say yes but couldn't say whether they would.

11 hours 20 min ago - Libya

British Foreign Minister said on Thursday that the United Kingdom is going to send 5,000 sets of body armour and police uniforms to Libyan rebels, after France confirmed that it had air dropped weapons to fighters in the west.

Telegraph:

Libyan rebels prepare for battle 50 miles from Tripoli
Libyan rebels have gathered on a ridge overlooking a strategic town only 50 miles from Tripoli, preparing for a battle that could allow them to march directly to the seat of Muammar Gaddafi's power.

7:48AM BST 01 Jul 2011

About 50 rebel fighters spent Thursday at an observation post 1.3 miles outside the Libyan town of Bir al-Ghanam, using binoculars to try to assess the position of Gaddafi's forces.

They reached the area on Sunday after fighting in the Western Mountains southwest of Tripoli, an area where France said this week it had airdropped arms, provoking a diplomatic storm among world powers.

A French military spokesman confirmed a report in Le Figaro that rocket launchers and assault rifles were among arms parachuted in, prompting an angry reaction from Russia, one of many countries who have kept doors open to Gaddafi.

Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, said supplying arms was a "crude violation" of UN Security Council Resolution 1970, which imposed a comprehensive arms embargo in February.

Gaddafi's forces in Bir al-Ghanam know the rebels are watching them from the ridge. At one point on Thursday they fired mortars and artillery, sending people running for cover.

The town is just an hour's drive from Aziziyah on Tripoli's southern outskirts, and a similar distance from Zawiyah, which controls the coastal highway that links Tripoli to the Tunisian border and the outside world.

The rebels encouraged more arms deliveries. "Giving (us) weapons we will be able to decide the battle more quickly, so that we can shed as little blood as possible," senior rebel figure Mahmoud Jibril said in Vienna.

The rebels advance in the west contrasts with little progress east of Tripoli, increasing frustration among Nato allies over a costly three-month-old air campaign to back the rebels.

France, Britain and the United States say the air campaign will not end until Gaddafi falls. The war has become the bloodiest of the "Arab Spring" uprisings sweeping North Africa and the Middle East.

Paris said it has not violated the UN embargo because the weapons it gave the rebels were needed to protect civilians from an imminent attack, which a later resolution seems to endorse.

Washington also said that it "would respectfully disagree with the Russian assessment."

Telegraph:

The leak of a second document from the Libyan Investment Authority has again raised questions about HSBC's links with the North African country's regime.

A document showing the holdings of the Libyan Investment Authority revealed the regime deposited more than $1.1bn with HSBC in the three months to the end of September last year.

By Harry Wilson, Banking Correspondent 5:45AM BST 01 Jul 2011

A document showing the holdings of the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) revealed the regime deposited more than $1.1bn (£685m) with HSBC in the three months to the end of September last year, making the British lender its largest foreign banker.

The links between banks – including HSBC – and the Libyan government have become the subject of a joint US/UK inquiry as prosecutors investigate whether bribes were paid in relation to transactions with sovereign wealth funds.

Richard Alderman, director of the Serious Fraud Office, said in an interview with Bloomberg that the organisation was in talks with its US counterparts about allegations of bribery.

Documents leaked to pressure group Global Witness show the dealings of major international banks with the LIA, which had assets at the end of September of $64bn.

A second investment presentation released today shows that the LIA increased the amount of money it held on deposit with HSBC from $293m at the end of June last year to $1.42bn three months later.

Just over $1bn of Libyan money was held in an HSBC "liquidity account" as of the end of September, while a further $395m was held by the bank's Luxembourg branch.

A spokesman for HSBC said: "HSBC has stringent policies and procedures for countering bribery and corruption in all the jurisdictions in which it operates. These apply to dealings with government entities, private organisations and individuals."

The latest document, which follows the leaking in May of another LIA investment memorandum, highlights the poor performance of many of the country's investments.

A $300m investment in a fund run by US alternative asset manager Permal saw the LIA pay out $27m in fees despite it losing 40pc of its value.

The investment is criticised in the presentation, described as "very high fees for no value" and "very poor structure and management".

Another $300m investment with Swiss wealth manager NotzStucki performed marginally better, losing 18pc of its value while the LIA paid out $5m in fees.

France 24 (in English):

Police return to the streets of Benghazi

Boston Review:

From Tunisia With Love
Posted on June 30, 2011 by admin

Tunisia’s revolution earlier this year, which toppled longtime ruler Ben Ali, is widely considered to be the spark that started the “Arab Spring,” the widespread popular revolts across the Middle East and North Africa. Situated on Libya’s western border, Tunisian citizens have had long-standing relationships with their Libyan neighbors.

A Tunisian delegation representing the National Alliance for Peace and Prosperity, a nascent political party formed in the aftermath of the revolution, recently visited Benghazi. One of the first political entities to recognize Libya’s National Transitional Council, the Peace and Prosperity party came to Benghazi to announce new aid programs.

“We’ve come to Benghazi free Libya to give support to our Libya brothers,” said Aleksander Elrgaieg, head of the Peace and Prosperity party.

The delegation announced a number of new aid initiatives, including new support for the hospitals in Benghazi.

“We brought a medical envoy of 10 members,” said Elrgaieg. “Five of them will be working for a month in Benghazi, and more will be coming soon.”

