“The enemy of yesterday is the friend of today ... [I]t was a real war, but those brothers are free men now,” said Saif Qaddafi in March last year, referring to the leaders of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an armed organization that had attempted to assassinate his father, Muammar Qaddafi, three times in the mid-1990s.
This may seem surprising. A few days ago, the very same man promised Libyans a “sea of blood” if his father’s regime was toppled. Indeed, Saif Qaddafi, an elegant, soft-spoken graduate of the London School of Economics, has now become a prime suspect in massive crimes against humanity.
People like me, who study the tactics of Arab dictatorships and the causes of their persistence, are less surprised, if at all, by this turn of events. Arab authoritarian regimes, unlike others that have given way to democracy, are incapable of self-reform; they have, however, mastered the tactics needed to prolong the life spans of their aging despotisms.
BRUTAL TACTICS
Creation of a Hydra-headed security apparatus, mass-murder of opponents (both real and imagined), widespread torture and sustained censorship and repression are some of the common tactics used by Muammar Qaddafi, former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, former Tunisian president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and other Arab autocrats.
However, Muammar Qaddafi’s regime became an international pariah mainly for a series of terrorist plots abroad, not for crimes against humanity committed against Libyans. Oil interests and the regime’s “dovish” face in recent years successfully extended its life.
Muammar Qaddafi’s dovish period coincided with the rise to prominence of his second son, Saif, and his sister Ayesha, the latter becoming a goodwill ambassador to the UN. Saif cultivated a reputation for being a “reformer.” He called for a national reconciliation process with opposition groups, supposedly liberalized the media, supported charity and development initiatives, and most importantly, became a face that the West could talk to.
The two public fronts for those initiatives were Libya Tomorrow and the al-Qaddafi Foundation for Development. Behind them, however, Libyan Military Intelligence, headed by Abdullah al-Sanosi, was giving conditional support and setting the general direction for their activities.
‘REFORMS’
The “reforms” proposed by Saif Qaddafi included releasing some political prisoners, especially those, like the LIFG, who declared their allegiance to the Qaddafi regime. However, concrete steps leading to government transparency and accountability, such as inquiries into oil wealth and state expenditures, or serious investigation of crimes against humanity, were all beyond his will and imagination.
Despite the cosmetic nature of the “reforms,” other regime factions, most notably those led by Saif’s brothers — Mutassim, al-Sa’adi and Khamis — challenged them. Behind the brothers were other security agencies: the Internal Security Forces, the Revolutionary Committees and, to a lesser extent, the Jamahiriya Security Apparatus (foreign intelligence).
When I visited Tripoli in March last year for a “national reconciliation” conference, the conflicting statements given by Saif Qaddafi and security officials surprised me. Internal Security Forces chief Colonel al-Tuhami Khaled, another principal suspect in the crimes currently being committed against Libyans, refused to call the process a “reconciliation.” For him, it was “repentance from heresy.”
Given the recent wave of uprisings, it is more evident than ever that any “reform” initiatives previously undertaken in the Arab world were aimed only at sustaining repressive dictatorships and escaping punishment for criminal abuse of power. The reform “debate” within these regimes boiled down to a struggle between different branches of the security-military apparatus over the best way to preserve the status quo.
DRASTIC ACTIONS
Arabs, of course, have known for years that their rulers were beyond reform. That is why, in order to have a chance to catch up with the rest of the free, developed world, many of them are now risking their lives to remove those regimes. What is happening today in the Arab world is history in the making, written in the blood, sweat and tears of the victims of decades of violent repression.
When asked by a journalist what I would like to say to Saif Qaddafi if I were ever to meet him again, I said: “I hope to see you in the International Criminal Court, beside Mubarak and Ben Ali.”
Millions of Arabs of my generation and younger would probably give the same answer if asked what should become of the men who controlled their present and sought to destroy their future.
Omar Ashour is a lecturer in Middle East politics and director of the Middle East Graduate Studies Program at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
RSS