Fri, Sep 02, 2011 - Page 9 News List

Libya’s revolution disgraced by racism

By Richard Seymour  /  The Guardian, LONDON

“This is a bad time to be a black man in Libya,” reported Alex Thomson on the UK’s Channel 4 News on Sunday. Elsewhere, Kim Sengupta reported for the London-based Independent on the 30 bodies lying decomposing in Tripoli. The majority of them, allegedly mercenaries for former Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, were black. They had been killed at a makeshift hospital.

“Libyan people don’t like people with dark skins,” a militiaman explained.

The basis of this is rumors, disseminated early in the rebellion, of African mercenaries being unleashed on the opposition.

Amnesty International’s Donatella Rivera was among researchers who examined this allegation and found no evidence for it.

Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch similarly had not “identified one mercenary” among the scores of men being arrested and falsely labeled by journalists as such.

Lurking behind this is racism. Libya is an African nation — however, the term “Africans” is used in Libya to refer to the country’s black minority.

The Amnesty International researcher Diana Eltahawy says that the rebels taking control of Libya have tapped into “existing xenophobia.”

The New York Times refers to “racist overtones,” but sometimes the racism is explicit.

A rebel slogan painted in Misrata during the fighting salutes “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin.”

A consequence of this racism has been mass arrests of black men, and gruesome killings — just some of the various atrocities that human rights organizations blame rebels for.

The racialization of this conflict does not end with hatred of “Africans.” Graffiti by rebels frequently depicted Qaddafi as a demonic Jew.

How did it come to this? A spectacular revolution, speaking the language of democracy and showing tremendous courage in the face of brutal repression, has been disgraced.

Racism did not begin with the rebellion — Qaddafi’s regime exploited 2 million migrant workers while discriminating against them — but it has suffused the rebels’ hatred of the violently authoritarian regime they have just replaced.

An explanation for this can be found in the weaknesses of the revolt itself. The upsurge beginning on Feb. 17 hinged on an alliance between middle-class human rights activists and the working classes in eastern cities such as Benghazi.

Rather than wilting under repression, the rebellion spread to new towns and cities. Elements of the regime, seeing the writing on the wall, began to defect. Military leaders, politicians and sections of business and academia sided with the rebels.

However, the trouble was that the movement was almost emerging from nowhere. Unlike in Egypt, where a decade of activism and labor insurgency had cultivated networks of activists and trade unionists capable of outfoxing the dictatorship, Libya was not permitted a minimal space for civil society opposition.

As a result, there was no institutional structure able to express this movement, certainly little in the way of an organized left. Into this space stepped those who had the greatest resources — the former regime notables, businessmen and professionals, as well as exiles. It was they who formed the National Transitional Council (NTC).

The dominance of relatively conservative elites and the absence of countervailing pressures skewed the politics of the rebellion.

We hear of “the masses,” and “solidarity.” However, masses can be addressed on many grounds — some reactionary. There are also many bases for solidarity — some exclusionary. The scapegoating of black workers makes sense from the perspective of elites.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top