The Site that Asks: Is the "dictator" justifying intervention by killing innocents? Or is someone else doing it for him? (previously The Libyan Civil War: Critical Views)
Warning
Warning: This site contains images and graphic descriptions of extreme violence and/or its effects. It's not as bad as it could be, but is meant to be shocking. Readers should be 18+ or a mature 17 or so. There is also some foul language occasionally, and potential for general upsetting of comforting conventional wisdom. Please view with discretion.
Fresh tribal clashes erupted Tuesday in Libya's remote southeastern desert, with one man saying five members of his clan had been killed, a toll that could not be independently verified.
Clashes between the Zwai and the Toubu tribes in the town of Kufra broke out for a third consecutive day on Tuesday after 17 people were killed in fierce fighting over the first two days.
Fierce clashes between two tribes in Libya’s remote southeastern desert have killed more than 100 people over the past 10 days, tribal sources said on Tuesday.
At least 113 people from the Toubu tribe and another 23 from the Zwai tribe have been killed in the town of Kufra since fighting erupted on February 12, the sources said.
“We are under siege since a week. Since the start of the clashes, 113 people (from our side) have been killed, including six children,” Toubu chief Issa Abdelmajid told AFP by telephone.
He said another 241 members of his tribe have been wounded.
Abdelmajid, a former opponent of Moamer Kadhafi who fought the slain dictator’s forces in last year’s conflict, was previously tasked by the ruling National Transitional Council with monitoring Libya’s southeastern border.
So he was at one point a trusted revolutionary. But somehow his people (presumably dark-skinned southern Libyans ??) are under attack by the Zwai tribe's army (lighter-skinned ??) and the NTC isn't taking the Toubu's calls.
At first, both groups used light arms, but eventually started firing rocket-propelled grenades and anti-aircraft guns, local sources said.
"I appeal to the international community to intervene and stop these clashes which are aimed at exterminating my tribe," said Abdelmajid.
"We tried calling the NTC but it has not responded," he added.
The NTC probably is on speaking terms with the attackers here, the Zwai people in charge of Kufra. It seems they suspect Mr. Abdelmajid of doing his job backwards, and bringing Africans in instead of keeping them out, and apparently plotting some black-backed Green counter-insurgency.
"People from the Toubu tribe are being helped by foreign elements from Chad and Sudan. We have arrested several Chadian and Sudanese fighters," said Yunus Zwai, spokesman for Kufra local council.
Supporting the impression of a Green resistance in Kufra that's got the Zwai so agitated, reader Sam1 alerts me: Some members of the green army where in al kufra today as well the green flag was raised and the old athem was also played.
The video (saved): Libya, Al Kufra today - the green lions are back!
From: InomineX
A better posting from "Mutassim Gaddafi's"channel:
Not the best way to avoid being attacked by NTC-affiliated militias.
See comments for more. It's quite possible this is an early event, an angle Petri's looking into. Technical points aside (later...), from the quick view I gave it, it had the feel of people responding in early 2012. But it could be the more fresh defiance of early last year, re-cycled by someone to "explain" the fighting, which could only have so many. Straight-up ethnic cleansing I don't think is it.
I'm woefully uninformed on the situation in Bani Walid, even before the reported takeover by Green/Jamahiriya/Loyalist forces the other day. It seems the rebels sort of went around it to wallop Sirte, and then implicitly must've taken control sometime after. Now, the Bani Walid local (NTC) council says they were driven out and the green flag was raised, at least temporarily.
Such things have been reported before in Green news sources, almost all unverifiable and not carried by the mainstream media, suggesting a pitched civil war the loyalists were winning. This is the first time I know of where mainstream media-al Arabiya, the Guardian, BBC, CBS, everyone now, reports this as news.
Confusion surrounds events in the Libyan town of Bani Walid after fighting broke out between armed groups on Monday, leaving four people dead.
The head of the local council has said a local militia was attacked by remnants of forces supporting late Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi.
But the post-Gaddafi government has denied pro-Gaddafi forces were involved, saying instead the fighting was between rival militias.
The town is now reported to be calm.
I suspect the claim from Tripoli is bullshit. Loyalists are the ones who've been so good at re-taking Bani Walid at will. But then, that was back in the late summer last year. Is the city calm, or just reported so? By which set of competing authorities? Is it calm under green or red-black-and-green (or just black) control?
The state-run Libyan news agency WAL quotes the head of Bani Walid's council, Mubarak al-Fatamni, as saying that forces loyal to the new government were attacked on 23 January in a "barbaric manner" by members of the "remnants of the Gaddafi regime".
Mr Fatamni said pro-Gaddafi forces raised their green flag over the town for a short time on Monday afternoon, the Associated Press news agency reports.
Why briefly? They took their own flags right back down? Someone forced them to? Who? How?
But spokesmen for the prime minister and defence ministry have told the BBC the dispute is a local one.
I'm sure it was local. The Greens live inside Libya and always have, and recently center themselves around a few places like Bani Walid. Is this an acknowledgement from Tripoli it wasn't one of their own brigades made up of mixed Libyans, Qatari, Irish, American, Canadian, and Australian foreign adventurers?
The government's claim, explained:
A source within the Libyan government, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the BBC the fighting broke out after a group of former rebel fighters, the 28 May Brigade, arrested one person.
The fighting was "more a clash between local people regarding a difference of who this [arrested] person was," the source said. "But of course now other people seem to be involved as well. The situation is not very clear who is who. It's still confused."
See, they know just what they're talking about. The Green Flags must have been imagined. All is under control in Libya, the fake-out takeover has still unquestionably won.
--- Update Jan. 25: Anger, chaos but no revolt after Libya violence
Oliver Holmes, Reuters, Jan. 24
...a day after townsmen put to flight a force loyal to the Western-backed interim administration in Tripoli, elders in the desert city, once a bastion of support for Muammar Gaddafi, dismissed accusations they wanted to restore the late dictator's family to power or had any ambitions beyond their local area.
"Allegations of pro-Gaddafi elements in Bani Walid, this is not true," said Miftah Jubarra, who was among dozens of leading citizens gathered at a local mosque to form a municipal council now that nominal representatives from the capital have fled.
"In the Libyan revolution, we have all become brothers," Jubarra told Reuters. "We will not be an obstacle to progress."
[...]
People in Bani Walid urged the NTC to keep back...
But they kicked out the government. They insist on staying there, outside NTC control, but not as an obstacle. It seems they did take down any green flags that may have been (were) displayed on first conquest. It also seems it did start as a dispute over one arrest among the many they've been dealing with there.
...those willing to talk to reporters insisted the violence was no revanchist putsch but was provoked by local abuses allegedly committed by The May 28th Brigade, a militia loyal to the NTC.
"When men from Tripoli come into your house and harass women, what are we to do?" said Fati Hassan, a 28-year-old Bani Walid resident who described the men of May 28th as a mixture of local men and outsiders, former anti-Gaddafi rebels who had turned into oppressors when given control over the town.
"They were arresting people from the first day after liberation. People are still missing. I am a revolutionary and I have friends in The May 28th Brigade," said Hassan, who said he urged them to ease off. "The war is over now."
[...]
Jubarra, who sat at the meeting of elders, gave details of the incident which, he said, caused patience to snap among the people of the town.
"On Friday, the May 28th Brigade arrested a man from Bani Walid. After Bani Walid residents lodged a protest, he was finally released. But he had been tortured.
"This caused an argument that escalated to arms.
"Bani Walid fighters took over the 28th May camp, confiscated weapons and pushed them out of the city," Jubarra explained to the elders, who sat in silence around him, many of them wrapped in traditional white woollen blankets.
The government response - military - was swift to set itself up and then wait.
Residents heard warplanes overhead late on Monday as NTC forces hastily drove south from Tripoli to take up positions 50 km from Bani Walid. But those troops had, as yet, no orders to move on the town, where Gaddafi loyalists fought rebel forces to a standstill before negotiating a surrender in October.
Interior Minister Fawzi Abd al-All told a news conference in Tripoli would "strike with an iron fist" anyone who posed a threat to Libyan security - but he also said there would be no NTC move against Bani Walid until it was clear what happened.
It's been like one day, and they're proud of the lack of "iron fist" activity that sounds eerily reminiscent of something Gaddafi, or any world leader faced with an insurgecy, would say. Time for humanitarian intervention? Better proof already that Tripoli is bombing people (jets overhead) than we ever had last year when Gaddafi was in charge.
I'm for calling this a local decision, perhaps assisted by a hidden green strike force. That could also be pure propaganda by the driven out May 28 ruffians, to ensure some "iron fist"revenge. But the sudden overwhelming strike by purely local (under occupation) fighting men takes a little explaining.
I imagine the NTC will demand authority back but will have to "acknowledge grievances," maybe charge someone, promise "reforms and oversight," maybe even "hold off until after elections" on implementing any of it (likely bumped back forward in short order). But then they'll get someone else in there who'll quietly show those little punks who's in charge - it ain't the Warfalla.
--- Jan.26:
Reuters, via NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/world/africa/libya-government-yields-to-tribe-in-bani-walid.html
Libya on Wednesday recognized a government dominated by a powerful tribe in Bani Walid, a stronghold of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. The move occurred days after the tribe violently expelled pro-government forces and illustrated the power of tribal leaders over the fragile interim government. Salah al-Maayuf, a member of the Warfalla elders council in Bani Walid, said that on Tuesday, his body appointed a new local council that was recognized by the defense minister on Wednesday. The tribe long benefited from Colonel Qaddafi’s rule.
But the NTCis keeping its options open - militias from the Nafusah mountains are there to surround the town and "keep the peace," not to enter it, just yet.
BBC with video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16734332
Gathered fighters loyal to the Transitional National Assembly in Libya at a checkpoint outside the Bani Walid on Tuesday after the pro-Muammar Gaddafi took control of the city and the green flag of the former regime.
Which is the largest operation since the formation of new government in Libya
Said Abdullah Mohammed, Chairman of the Board of Bani Walid military we are well equipped and highly trained
Even as Tripoli has apparently fallen for good and is suddenly racked with horrific "Gaddafi" atrocities, the green side fights on. The cities of Sirte, Bani Walad, and Sabha, at least, are still in the hands of Gaddafi loyalists, including tribal militias. They are still being bombed by NATO's warplanes and attacked by their helicopters, as they prepare for a September 10 surrender deadline or a September 11 assault by al Qaeda-linked rebel lynch mobs.
I have nothing much to add. News on the "fighting" is scarce, with most reportage being about the search for a negotiated settlement and analyses of how long this last mop-up will take before Libya is purged and purified for the forces of neo-Liberal freedom. The world is not likely to allow them to just stay there like an Indian reservation. They'd surely attack "civilians" (Libya's new government and army) all over again if left alone, even if they swore not to. Everyone knows you can't trust Gaddafi. So they must go if they don't abjectly surrender (and they probably won't).
My heart goes out to all those caught in the crossfire, as well as to those still holding to their oaths and prepared to die for what they feel is right. Once you are dead or locked up to die of sadness or torture, future Libya will be deprived of your input and guidance. But that was probably going to be the case anyway. This is not an exercise in sharing by NATO and its preferred leadership of "free-market" crusaders.
Sept 7: A video from a hospital in Sirte:
Euronews on Bani Walid, Moussa Ibrahim states refusal of negotiations:
---
Update Sept. 12
No Adequate Surrender, Perhaps None Possible
The Telegraph reported:
Negotiations for Sirte have so far failed because residents insisted the former rebels could only enter if they came without weapons and they wanted an amnesty for anyone guilty of crimes committed under Gaddafi's regime. Many there fear a wave of revenge and looting [and rightly so - ed] on a city that is closely associated with Gaddafi and his inner circle.
On Saturday, the head of the transitional government, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, tried to convince them, along with residents of Bani Walid, that they had nothing to fear. "We try to extend our hands to show peace to our brothers there to let our troops enter these cities peacefully without fighting," he said. [they were unconvinced - ed] At the same, however, he added that the deadline for surrender had expired and an attack was imminent. "Now the situation is in the hands of our revolutionary fighters," he said.
Hold on - they agreed to surrender to NTC rule so long as no one is prosecuted, and no one is shot? They agreed to stop fighting and allow a peaceful transition, if I'm reading that right, but the rebels rejected it? They want only blood (via some kangaroo "trial," perhaps), and want to keep their wildly-brandished weapons for drawing blood, while promising to be peaceful for the first time once inside Sirte of all places? And the world is okay that the attacks is coming? I'll have to look into that...
One option open to someone presented with such an offer would be to take them up on it, have a peaceful transfer and play the good guys for once, and then deal with the alleged crimes Gaddafi and son were to stand trial for in one or another of ways. They could find a way to realize it was largely crap and noise, even apologize for their part in that, and agree to move on. They could try to coax Gaddafi to stand trial with promises of a fairness, made credible and eventually delivered on, and start a national healing process. Or they could just renege after the peace and try to arrest him, even at the risk of briefly opening the war again if necessary. At least there could be a breather in there and a cooling-down period, some time to catch up on sleep, get well-fed again, bury the dead, and grieve a bit.
But they've opted to say "no dice. If we're not forced to concede anything, we won't." While they've got the momentum and the bombers there, all loose ends will be tied up at once, in a totalitarian sense. Every demand must be met, and now.
Chaotic Attacks on Bani Walid
So, the promised deadline and promised date of attack has come and passed without adequate concessions from the Libyan government. Bani Walid, where Seif al-Islam and Saadi Gaddafi were thought to be holding out was attacked. The offensive there began a day ahead of schedule on September 9, after taking fire from loyalist Grads, it's said. Bloomberg reports some details:
The rebel Halbus brigade from Misrata entered the suburbs of Bani Walid along the Maldoon Valley, getting to within six miles from the town center, according to Khalid Abdula Salem, commander of the rebel Western Front, in an interview from his headquarters in the oasis Abdul Rauf.
They found some homes displaying the rebel tricolor and others the green flag of the Qaddafi regime, Salem said.
Bani Walid’s garrison is composed of the elite 32nd Brigade commanded by Qaddafi’s son Khamis, members of the Legion Thoria secret police, and units of mercenaries from Darfur, Salem said.
Khamis? Hasn't he been killed now like five times? As for the "African mercenaries," you know, by mid-September it might finally be true. Back in February, and through most of the war, however, it definitely was not true.
The assault was called "chaotic" by fighters there and by the Global Post, lacking in co-ordination. That means it failed. Where it's a chaotic winning fight, and they can slaughter freely, they don't complain. Indeed, a rebel fighter told the Post:
Monem said 10 revolutionaries died Sunday and 15 were injured, with most being hit from well-concealed or elevated positions. “There’s no clear target,” Monem said. “There’s no close snipers. They’re not shooting us with Kalashnikovs. The distance [they’re shooting from] is about a kilometer and a half, maybe two. With my gun [AK-47] I cannot shoot them. I did not fire one shot today because there is no clear target.” He said some rebels answer was to shoot randomly in the air.
I recall seeing the Libyan government do about the same, with anti-aircraft guns, when under the abuse of god-like NATO forces. But these guys are the aggressors here, not the defenders. The Global Post also has Rebel leaders reiterate their intentions to aggress further:
[The] National Transitional Council say they won't consider Libya fully "liberated" until these loyalist centers fall."
[...]
On Sunday, they went into the fringes of Bani Walid and were bloodied by long distance guns and locals shooting at them from house to house.
What the hell! Why don't these human shields want to be liberated? Are they shooting only out of fear? Their dang heads will come off soon either way! They just stuffed Abu Salim trauma hospital with some hundred examples of their handiwork. It's nothing new really, after dozens of taken cities and similar atrocities blamed on the crumbling regime. And now freedom and "sanity" are coming to the last few holdouts.
NATO War Crimes Alleged
NATO's air support for this surge of freedom of course continues. How on Earth could it turn back now? I can't confirm the following, but Leonore in Libya (good with rumors, not so much with details), a site called Ozyism, and something called Alrai TV (Syrian?), all report that, however they're delivering them, NATO's using cluster bombs and mustard gas. As Leonore put it (translated):
Bani Walid: NATO used cluster bombs and mustard gas against Bani Walid [...] during the heavy bombing of NATO. This is a crime against humanity and against international law and standards.
Ozyism reported it once (unconfirmed), then again, (confirmed). The last was partly because Alrai TV in an on-line osting, has what it says is a photograph of one of the victims' face, dead, burnt and ravished. I'm skeptical of this, but no expert either.
Towards a Bloodbath in Sirte
Saadi has slipped out of Bani Walid into Niger, it's been reported, and Seif, is he's there or ever was, is safe for the moment. They stopped that attack and now the rebels are advancing on Sirte, where their father is "hiding," as the Tripoli post recently said, "like some rat." They halted the Bani Walid offensive not because it was too tough, but because that was their clever plan. As Bloomberg reported:
“Our mission is not to capture Bani Walid, it is to block the town and attack Sirte,” said [rebel intelligence officer Noraldien] Elmaiel, who is based in the rebel-held town of Misrata.
[...]
The rebels pushed through the front line west of Sirte and were 30 miles (50 kilometers) from the town yesterday.
Protecting their flank was a large screening force of jeep- mounted infantry that moved from forward positions near Bani Walid to push eastward, south of the coastal highway, capturing the towns of Zem Zem and Wadi Bay against light resistance, said Elmaiel.
At Kilometer Sixty, 110 miles west of Sirte and the furthest point rebel forces allowed journalists to travel, columns of black pickup trucks mounting machine guns streamed to and from the front, stirring up clouds of dust that blew across the highway.
“They are hitting us with artillery, with mortars, with Grad rockets,” said sweat-soaked 20-year-old rebel fighter Ismail Katika. “We can’t hit the guns, we can’t see them.”
Same problem they had at Bani Walid. Try dealing with NATO bombers some day, you punk.
Human shields are feared again, the Telegraph reports, of the held-hostage in the face of rebel onslaught variant.
Fathi Baja, head of political affairs for the National Transitional Council (NTC), told McClatchy Newspapers that on Thursday as many as 300 hostages had been moved to the village – a stronghold of Gaddafi's Gaddafa tribe – to be used as "human shields" to prevent any advance on the city.
Decoded: Their "chaotic" forces are expected to kill about this many civilians they'll need to blame on Gaddafi. It was predicted for Tripoli, and it happened - the regime killed hundreds of men women and children, freedom-loving Libyans who nearly all, in photos, look like regime loyalists or rotting "African mercenaries." Photos from Sirte or Bani Walid: less likely.
My hunch is they know some majority of the country still supported Gaddafi openly up until armed rebel kids with awkward beards were on their streets. They know the tribes are solid and might resist the NTC takeover, and the hardcore loyalists - hundreds of thousands of them - will require too much de-programming. The free market future would greatly benefit from what the rebels are pushing here - head-on battles, after more massive air-power softening by NATO, with all the crimes buried silently inside, and every last scrap of Human flesh admitted to pinned on Gaddafi's account. He killed the whole town in a fit of madness the FFs were just too late to prevent, as usual.
It's hoped by some this will be the final and climactic demonization of the war, again justifying the war in spades, and will along the way kill as many problem people as possible (Islamists against loyalists?) and really humble those remaining into abject silence and possibly quiet self-implosions from grief.
It's time to ask world leaders an important question: "Hey, how's that operation to prevent a bloodbath in Benghazi coming along?"
TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — NATO says its warplanes have pounded targets in a number of key strongholds of support for fugitive dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
The alliance said Tuesday that airstrikes struck one radar system, eight surface-to-air missile systems, five surface-to-air missile trailers, one armed vehicle and two command vehicles a day earlier near Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte.
NATO also says it struck six tanks and two armored fighting vehicles in Sabha in the southern desert.
The Independent reports on "Schisms" in the rebel ranks on the latest assaults. The local Warfalla tribe members working with the rebellion have let them down a couple times, and are becoming suspected of being "traitors," of putting tribal loyalties (and hence Gaddafi loyalties) over loyalties to NATO's one Libya. This may not go well for the Warfalla in the long run, true or not.
Dr. Moussa Ibrahim, the spokesman of Libya - real Libya, not made up rebel Libya - has some worthwhile words on the recent and future, given at still-regular press conferences. Despite increased pressure to mute Tripoli, he is still able to post press conferences, usually a couple of days behind, on his Youtube channel.
And I have some good posts coming up, but not ready yet. Ergo, this filler. (even then, I can't claim to be following or understanding the recent chaos on the Benghazi side).
August 3, Tripoli, English:
He promised a trip to Zlitan, and reported the next day from there with some press in tow.
August 4, Zlitan, Arabic:
August 4, English - hard questions throughout, but strongest near the end:
Sept. 14: Bit of a throwaway post, but there were more August press conferences. One about the 10th was from Majer, near Zlitan, asking whether the 33 children killed were "a legitimate target." By the end of month he was fleeing, later speaking defiance by phone to obscure media outlets. He continues to stand up for what he feels is right, and will likely be dead before long, mutilated I'd guess.
A Tribal Denial of Tribal Warfare
On May 5, leaders of the Euro-Capitalist tribe gathered in Rome to plot Libya's future, with a consensus by and large, that sitting leader Muammar Gaddafi, plus his loyal clan, must leave power. They were already isolated, it was often repeated, from the real people of Libya, who had defected and rebelled all at once, in a spontaneous wave. But barring a Gaddafi surrender, the near part of that future was to be charted right through the air war against the regime, all in the name of the people of Libya.
Yet the same day a prominent group of Libyan tribal leaders - traditional pillars of society - met in Tripoli to have their own say (Explained in some detail here). The meeting was called by the tribes themselves, and hosted, by all accounts, about 2,000 chiefs, representing most, but not all, the tribes of Libya. Their actual influence is somewhat debatable, but their message, by a wide margin, was that Gaddafi must stay, Libya should be re-united under his rule, NATO should stop its bombing and the rebels should lay down their arms and agree to peaceful settlement. Some tribes were prepared to send fighters to help the government, if need be. But they called for peace; as one attendee put it:
"We reject the fighting in Libya...we strongly reject foreign intervention. We call on our brothers in the eastern regions – the armed ones, the misled ones – we call them to peaceful dialogue."
It's been widely ignored and marginalized as unrepresentative and a stunt by the regime, although no one has yet explained how they pulled it off.
A rebel spokesman dismissed claims that those attending the Tripoli conference represented all Libyan tribes. "Libya doesn't have 850 tribes," said the head of the political committee of the rebel's Transitional National Council, Fathi Baja, in the eastern city of Benghazi. "Gadhafi is just a big liar. ... He never had any legitimacy. The Libyan people did not choose him." [source]
This complaint doesn't go far. The generaly accepted number of tribes is "at least 140" and not much more. 850, given wrongly as the number of tribes, apparently refers to clans or sub-tribes (the mammoth Warfalla tribe has 55 clans). In reality, the meeting makes the best case yet that NATO's humanitarian mission does not represent the wishes of any clear majority of Libyans.
When The Tribes Were Said to Say the Opposite
But it wasn't the first time the chiefs from Tripoli to Tobruk were said to have spoken up about Gaddafi and the future. The first time was publicized just a few days earlier, and it wasn't as ignored or as harshly cross-examined as this latest conference. Indeed, the late April achievement was widely noted with the simple proclamation of fact that "Libya's tribes have called on col. Gaddafi to step down."
Chiefs or representatives of 61 tribes from across Libya called for an end to Col. Gaddafi's four decades of rule in a joint statement released by Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French writer who has become the Paris-based unofficial spokesman for the revolt.
"Faced with the threats weighing on the unity of our country, faced with the manoeuvres and propaganda of the dictator and his family, we solemnly declare: Nothing will divide us," said the statement, released in the rebel stronghold, Benghazi. "We share the same ideal of a free, democratic and united Libya.
"The Libya of tomorrow, once the dictator has gone, will be a united Libya, with Tripoli as its capital and where we will at last be free to build a civil society according to our own wishes."
Mr. Lévy is credited with pressing Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, to mobilize international political and military support for the rebels.
"Each of the tribes in Libya is represented by at least a representative. In this list of 61 signatures, some tribes are represented 100 percent, others are still divided," Mr. Lévy said.
The messenger, Mr. Levy, is a French philosopher-activist-celebrity, the richest one around, who likes to be called BHL and pose with serious "visionary" eyes beneath his windswept hair sculpture. It was he who officially convinced president Sarkozy in March to make France the first nation to extend diplomatic recognition to the rebel Transitional National Council. I don't think I like him, but he does have that hilarious fling with "Boutlism," citing the work of a joke persona for an important philosophical argument in some grandstanding book.
But this joint letter wasn't just a paper exercise, nor just passed on by the Frenchman. They actually met, with each other and with Levy. Wall Street Journal, May 8
On the opposition side, chiefs and representatives of 61 tribes met in Benghazi in April with Bernard-Henri Levy, a French philosopher and staunch advocate of Western intervention in Libya, to affirm their unity and confront “the dictator [Col. Gaddafi] who is trying to play Libya’s tribes against each other; dividing the country to better rule,” read a statement posted on the website of French periodical La Regle du Jeu.
The periodical also posted scanned pages bearing the signatures of the gathered tribal elders, who included a Benghazi-based leader of one Warfalla’s almost 55 clans.
The significance of such an act is likely to be limited given that Libya’s tribal heft remains in the center and west in areas still under Col. Gaddafi’s control where most tribes continue to uphold the “document of honor” they signed with the regime in the past. [source]
The publication in question, La Regle du Jeu (The Rules of the Game, sharing the same name as a creepy film about Nazi-era French elites), has its website here, and the letter in question revealed here, with a picture of Bono-Henri hanging out with some of the berobed Libyan elders. Dated April 27, this posting is only thing I've seen called the full text. That itself is dated April 12, two weeks prior, and it's in French. The scans beneath confirm the signed documents were also completely in French. Who translated the Libyans' words? Were they able to review the translation before signing? Did Mr. Levy and his unbuttoned shirt write the whole thing, and just charm them all into signing it how he explained it?
There is some background in French at Levy's website, which shows the picture at left, apparently of the meeting - which only had 32 tribal representatives. (I have a rough translation of this whole thing, and some comments, posted here). The other half of the names were gathered later, and according to Levy, "all the tribes of Libya, I repeat, [are] present here," including the largest one, all the southern ones (via one representative), "Lockerbie bomber" al-Megrahi's tribe, and the leader's own, al-Gaddafa (with two representatives, he says)!
Comparison
First, it's clearly relevant that these rival tribal opinions come from their respective capitols (Tripoli and Benghazi) and wound up reflecting, more-or-less, the position of the leadership seated in that capitol. It's not fair to denounce the one as a Gaddafi stunt without at least wondering if the other was a Rebel-French PR move as opposed to a genuine reading of Libya's tribal temperature.
