Libya: is the AU relevant?

Back in March, I wrote about how the Arab world was seeking a new modernity. The African Union, it seems is not.

While the Arab league was fairly quick to expel Libya, the AU treated the conflict in Libya as if it was a political dispute to which there was a political solution. I followed events on the Al Jazeera web site as well as twitter in the early weeks of the revolution and these unfiltered sources made it clear that this was a genuine grassroots uprising. What's more a major driving force in the continuation of the uprising was the certain knowledge that to be identified as a "rebel" in the Gaddafi world view, where everyone loved him, was to set yourself up to be killed.

Let's be clear on how this thing started. In line with the broader "Arab Spring" movement, peaceful protests broke out in Libya, and the regime responded by shooting at protesters with heavy calibre weapons. Once it became clear that things would not die down despite this, talk escalated to exterminating all rebels, and Gaddafi deployed tanks to shoot at civilians. In the early days of the conflict, the opposition was vastly outgunned, and the courage to face such odds is rare. I remember talking to someone at this stage whose view was that anyone prepared to machine-gun crowds couldn't be overthrown, and these people were not stopping at machine guns. They were firing anti-aircraft guns into crowds, and shelling residential districts.

I've been listening to various "experts" pontificating on the matter on South African talk shows and many come from the starting point that the AU had the right approach and the NATO intervention was excessive and unjustified. But look at the AU's track record. Zimbabwe and Kenya both had disputed elections. Rather than insist on correcting the results, both countries had solutions imposed on them that rewarded electoral fraud.

In South Africa, in particular, many in leadership view Gaddafi with affection because he supported liberation when western powers saw the apartheid South Africa as a "good" authoritarian regime, stopping the advance of communism. That the major liberation movement, the African National Congress (ANC), was a largely social democratic alliance (with a small communist membership) that at the time saw the British Labour Party as its role model was hardly indicative of communist tendencies, but such was the global politics of the time. Either you were in the communist camp or your weren't. The Cold War is now over, and such neat divides no longer apply. The Soviet Union, far from a utopian example of "scientific socialism" today is understood to be a corrupt state favouring a small elite, using harsh police state practices to suppress opposition. The West, on the other hand, far from promoting democratic values, has a long history of promoting authoritarian regimes.

In this post-Cold-War era, we need to abandon ideological preconception and see things for what they are.

Gaddafi was a bloodthirsty military dictator, who wrapped himself in a cloak of Africanist liberation rhetoric. The AU, by attempting to prolong his rule, has shown itself to be a creature of a bygone era. NATO, on the other hand, has intervened in a relatively principled way, doing the minimum to give the revolution the upper hand. Whether the end result is a truly free country remains to be seen, but comparing this with Iraq, where the UK, US and a rag-tag coalition went in on the basis of a lie is ridiculous. Rather than question why Libya, I question why not Barhain as well? Had the vicious suppression of that uprising been stopped too, what are the chances that the hesitant steps to reform in Syria, preceding the ongoing vicious crackdown, would have continued?

The ANC radically transformed the whole space of foreign policy by tearing down the notion that national sovereignty precluded intervention in the internal affairs of a country by outsiders. The struggle against apartheid did more than anything else to put human rights on the global agenda. Why, then, is the ANC today at the forefront of coddling dictators like Gaddafi and Mugabe in its own foreign policy? I can only see it as misplaced loyalty to old comrades in arms.

A New Modernity

Japan has done it. South Korea has done it. China may yet do it. A society with a long cultural tradition that has become stuck in old ways or that has become corrupted and lost its internal drive can only escape by defining its own modernity. Yes, there are major flaws in each of those I've cited: Japan went the extremely bad path of adventurous militarism in the first half the the twentieth century, and even today has an excessively strong work ethic to the detriment of quality of life. China is still far from a modern society in truly embracing the universal values of freedom of speech, freedom of association and accountable government.

In much of Africa, defining modernity remains elusive because much of Africa is still caught up in a victim psychosis, something South African activist Steve Biko identified in the 1970s as a critical problem. In his Black Consciousness movement, a critical element of their politics was building self esteem, including excluding White liberals from decision-making. The theory was not racially based, but rather aimed to liberate disadvantaged Black South Africans from the thinking that their plight was out of their control.

Today in the Middle East and North Africa, a transformation is under way that looks like defining a new modernity for the region. As I was formulating the thoughts that went into this article, I was pleased to encounter this TED talk by Wadah Khanfar, director-general of Al Jazeera. Much of what he says exactly echoes my thoughts on the subject.

What has made all this possible? Very much as in the 1976 Soweto uprising, young people who have not had the experience of their elders of being cowed by a police state have taken to the streets to demand their freedom. Sadly, in 1976, the Biko spirit was stilled before his organization had grown to critical mass. Biko himself was murdered by the apartheid regime in 1977, and many of his supporters gravitated to the ANC, as the only major organization in exile with any capacity to fight back – limited though that was. In the process, many of his core ideas were lost, not least the need to break free from the past. Today, much of the problem South Africa has in growing as a society arises from failures to transcend the apartheid past. Many Black people justifiably still feel they are victims but that feeling is not an empowering feeling, rather it is one that easily gives way to despair and disillusionment when facing intractable problems.

So where next for the Arab revolution? A key thing that is different this time around is that a tool for mass mobilisation exists that didn't exist in apartheid South Africa: social networks. The nearest analog I can think of for what is happening now is the early stages of the rejection of Robert Mugabe, when text messages were used to spread the word that he wasn't as popular as most people thought. The upshot of this was that he lost a referendum on a new constitution in February 2000, which would have entitled him to redistribute land without compensation. This did not amount to regime change, and gave Mugabe the space to organize against opposition before the next election, which he nonetheless only won by extensive fraud.

Where the Arab revolution differs is that it has effected regime change in sufficient countries to make a difference, and the tools of mass mobilisation will not be closed down easily in those countries. Already in Egypt, the prime minister appointed after the military takeover has been forced to step down. Libya is possibly the most difficult case, with plenty of evidence that the Gaddafi regime will kill as many people as it takes to cling to power.

The exact form the Arab modernity will take is yet to be determined. I would like to bet it will not include slavish copying of external cultures, nor will it include a regressive interpretation of Islam. Universal values are at the core of the change that is now sweeping the Arab world, and those universal values are being interpreted by ordinary people – not being imposed from outside. That is important, because democracy is not a piece of paper. No matter how good a constitution you have if the population as a whole is unwilling to or afraid of demanding their rights, it is only a piece of paper.

Libya and the Media = Fail

Gaddafi on Al Jazeera, a reality check we aren’t getting from any other media here in Australia:

I sent off a letter to The Australian yesterday. it didn’t appear long with the others on Libya today:

I’ve been watching the increasingly horrifying situation in Linya unfold over the last few days via twitter, the Al Jazeera web site and whatever informal sources I could find. The reporting of this revolution has been appalling in the mainstream media, including your own report, “Muammar Gaddafi’s rule teeters on brink” (22/2), which reports it as a side story in the context of the other Middle East uprisings. This one is of a whole different character. A crazy government has declared war on its own people who, largely unarmed, are taking on tanks, heavy weapons, fighter aircraft, bombs and mercenary snipers. The real story of Libya is the incredible bravery of the Libyan people, acting with almost no outside support against a regime that values its own survival over all else. The other big story about Libya is how world leaders have stood by making mealy-mouthed statements about the need for peaceful dialogue while a bloodthirsty megalomaniac is letting all hell loose. As I write, at least 9 Libyan ambassadors have defected, indicating how isolated Gadaffi is from his own people. While much of the information out of Libya is unverified, you could report it as such. All you have to do is watch twitter and Al Jazeera, and summarise the general picture. Largely ignoring what is happening should not be an option.

As a computer science academic I am proud of the way technology my field developed has made it possible for the Libyan story to be heard, and for the protesters to organise against overwhelming force. Are you proud of the way you have allowed this story to unfold while largely ignoring the detail?

I’m not holding my breath for the follow-up I sent today to appear:

Muammar Gaddafi has the remarkable distinction of uniting old-time lefties and short-sighted western powers into mealy-mouthed platitudes about a situation that demands instant action. This revolution is all the more remarkable for the way an initially unarmed civilian population has fought back against extreme violence. But what is really remarkable is how the story is getting out despite the abject inattention of mainstream media. How many of your readers, I wonder, know what the February 17 movement is? How many know that people in Libya have resourcefully found ways of getting their story out, including gruesome pictures of bodies blown apart by artillery, amateur video footage and eyewitness reports, despite the best efforts of a police state to lock everything down tight?

Rupert Murdoch is attempting to storm into the Internet age by selling an iPad newspaper. How pathetic. This is one of the biggest stories of our time and you are reporting it as if nothing is happening unless you can get a reporter there.

 Here are some places where you can find out what’s really happening:

• Libyan Revolution Central
  
• Google map showing violence against pro-democracy movement


• February 17 on twitter


• Al Jazeera’s live blog


• Operation Libya White Fax

Many people are still arguing this on the old cold war divides. The instant Gaddafi ordered soldiers (and worse, foreign mercenaries) to start shooting at his people with heavy-calibre weapons, he put himself beyond the norms of reactions to crises. That some of what has happened is not being widely reported in the media doesn't reduce the horror of it. Al Jazeera is doing a good job of reporting with limited sources, and you can find out a lot of you know where to look on twitter (try #feb17 and #Libya as well as the links above).

In short people in Libya and the rest of the Arab world are not in revolt over imperialism, capitalism Islamism or any other ideology. They are just sick of others telling them what they should think and how to live their lives. Many of them are so sure of their cause that they are taking on tanks and artillery with their bare hands. And -- remarkable, winning. no thanks to mad mullahs, no thanks to the west, no thanks to leftist anti-imperialists.

There is a big lesson in this and we should stop prattling on with the old rhetoric and platitudes, and absorb the lessons.

For those who rely on the mainstream media, this is what is really happening: