“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
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS