The Peace and Justice Movement and the NATO Bombing of Libya
MISSED OPPORTUNITY
On 26 June 2011 there was a community meeting in our home town of Syracuse to oppose the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) bombing of Libya. This meeting was the last stop of the Eyewitness Libya tour featuring Cynthia McKinney. McKinney, (former US congresswoman from Georgia and presidential candidate for the Green Party) was on a tour of the United States to draw attention to the illegal bombing of NATO in Libya and the terror being unleashed against innocent people in the name of protecting civilians. The other speakers at this community event were Akbar Mohammed of the Nation of Islam and Derek Ford, a local organiser for Answer. Answer is one faction of the US peace and justice movement that has been opposed to US militarism, organising under the banner of ‘Act now to end war and oppose racism’. The event to oppose the NATO bombing was held at the Alibrandi Center of Syracuse University and co-sponsored by the Pan African Community of Central New York (PACCNY).
The meeting represented a missed opportunity. While the platform opposed the NATO bombing in Libya, there was a lack of clarity on what the meeting stood for, especially in relation to the equivocation of Cynthia McKinney over the character of the Gaddafi regime in Libya. In the face of the reality where there is no moral or political support in the world for the present NATO bombing, the peace and justice movement must be clear about not only what they are against, but what they are for. It is up to the peace movement to clarify the paths to peace and to push for an end to the military campaign of the West. The West has lost credibility with the stalemate after more than 100 days of bombing. It is now clear that there is no military solution and only the African Union roadmap for a ceasefire provides a framework for an end to the illegal bombing.
It is important here to restate the principal components of the roadmap of the African Union.
The roadmap was a five-point plan, demanding the following:
- a ceasefire
- the protection of civilians
- the provision of humanitarian aid for Libyans and foreign workers in the country
- dialogue between the two sides, vis-à-vis the Gaddafi regime and the Transitional National Council, leading to an ‘inclusive transitional period’
- political reforms which ‘meet the aspirations of the Libyan people’.
Currently, Russia, China, Turkey, India, the Caribbean community (CARICOM) and even members of NATO are supporting the African Union plan for a ceasefire, and after the meeting of the African Union last week, sections of the National Transitional Council tepidly accepted the mediation of the AU with South Africa, Congo, Mali, Uganda and Mauritania as representatives of the African Union.
THE PEACE MOVEMENT MUST BE INFORMED ON AFRICA
A clear position on the need to oppose the NATO bombing and to oppose the Gaddafi regime came from the Pan African Community of Central New York (PACCNY) president Hdayatu Salawu. Dr Salawu succinctly stated her position on behalf of PACCNY, and was consistent with the overarching position of the organisation in opposing imperialism and opposing African dictators.
The next speaker, Akbar Mohammed, spoke at length defending past dictators such as Idi Amin Dada of Uganda. In an attempt to point out how the popular opinion on political leaders and events is shaped by the corporate media in the West, Akbar Mohammed used the vilification of Idi Amin Dada as an example of how the West shaped popular opinion on African leaders.
This was a very bad example indeed; one did not need the West to shape popular opinion on Idi Amin. After eight years in power (1971–79), Idi Amin had massacred over 300,000 Ugandans. Akbar Mohammed went further to exaggerate the support of Idi Amin in Uganda by saying to the audience that over a million persons turned out in Uganda for his funeral after he passed away in Saudi Arabia. The amount of detail on Uganda and Idi Amin made in the presentation by Akbar would have led anyone listening to think that this was an event about the rehabilitation of Idi Amin and not about the illegal bombing of Libya by NATO.
Akbar as a national leader of the Nation of Islam did not have his information correct because Idi Amin passed away and his body was not returned to Uganda. Hence, even the small points that Akbar Mohammed wanted to make about the resources of Libya – water and oil – were lost by his uncritical support for leaders such as Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Laurent Gbagbo and Muammar Gaddafi. These leaders can be called anti-imperialist but peace and justice forces must be nuanced enough to be anti-imperialist and oppose dictators at the same time. Anti-imperialism and opposition to anti-imperial dictators, in support for the people’s aspirations, are not mutually exclusive.
Because of the length of the presentation by Akbar Mohammed, the time spent by Cynthia McKinney to present her Eyewitness report to the bombing was limited and taken up by video clips of the impact of the bombing. While telling the truth about the devastation of the bombing, Cynthia McKinney missed an opportunity to educate the audience on the contradictions in Libyan society.
SPEAKING OUT CLEARLY AGAINST AFRICAN DICTATORS
It devolved to a long-time revolutionary from Kenya in the audience, Dr Micere Githae Mugo, to clarify to Cynthia McKinney and Akbar Mohammed that those who were mobilising against imperial interventions had to be courageous and speak out against African dictators at the same time. Drawing from her own experiences as a freedom fighter in Kenya against the Moi dictatorship, Dr Mugo pointed to the fact that one must also recognise the democratic struggles against dictators in Africa. She wanted Cynthia McKinney to explain how a leader could justify being in power for 42 years. Her clarity pointed to the reality that while progressives cannot oppose Mugabe and Gaddafi from the same platform as those of settlers and imperialists, they must nonetheless be opposing dictatorship because they have turned the principles of freedom and liberation against the people. She pointed to the fact that while Mugabe and the ZANU-PF leadership started out as freedom fighters, their present level of accumulation and disregard for the people have removed them from the ranks of progressives. Howie Hawkins, the local activist from the Green Party, queried why Cynthia McKinney did not support the roadmap of the African Union.
The political changes in Tunisia and Egypt have inspired the peoples of Africa and the Middle East to rise up against dictatorships. These uprisings threaten the future of Western imperialism, especially in areas where there are fossil fuel deposits such as Libya. The efforts to manipulate international instruments such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC) to serve the interests of Western oil companies cannot halt the present drive for social justice. The arrest warrant of the International Criminal Court for Gaddafi and his sons carries no influence as long as the West continues to be partial in deciding who are war criminals.
The capitalist depression and the increased exploitation of working peoples in Europe and North America ensure that the masses of the people cannot be persuaded easily to support military adventures while there are millions out of work and the people are being called on to make sacrifices.
THE CREDIBILITY OF NATO AND THE US AFRICA COMMAND
When the British, French and US pushed through Resolution 1973 through the Security Council of the UN with the mandate to protect civilians, the Western leaders had promised their populations that within days, the political map of Libya would change. The very same forces that had been supported by the billions of dollars from Libya now turned against Muammar Gaddafi. Now, in the face of the resistance of the Libyan people, it is clearer that the bombing of Libya will not bring a quick military solution. If anything, the bombing has qualitatively changed the political calculus to unleash more sympathy for Gaddafi in the face of the indiscriminate NATO bombing.
The head of the Arab League has reversed its support for the NATO exercise and now the bombing is with moribund political, military or moral support. Even within the US military, it is now clearer that the prestige and influence of the US military is diminished with every day that the NATO bombing continues. What started out as a public relations exercise for the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) is turning into a propaganda nightmare as citizens do not want to be associated with the bombing and killing of innocent civilians in Tripoli. There is little support for the bombing in the Congress of the United States and the Obama administration presents contradictory reasons for its continued involvement in this illegal bombing. The debate over the War Powers Act has revealed a deeper problem for the military and financial establishment. This is the reality that the citizens will not continue to support expenditures on wars to support oil companies while there is economic austerity at home. Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic representative from Ohio in Congress, has been an outspoken opponent of the bombing, and has been explicit in calling on Congress to cut off funds for the Libyan operation. In one broadside he noted:
‘The US Congress must act to cut off funds for the war because there is no military solution in Libya. Serious negotiations for a political solution must begin to end the violence and create an environment for peace negotiations to fulfill the legitimate, democratic aspirations of the people. A political solution will become viable when the opposition understands that regime change is the privilege of the Libyan people, not of NATO.’
This clear position is only limited by the fact that Kucinich stopped short of supporting the African Union roadmap.
LESSONS FROM THE REMOVAL OF IDI AMIN
As the war continues, both NATO and sections of the financial–oil–military oligarchy become desperate and this desperation is now manifesting itself in the supply of weapons to the Transitional National Council by France. Jean Ping of the African Union correctly noted that France's decision to supply arms to the Libyan rebels was ‘dangerous and compromises the security of the whole region’. He called it the Somaliaisation of the region.
This observation is cogent in so far as the West continues to be shocked by the tenacity of the revolutionary forces in Egypt and so want to have a foothold next door in order to be ready to intervene against the consolidation of the transformations in Egypt and Tunisia. This fact along with the oil deposits in Libya will continue to prompt the oil companies to plan for a military presence in North Africa.
However, there is no military solution. A long-term political solution to the past undemocratic rule will not come overnight. Africa learnt this fact the hard way after the Tanzanian army intervened militarily to remove the Idi Amin regime in Uganda in 1979. After the removal of Idi Amin, the political immaturity of the Ugandan forces led to years of instability and war. Akbar Mohammed of the Nation of Islam did not realise that by using Idi Amin as his example of an anti-imperialist leader, he was reminding people that it was the same Gaddafi who sent troops and aircraft to support the murderous Idi Amin regime in Uganda.
The future of Libya as a peaceful country requires an end to the bombing and the end of the Gaddafi regime. The Libyan situation demands that the peace and justice movement be critical and nuanced enough to not only oppose all forms of imperialism in Africa but to also fight against the Africanisation of imperialism and oppression by African dictators. Leaders in societies such as Angola, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Gabon and Uganda – among others – are watching to see if brute force can stop the tide of change. The tide is irreversible and as the capitalist crisis deepens there will be more rebellions.
Now that Gaddafi himself has accepted the terms of the African Union roadmap, including the provision that he stand aside in order to bring about a ceasefire, the peace and justice movement in the US must support the African Union so that the United Nations will be pressured to end the mandate of NATO and end the illegal bombing of the people of Libya.
Horace Campbell is professor of African-American studies and political science at Syracuse University. He is the author of ‘Barack Obama and 21st Century Politics: A Revolutionary Moment in the USA’. Seewww.horacecampbell.net.
ZNet Articles
ZStores
Where's Your Suspicion About Western Supported Libyan Opposition? And political demands for “democracy” versus ECONOMIC or other meaningful demands
By Angie, Angie at Jul 13, 2011 01:20 AM
Very tiny tidbits:
In less than three weeks, an inchoate opposition in Libya, one of the world's most isolated countries, has cobbled together the semblance of a transitional government, fielded a ragtag rebel army and portrayed itself to the West and Libyans as an alternative to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's four decades of freakish rule. But events this week have tested the viability of an opposition that has yet to coalesce, even as it solicits help from abroad to topple Colonel Qaddafi. Source: REBELS IN LIBYA STRAIN TO FORGE A UNIFIED FRONT - The New York Times
Address : http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E6DC1F3FF93AA35750C0A9679D8B63&pagewanted=print
The United States announced Thursday that it would try to release some of the more than $30 billion in assets seized from Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, as international officials said they would create a fund to give money directly to the Libyan rebels. . . . “Clearly on our agenda is looking for the most effective way to deliver financial assets and other means of supporting and helping” the opposition’s loosely organized political and military forces, Mrs. Clinton said. Source: U.S. Seeks to Give Libyan Rebels Seized Assets - NYTimes.com
Address : http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/africa/06diplo.htm
Some things you should think about:
The president maintains that the United States is not playing kingmaker, but is merely enabling people to choose their leaders. But history indicates that the president’s choice of a provisional leader may have a much greater impact on a country’s political future than the desires of its people.
Source: When Washington’s Handpicked Leaders Fail - NYTimes.com
Address : http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/opinion/02Moyar.html
**OPPOSITIONS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEM OR AS PORTRAYED IN THE MEDIA. CASE IN POINT, BOTH ARTICLES CITED BELOW LOCATED at www.tenc.net :
"Protesters" who burn buildings, and other deceptions
An analysis of a Time magazine article on a Cairo street debate, with an Emperor's Clothes exclusive report revealing the destruction of Egypt's National Council for Women
Research on the destruction of Egypt's National Council for Women by Samantha
and
How The New York Times Lied About Egypt
by Jared Israel and Samantha Criscione
[May 4 -- May 11, 2011]Criscione
[April 7, 2011]
*But now back to Libya:
the following, about the actual composition of the Libyan opposition you want us to support, was also copied from www.tenc.net . It’s a portion of it’s article entitled:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Against the Western attack on Libya - A statement from Emperor's Clothes”
“[I]n Libya fierce Islamists apparently dominate the rebels. Thus in a March 7 New York Times article that supports the rebels, even as the Times denies that Islamists dominate the rebel side, the Times reports that, in the rebel bastion of Darnah:
[Excerpt from The New York Times starts here]
only the Muslim Brotherhood and more militant strands thought to number in the hundreds show signs of organization, many having forged bonds in prison or fighting the government in the 1990s. One of those men is Abdul-Hakim al-Hasidi, who fought for five years in Afghanistan, ended up in Colonel Qaddafi's jails for four years and now, with hundreds of armed men, runs the defenses of Darnah and its hinterland.
He helps run much of the city's rump bureaucracy as well, drawing on a formidable talent for logistics recognized by many in the town.
-- "Diverse Character in City Qaddafi Calls Islamist," by Anthony Shadid, The New York Times, March 7, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/middleeast/08darnah.html
[Excerpt from The New York Times ends here]
So in Darnah -- in which according to the Times secular and Islamist influences mingle in a fashion the Times says is typical of the rebellion -- it is an 'Afghan Arab,' one of the foreign Islamist fanatics who went to Afghanistan as part of the Western sponsored war against the Soviets in the 1980s and/or fought on the side of the Taliban in the 1990s, who leads both the military and political structures. Can one get more Islamist?
And, theTimes tells us,it is the Muslim Brotherhood "and more militant strands" who are the only forces that presently "show signs of organizing." Nevertheless, the times poo-poohs the idea that Mr. al-Hasidi and his associates would rule Libya if they were to win, because:
"He promised to lay down his arms once victory is won and return, he said, to teaching."
What does the Times take us for, children? He promised not to rule? Did he say "Cross my heart and hope to die"?
Consistent with the leading role Islamists in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular are -- according to the pro-rebellion Times -- playing in the anti-Gaddafi revolt, the Brotherhood fiercely supports the rebellion; witness the fact that, on February 21, Yusuf Qaradawi, who played a leading role in the recent turmoil in Egypt and is the Mufti of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is headquartered in Egypt, issued this fatwa:
" 'Whoever in the Libyan army is able to shoot a bullet at Mr Kadhafi should do so,' Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born cleric who is usually based in Qatar, told Al-Jazeera television."
-- Agence France Presse, February 21, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110221/wl_mideast_afp/libyapoliticsunrestfatwa_20110221212046
The human suffering argument
Yes, civil wars kill people, but so does firing over 100 missiles at one side, as the U.S. reportedly did on Saturday, while the U.S., the U.K. and France flew multiple bombing raids. An immense assault on a government that had not attacked the U.S., the U.K. or France.
Moreover, by shoring up the losing side, the West may very well prolong the fighting, which could mean more deaths and possibly more bitterness -- and therefore even more deaths -- in the aftermath.
Yes, if Gaddafi wins, he may kill a lot of people. But does anyone seriously think that if the other side, led by people like Mr. al-Hasidi, who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, during which war Mr. al-Hasidi's mujahedeen associates executed school teachers because they knew that to be a secular teacher was to be a communist and therefore an agent of the devil -- does anyone believe that Mr. al-Hasidi's people will not conduct a reign of terror?
Yes, Gaddafi is the furthest thing from a progressive, but so, from everything we know, are the people he is fighting. Indeed, considering Mr. al-Hasidi's credentials -- the anti-Soviet war -- they are probably worse.
And when all is said, the point remains: who gave the U.S., the U.K. and France the right to decide when it is OK to intervene in fighting (Yugoslavia, Kuwait/Iraq, Libya); when it is not OK to intervene in fighting (the Congo, Iran, Sudan); and when it is OK to intervene even though there is no fighting (the U.S. invasion of and mayhem in Panama). However one parses this, it is flagrant aggression, made possible by military might, and if the attack on Libya continues the gainers will, we predict, be the Islamists who are strong in Eastern Libya, and who, if they win in Libya, will be closer to dominating the Middle East and Central Asia, since, with immense assistance from the West, they have made huge gains in the key Arab state, Egypt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, Horace, just curious, did you have a personal telephone conversation with Gaddafi that you didn’t tell us about since you indicate that “Gaddafi himself has accepted the terms of the African Union roadmap” when he has not spoken on the matter except to refuse to stand down?
“ "There are indications that people around Gaddafi would envisage a solution that includes him being out of power rather than in," said one diplomat. "We are hearing that from various people but it's not yet set in stone. There is an emerging international consensus around a political track and momentum is building up, but there is no breakthrough." Libya experts suspect that ideas about Gaddafi stepping down may be being floated without official authorisation to test western reactions.”
Source: Gaddafi regime 'ready for talks' on transition of power to rebels | World news | The Guardian
Address : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/12/gaddafi-regime-transition-power-rebels
Finally, Horace, I saw you give a talk on Egypt in April. You were then blithely clueless of how the West has supported the opposition there, let alone having any thought on what to make of same. I emailed you about it in April & May, but you never responded. My email is copied below and it includes an excerpt of your remarks. It’s well past time for you to start being skeptical of the West’s support of opposition movements and begin exploring what their end game may be and how that may impact all affected peoples.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My email:
Horace,
You'll recall being on a panel at the Left Forum with Nada Matta.
Below I've copied a comment I made to Nada's article on Znet about
the Egyptian Youth Activists failure to make worker/economic demands.
In it, I asked her to reconsider an answer she gave me at the Left Forum
to the question I asked following her and your presentations, about U.S.
involvement in nurturing the arab opposition and whether that might be an
explanation of why the activists were making political and not economic demands.
I'm also, in this email, asking you to reconsider your answer as well in light of recent
press reports. You'll note that you thought my question was arrogant. However, recent
press reports indicate that rather than my question being arrogant, your answers were ignorant.
Please let me know whether your thoughts have changed due to the recent press reports discussed
below. Thank you.
Why Youth Leaders Not Making Worker/Economic Demands?
By Angie, Angie at Apr 28, 2011 01:35 AMNada,
I saw you speak in NYC on this topic at the Left Forum on March 19th in a lecture entitled Rebellion & Self Organization in Egypt. . .” You made lots of similar points. Following your presentation, during the Q & A, section, I asked you the following question:
Do you think that the U.S. State Department’s training and subsidizing of the April 6tth Group and all these other Facebook groups is the reason they’re only asking for political relief and not for economic relief? Or what do you make of it that the U.S. State Dept. is encouraging protests in these countries and offering training?
Your answer (copied below in full) made clear that you then had no knowledge of any U.S. involvement and also no doubt that such involvement had never occurred. I assume though that since then, following the New York Times front page story on 4/15/11 entitled “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Opposition”, you’ve found out otherwise. Here are some pertinent quotes from the article:
“[A]s American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab Spring, they are seeing that the United States’ democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections.
A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks. [...]
The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. [...]
Some Egyptian youth leaders attended a 2008 technology meeting in New York, where they were taught to use social networking and mobile technologies to promote democracy. Among those sponsoring the meeting were Facebook, Google, MTV, Columbia Law School and the State Department.
“We learned how to organize and build coalitions,” said Bashem Fathy, a founder of the youth movement that ultimately drove the Egyptian uprisings. Mr. Fathy, who attended training with Freedom House, said, “This certainly helped during the revolution.”
Ms. Qadhi, the Yemeni youth activist, attended American training sessions in Yemen.
“It helped me very much because I used to think that change only takes place by force and by weapons,” she said.
Source: Scholars or Bamboozlers? « what's left
Address : http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/scholars-or-bamboozlers/
Full text of article at New York Times website: Source: U.S.-Financed Groups Had Supporting Role in Arab Uprisings - NYTimes.com
Address : http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html )
On a related note, three days later, The Washington Post had a front page article entitled “U.S. Provides Secret Backing to Syrian Opposition” (“The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects . . . The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush . . in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama . . .”)
