Filling out our picture of Qadaffi
March 24, 2011 10:25 PM Subscribe
Who are Qadaffi's supporters in Libya? Does he have real anti-colonial legitimacy? What's with all of the revolutionary language attached to the structures of government? Surely there is a more interesting story here than 'he's evil' or 'he's batshit crazy', and yet that seems to be just about all i can come up with. Does anyone take these questions seriously?
I try to be ecumenical in my skepticism, and I'm also generally interested in the ways in which certain characters become bogeymen for the west when wars roll around. There's got to be more to the story than that all of the people who are fighting with him are either experiencing false consciousness or are cynically trying to benefit from his regime's corruption.
I have no doubt that many potential writers are emphatically convinced that he is absolutely not legitimate and that he is, in particular, a bogeyman (and batshit crazy) -- but please don't waste all of our time by rehashing those arguments here. I'm hoping for a little bit of context about the political and cultural history of Libya and the reality of life there that gets beyond facile caricatures of oppressed and frightened people who need simply to be liberated etc etc.
I try to be ecumenical in my skepticism, and I'm also generally interested in the ways in which certain characters become bogeymen for the west when wars roll around. There's got to be more to the story than that all of the people who are fighting with him are either experiencing false consciousness or are cynically trying to benefit from his regime's corruption.
I have no doubt that many potential writers are emphatically convinced that he is absolutely not legitimate and that he is, in particular, a bogeyman (and batshit crazy) -- but please don't waste all of our time by rehashing those arguments here. I'm hoping for a little bit of context about the political and cultural history of Libya and the reality of life there that gets beyond facile caricatures of oppressed and frightened people who need simply to be liberated etc etc.
...which certain characters become bogeymen for the west when wars roll around...
At the risk of seeming facetious Qadaffi is at least a long-term bogeyman in as much as he's been on the 'not-invited' list more or less as long as he's been in power.
I'm just contrasting him with the Afghanistan based Mujahideen and Saddam Hussein both of whom were on 'our' side at various points.
posted by southof40 at 2:07 AM on March 25, 2011
At the risk of seeming facetious Qadaffi is at least a long-term bogeyman in as much as he's been on the 'not-invited' list more or less as long as he's been in power.
I'm just contrasting him with the Afghanistan based Mujahideen and Saddam Hussein both of whom were on 'our' side at various points.
posted by southof40 at 2:07 AM on March 25, 2011
Qaddhafi's Green Book is available online in English translation here.
posted by nangar at 4:17 AM on March 25, 2011
posted by nangar at 4:17 AM on March 25, 2011
Qadaffi has used his oil wealth pretty well compared to a lot of other petrocracies. Basic health care is universally available, and at a far higher level than almost anywhere else on the continent. Hell, they've eliminated malaria. All in all, it's one of the least poor countries in Africa, and has been more or less politically stable since Qadaffi took power. This makes it one of the longest-lasting African regimes in the last century.
This has lead to two things. First, as with any long-lasting regime, certain people have benefited under Qadaffi's rule. Second, a lot of people are more-or-less okay with the way things have been. Like the Argentinian dictators in the middle part of the twentieth century, he's been moderately successful at maintaining something like law and order and has achieved a degree of prosperity which is among the best in the region. When all three of your southern neighbors--Niger, Chad, and Sudan--have been plagued by famine and civil war since at least the 1970s, it's not hard to see why some significant number of Libyans might not want to see Qadaffi go, particularly when the rebels look a lot like the tin-pot dictators that have been in charge of much of the rest of Africa.
posted by valkyryn at 5:18 AM on March 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
This has lead to two things. First, as with any long-lasting regime, certain people have benefited under Qadaffi's rule. Second, a lot of people are more-or-less okay with the way things have been. Like the Argentinian dictators in the middle part of the twentieth century, he's been moderately successful at maintaining something like law and order and has achieved a degree of prosperity which is among the best in the region. When all three of your southern neighbors--Niger, Chad, and Sudan--have been plagued by famine and civil war since at least the 1970s, it's not hard to see why some significant number of Libyans might not want to see Qadaffi go, particularly when the rebels look a lot like the tin-pot dictators that have been in charge of much of the rest of Africa.