The delegation’s goals are to expand ties with Benghazi’s new government, as well as building a “community of democracy in freedom” in North Africa.

“I would like to say to the Tunisian people and temporary government,” Elrgaieg said, “we must acknowledge the Libyan revolution and the NTC, and give them support and increase pressure on Gaddafi’s forces.”

Article - Middle East Online via http://feb17.info/

The Metamorphosis of a Libyan Tragedy
Posted on June 30, 2011 by KLN1

By: Nizar Awad

The Libyan tragedy that is unfolding before our eyes has been in the making since Gathafi’s cope d’état which overthrew the Libyan Monarchy (1951-1969) on September 1st, 1969. What happened in Libya following the overthrew of the Monarchy was, to paraphrase the words of WWII British Prime Minister Winston Churchill which he used to describe the hegemony of the USSR over Eastern Europe, the descent of an iron curtain upon the country and her unsuspecting people.

The atmosphere of fear and mistrust created by the regime consequently forced Libyans to seek security in silence or the exercise of self-censorship sometimes even when communicating with close family members. In certain scenarios ,reminiscent of Communist Russia or Nazi Germany, parents ceased to discuss politics in the presence of their children for fear that they would repeat what they heard in public and inadvertently invite the wrath of the authorities.

After besieging the entire country with his security forces Gathafi devised and implemented schemes to further subdue the Libyan people. Along with mandating a continuous military service on all able bodied Libyans, regardless of age and gender, during which they were assaulted physically and psychologically, the regime began a reign of terror ranging from incarceration for even the littlest political offence to public executions.

What disillusioned and unnerved Libyans even more was the realization that the real reason behind the rolling military service was that in the event of being accused of any minor or major offence against the regime they would be tried in a military court rather than a civil court and therefore receive harsher sentences including life in prison and summary execution.

Due to this nerve-racking situation Libyans had no choice but to seek refuge in silence and self censorship in everything they do or say. Apart from my close and trusted friends and family members who confided in me concerning their confused emotional and mental states, I had no way of knowing the true feelings of most Libyans regarding the regime except by attempting to discern their genuine thoughts through their spoken words and body language.

In terms of body language or emotional state while people’s conversations tended to be disguised for the purpose of self-preservation their eyes betrayed their innermost thoughts and anxieties. Whoever said that eyes are windows to the soul is absolutely right.

As a matter of fact there was a time when attempting to glean people’s true thoughts, before being disguised and transmitted through language, required an ability akin to the philosophical method known as the “stream of consciousness”.

This method that was originally devised by the American philosopher William James and later utilized by the American writer William Faulkner is employed to capture people’s pure thoughts before they are filtered through language.

In other words Libyans due to the ever-present state surveillance found themselves constantly censoring their language and straining to guess people’s actual thoughts and true intentions particularly concerning tragic and traumatizing atrocities perpetrated by the Gathafi regime.

Over the next forty two years the regime’s intransience and atrocities continued to escalate in intensity and frequency. In terms of intensity the sporadic state violence became more consistent with the initiation of Colonel Gathafi’s Cultural Revolution in 1973 along the lines of Mao Tse-tung Cultural Revolution in 1966 and with similar consequences. In terms of frequency Gathafi had his followers create anniversaries for atrocities such as the purging of Libya’s Universities on April 7th, 1976 during which they threaten university students with what they call “physical liquidation”.

Gathafi went as far as condoning violent retaliation not only against those accused of wrong doing but against their entire families as well. This barbaric policy wreaked havoc on countless families whose homes were demolished and their members were either killed or imprisoned and had their livelihood destroyed and reduced to living in abject poverty. He even once declared that “sometimes we have to kill the innocent in order to flush out the guilty”

For more than four decades Libyans who were suffocating under the weight of such monstrous regime have been fallen victims to multiple physical and mental illnesses. Along with the escalating numbers of those suffering from chronic depression, anxiety and paranoia, cases of high blood pressure, diabetes, tuberculosis and heart disease were at a record high by the time regime celebrated its 41st anniversary. When Libya’s youth exploded into a powerful revolt their February 17th Revolution was seen by traumatized countrymen as nothing short of a miracle.

Libyans from all walks of life had since vowed that they would forever be grateful to all the heroes and martyrs who stormed the gates of tyranny and freed them from virtual bondage. The Revolutionaries who triumphed against tremendous odds stacked against should be honored as Libya’s greatest generation.

This term which was initially coined by the American Journalist Tom Brokaw to describe the generation of Americans who achieved a decisive victory against the Nazi’s war machine in World War II is indeed a perfect fit for our heroes whose exploits on the battle field were and continued to be the stuff of legends.

Even the words of the Greek historian Herodotus emphasizing that from Libya always comes something new, now makes a perfect sense to me. It made no sense to me before when Gathafi used the quote to imply that he is a miracle of his time. Leave it to Gathafi to muscle in on the legacy of our country.

What these young men and women did on that fateful day would without a doubt enter the annals of history as one of the most incredible display of courage humanity have ever seen. The recent ICC (International Criminal Court) indictments against Gathafi, his son Saif al-Islam and his intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanusi for crimes against humanity are a fitting vindication for all Libyans who endured over four decades of prosecution and humiliation at the hands of Gathafi and his regime. The ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has once again come through not only for Libyans but for humanity as a whole.