Source: U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show - The Washington Post
Address : http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-secretly-backed-syrian-opposition-groups-cables-released-by-wikileaks-show/2011/04/14/AF1p9hwD_story.html
Anyway, in light of this, please reconsider my question and your answer below and let me know please, now that there’s presumably no dispute of the facts, what you make of them. Should your left forum talk have been re-titled Rebellion & U.S. Aided Organization rather than Rebellion & “Self-Organization” in Egypt?
Questioner/Angie:
Do you think that the U.S. State Department’s training and subsidizing of the April 6tth Group and all these other Facebook groups is the reason they’re only asking for political relief and not for economic relief? Or what do you make of it that the U.S. State Dept. is encouraging protests in these countries and offering training?
[Nada Matta]: As for the U.S., I don’t think the U.S. is encouraging or training ANY of the activists- actually -
[Audience Questioner] : Then you are just uninformed.
[Nada Matta] Huh?
[Audience Questioner]: Then you are just uninformed. You can go to www.movements.org . They trained them, they brought them to the U.S. It was in the New York Times Magazine -
[Nada Matta] I’ll give you an answer - I don’t know of any training relationship between the U.S. They actually did not meet Hilary Clinton when she came. They actually refused to meet Hilary Clinton when she came to Egypt. These activists are local Egyptian activists who are not encouraged by the U.S. The U.S. had to deal with the facts on the ground. They were not happy with these uprisings. They were confused at the beginning. They didn’t know what to do with it. Now they have to support it. They have no choice. It was NOT the US who was instigating ANY of these movements. Actually, they had to just deal with it because it’s happening and it’s getting out of control. They are trying to control it as much as possible. But to claim that these uprising are U.S. instigated is I think completely unfair for the people on the ground and for the movements.
[Horace Campbell, another lecturer on this Left Forum panel] It’s actually a disrespect for the Egyptian revolution (audience applause) It’s actually disrespectful [to suggest] that the people of Egypt don’t have the ability to make revolution on their own without being organized by the U.S. That’s arrogance. I just want to say that.
Angie
Source: ZCommunications | The Egyptian Uprising and Workers’ Grievances by Nada Matta | ZNet Article
Address : http://www.zcommunications.org/the-egyptian-uprising-and-workers-grievances-by-nada-matta#
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angie
Angie@WhatNewsShouldBe.org
Reply this comment
Re: Where's Your Suspicion About Western Supported Libyan Opposition? And political demands for “democracy” versus ECONOMIC or other meaningful demands
By Angie, Angie at Jul 13, 2011 12:00 PM
Libyan Rebels Accused of Pillage and Beatings
By C. J. CHIVERS
ZINTAN, Libya — Rebels in the mountains in Libya’s west have looted and damaged four towns seized since last month from the forces of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, part of a series of abuses and apparent reprisals against suspected loyalists that have chased residents of these towns away, Human Rights Watch said Tuesday.
The looting included many businesses and at least two medical centers that, like the towns, are now deserted and bare.
Rebel fighters also beat people suspected of being loyalists and burned their homes, the organization said.
The towns that have suffered the abuses are Qawalish, which rebels seized last week, Awaniya, Rayaniyah and Zawiyat al-Bagul, which fell to the rebels last month. Some of the abuses, Human Rights Watch said, were directed against members of the Mashaashia tribe, which has long supported Colonel Qaddafi.
The organization’s findings come as support for the war has waned in Europe and in Washington, where Republicans and Democrats alike have questioned American participation on budgetary and legal grounds.
They also raise the prospect that the NATO-backed rebel advances, which have stalled or slowed to a crawl, risk being accompanied by further retaliatory crimes that could inflame tribal or factional grievances, endangering the civilians that NATO was mandated to protect.
Rebel officials in the mountains have played down the looting and arson in recent days. In an interview on Sunday, Col. Mukhtar Farnana, the region’s senior commander, said that reprisals were not sanctioned and that he did not know any details about them.