posted by valkyryn at 5:18 AM on March 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
He had anti-colonial legitimacy 40 years ago. He longer does.
posted by Flood at 6:01 AM on March 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Flood at 6:01 AM on March 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Qadaffi has used his oil wealth pretty well compared to a lot of other petrocracies. Basic health care is universally available, and at a far higher level than almost anywhere else on the continent.
"Before, Libyans would come over to Djerba and Sfax, to the health clinics here," Khiary said. "They had plenty of money, but no health system."
"The health condition in Libya is awful, as shown by citizens who are forced to sell their cars and houses to receive treatment in neighbouring countries – not at the expense of the authority as mentioned in the report," Sehim said.
"Their report concluded that the infection at the hospital resulted from poor hygiene and reuse of syringes, and that the infections began before the arrival of the nurses and doctor in 1998."
The Economist, 1998:
"LIKE Iraq, Libya has a battered look. But with infinitely less reason, since the country is awash with petrodollars. It earns $9 billion each year from oil exports and the government claims that GDP per head is almost $8,000, the highest in Africa. Yet buildings in Tripoli are left to fall in on themselves. Side-streets, if paved at all, are peppered with ruts and pot-holes. Rubbish, long uncollected, piles up in drifts on the roadside."
"From Liberia to South Africa to the island of Madagascar, Libya’s holdings are like a giant venture capital fund, geared to make friends and win influence in the poorest region in the world. This may help explain how Colonel Qaddafi has been able to summon sub-Saharan African soldiers to fight for him in his time of need — Libyans have spoken of “African mercenaries” killing protesters and helping him rout rebel fighters — and why so many African leaders have been so slow to criticize him, even as his forces slaughter his own people."
posted by iviken at 7:05 AM on March 25, 2011
"Before, Libyans would come over to Djerba and Sfax, to the health clinics here," Khiary said. "They had plenty of money, but no health system."
"The health condition in Libya is awful, as shown by citizens who are forced to sell their cars and houses to receive treatment in neighbouring countries – not at the expense of the authority as mentioned in the report," Sehim said.
"Their report concluded that the infection at the hospital resulted from poor hygiene and reuse of syringes, and that the infections began before the arrival of the nurses and doctor in 1998."
The Economist, 1998:
"LIKE Iraq, Libya has a battered look. But with infinitely less reason, since the country is awash with petrodollars. It earns $9 billion each year from oil exports and the government claims that GDP per head is almost $8,000, the highest in Africa. Yet buildings in Tripoli are left to fall in on themselves. Side-streets, if paved at all, are peppered with ruts and pot-holes. Rubbish, long uncollected, piles up in drifts on the roadside."
"From Liberia to South Africa to the island of Madagascar, Libya’s holdings are like a giant venture capital fund, geared to make friends and win influence in the poorest region in the world. This may help explain how Colonel Qaddafi has been able to summon sub-Saharan African soldiers to fight for him in his time of need — Libyans have spoken of “African mercenaries” killing protesters and helping him rout rebel fighters — and why so many African leaders have been so slow to criticize him, even as his forces slaughter his own people."
posted by iviken at 7:05 AM on March 25, 2011
Response by poster: Thanks for the answers so far. I also noticed on the Wikipedia Libya page that there is a picture of Gadaffi and Tito. I suppose the revolution was too late for him to have been involved in Bandung, but was he a significant player in the later non-aligned movement? What do you think of the comparison w/ Tito?
posted by milkman at 7:39 AM on March 25, 2011
posted by milkman at 7:39 AM on March 25, 2011
I'm not saying that life in Libya was good. But compared to the Sudan?
posted by valkyryn at 8:42 AM on March 25, 2011
posted by valkyryn at 8:42 AM on March 25, 2011
"State sponsor of terrorism" is a phrase that gets bandied about quite a bit these days, but Qadaffi was the real deal. Check the Era of Confrontation part of Qadaffi's wiki entry. He basically would provide funding and military training to anyone who asked. The strange part is that he didn't seem to have a real coherent agenda, other than creating instability. It makes sense when it's a neighboring country that has resources you want to exploit, but he tried to radicalize Australian Aborigines. How could that possibly benefit Libya?
posted by electroboy at 8:48 AM on March 25, 2011
posted by electroboy at 8:48 AM on March 25, 2011
Qadaffi was probably partly responsible for conditions in Sudan. From the wiki entry:
and:
posted by electroboy at 8:52 AM on March 25, 2011
In 1972, Gaddafi created the Islamic Legion as a tool to unify and Arabize the region. The priority of the Legion was first Chad, and then Sudan. In Darfur, a western province of Sudan, Gaddafi supported the creation of the Arab Gathering (Tajammu al-Arabi), which according to Gérard Prunier was "a militantly racist and pan-Arabist organization which stressed the 'Arab' character of the province."[41] The two organizations shared members and a source of support, and the distinction between the two is often ambiguous.
and:
In 1971, Gaddafi offered to merge Libya with Sudan, but Sudanese President Gaafar Nimeiry turned down that offer.[39] Nimeiry said of Gaddafi: "He has a split personality—both parts evil."
posted by electroboy at 8:52 AM on March 25, 2011
Qadaffi was probably partly responsible for conditions in Sudan.
Kind of irrelevant. The question is why Libyans might not want him to go.
posted by valkyryn at 9:04 AM on March 25, 2011
Kind of irrelevant. The question is why Libyans might not want him to go.
posted by valkyryn at 9:04 AM on March 25, 2011
Gaddafi is also rich. Since the mid-80s, he's been stockpiling gold, and as gold has shot up in price his reserves are huge and un-sanctionable, since gold is basically untraceable. So he's got almost 150 tons of gold in various places, and can pay off supporters, thugs, oil companies, and a lot of the opposition, too. Yes, money can't buy you love, but it can buy pretty much everything else.
posted by norm at 9:21 AM on March 25, 2011
posted by norm at 9:21 AM on March 25, 2011
The question is why Libyans might not want him to go.
Um, there's actually like four questions. Besides, how is it irrelevant if Qadaffi is responsible for the conditions that are the basis for your comparison?
posted by electroboy at 9:44 AM on March 25, 2011
Um, there's actually like four questions. Besides, how is it irrelevant if Qadaffi is responsible for the conditions that are the basis for your comparison?
posted by electroboy at 9:44 AM on March 25, 2011
how is it irrelevant if Qadaffi is responsible for the conditions that are the basis for your comparison?
Because Libyans might rationally not give a damn if their head of state is screwing over their neighbors. Hardly anyone else does.
posted by valkyryn at 10:20 AM on March 25, 2011
Because Libyans might rationally not give a damn if their head of state is screwing over their neighbors. Hardly anyone else does.
posted by valkyryn at 10:20 AM on March 25, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
Also, note the Wikipedia article's reference to Tripolitania (basically, western Libya around Tripoli, where Qadaffi has most of his support) and Cyrenaica (eastern Libya, where the the rebels are concentrated). Libya is the post-colonial mish-mash of those two historic regions, along with Fezzan, the desert region to the south. What we're seeing now is in some sense a war between those two old Ottoman provinces. (To further emphasize the distance between these regions, I had read some place that the tribes in Libya had historically migrated north and south; there was little east-west interaction because the area in the middle is a trackless desert and not really worth trying to cross.)
posted by chengjih at 1:19 AM on March 25, 2011 [1 favorite]