But Human Rights Watch said the same commander shared details with its investigators and conceded that rebels had abused people suspected of being collaborators as towns changed hands.
“People who stayed in the towns were working with the army,” the organization quoted him as saying. “Houses that were robbed and broken into were ones that the army had used, including for ammunition storage.” The commander added, “Those people who were beaten were working for Qaddafi’s brigades.”
He also said that his forces were under orders not to loot, and that if it were not for those orders “people would have burned these towns down to the ground.”
A rebel near Qawalish on Tuesday confirmed Colonel Farnana’s view, saying that the rebels had instructions not to “break anything or burn houses,” but that orders ran up against the realities of waging war with a nonprofessional, quasi-military force.
“Before we liberate an area, we do have intelligence information about the people who were helping the army in the local town,” said the rebel, Hatam Idris. “So we do know these people, and their homes. And when we liberate a town, we go straightaway to those homes.”
The houses often have ammunition or weapons in them, he said, and often are ransacked and burned. “Some people do this individually,” he said.
He described steps that might protect the homes as impractical, given the rebel army’s structure and limited manpower. “We can’t just keep guarding and looking after these homes,” he said.
Colonel Farnana said that some rebels had been arrested and punished for these crimes. His claim could not immediately be confirmed.
Rebel conduct in the war has been mixed. Many captured pro-Qaddafi soldiers have received medical treatment in rebel hospitals and have been kept in detention centers that nongovernment organizations have been allowed to visit.
But Colonel Qaddafi’s soldiers have also been beaten at the point of capture, and some have been shot, including several prisoners in the besieged city of Misurata who were shot through the feet, either as a punishment or as a means to prevent escape.
Rebels have also been seen by journalists repeatedly firing makeshift rocket launchers indiscriminately into territory or towns held by the Qaddafi forces.
Such rebels actions, however, have paled next to the abuses of Colonel Qaddafi’s forces, which have fired on unarmed demonstrators and used artillery, rocket batteries and mortars against many rebel-held cities and towns.
Phones taken from dead or wounded soldiers have yielded images that strongly suggested that some of Colonel Qaddafi’s units have executed detainees.
The colonel’s forces have also ransacked and looted homes and businesses on many fronts throughout the war.
Rebels repeatedly cited the army’s abuses when discussing the ransacking of the recently looted towns.
Some of the results of rebel advances were visible in the past week in three abandoned villages that rebels call liberated. In two of them — Qawalish and Awaniya — shops had been looted. All of the residents were gone.
Hours before Human Rights Watch released its findings, and urged rebel authorities to respect and protect civilians and their property, another grim scene emerged between the villages of Um al-Jersan and Qawalish.
In a deep concrete basin related to the region’s water pipeline, at least five bodies were found rotting in a heap. Three cloth bindings were on the ground near them, as if some of them had had their arms or legs bound.
The dead men appeared to be wearing green military uniforms, and to have been killed and hidden some time ago. Several pistol and rifle cartridges littered the ground nearby, and local residents pointed to a mound of rocks and freshly turned dirt and said another rotting body was buried there.
It was not clear if the men had been killed by Colonel Qaddafi’s forces, by rebels or someone else. Nor was it clear why they had been hidden from view.Source: Libyan Rebels Accused of Pillage and Beatings - NYTimes.com
Address : http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/africa/13libya.html?pagewanted=print
And here are the captions of photos accompanying this Times' story:
-As Rebels Capture Towns, Destruction Follows
-Rebel soldiers destroyed a gas station in Qawalish, in Libya's Nafusa Mountain region.
-The rebel fighters also ransacked homes under the pretext of searching for weapons.
-Rebels set fire to the back of an auto parts shop in Qawalish on Monday.
-Little was left in a convenience store.
-An armed rebel fighter searched an already-ransacked home.
-Smoke marks on a home that was probably burned by rebel fighters. There was no evidence of any artillery striking the building.
July 13, 2011, on page A11 of the New York edition with the headline: Libyan Rebels Accused Of Pillage and Beatings In Towns They Captured.
Reply this comment