Mr. Levy says "each of the tribes in Libya is represented by at least a representative." It's not clarified if that term means someone selected by the tribe's leadership as a rep, or just a member of the tribe. A certain subset of these 61, unspecified, were spoken for by the actual tribal chief. "In this list of 61 signatures, some tribes are represented 100 percent, others are still divided," whatever exactly that means.
If "each of the tribes in Libya" is represented - and there are 140 of them to just five dozen names - we have a problem. Some of these signatories must be standing in for multiple tribes, or turnout was only 42%. And that's combining chiefs and representatives, which may just mean members. In fact, considering this pathetic turnout, it seems they weren't even trying to get a wide sampling. More likely, they focused on those few dozen who'd be reliably on message, and strained to get the most tribal appearance from that pool.
To turn Fathi Baja's complaints on their head, "Libya doesn't have just 61 tribes. The rebels and Mr. Levy are just big liars." That might be a bit extreme, but their attempt clearly pales next to the later meeting in Tripoli.
Do the math: about 2,000 tribal chiefs, compared to "61 chiefs or representatives." A well-publicized gathering with hundreds of public speeches in their native tongue and own voices, and provided transcripts to compare with the video. Compared to a behind-the-scenes meeting with a couple of staged photos, announced only two weeks later, followed by signatures attached to a single letter that only speaks once, which they couldn't even read, being in French and for France. As the statement they signed closes:
Nous profitons de ce message, confié à un philosophe français, pour remercier la France et, à travers la France, l’Europe : ce sont elles qui ont empêché le carnage que nous avait promis Kadhafi ; c’est grâce à elles, avec elles, que nous construirons la Libye libre, et une, de demain.
(trans):
We take the opportunity of this message, given to a French philosopher, to thank France and through France, Europe: it is they who have prevented the bloodshed that we had been promised by Gaddafi, it is thanks to them and with them that we build a free Libya, and a unified tomorrow.
(trans):
سنكون يدفعون لك مرة أخرى لسنوات قادمة. تهاني.
Yesterday saw an interesting even in Tripoli, Libya. Some rare good news for the embattled regime of Muammar Gaddafi - a large and representative gathering of socially important tribal leaders, said by the government to have voiced total support for the standing government. The one that was supposedly "finished" in Libya a couple months back.
But predictably, the story is being spun and played down as much as possible by the usual suspects. I started with a link Fox News had about it, but they deleted it already. Old news within 24 hours? I don't think so. Can't be hosting it if it ... supports the regime? Score one for Libyan government story.
In Tripoli, meanwhile, foreign reporters were taken by government minders to a large tent where hundreds of tribal elders had gathered. Reporters were told that about 2,000 chiefs were present, that they represent 850 Libyan tribes and that the gathering was organized by the tribes, not the regime. The government also released a list of what it said were the names of the tribes.
"It's another proof that the Libyan people are rallying behind the leadership," Ibrahim said of the gathering. Several speakers at the conference called for national unity, urged rebels to disarm and demanded that the international community halt its bombing campaign, which began in mid-March with the aim of protecting Libyan civilians against Gadhafi's troops.
An interesting contrast with the decision of outsiders the same day in Italy.
In Rome, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the best way to protect Libya's people is to get Gadhafi to leave power. "This is the outcome we are seeking," she told representatives from 22 nations and organizations. [...] [Libyan spokesman Moussa] Ibrahim said the tribal gathering was a counterpoint to Clinton's call for Gadhafi's ouster. "What voice is more important, Hillary Clinton's voice or the voice of 2,000 tribal leaders of Libya?" he said.
Clinton's way to protect civilians ins't the best one, it's the only one she and her ilk will consider. It's rather suspicious, really. And Mr. Ibrahim's counter-point is a damn good one. But the rebels, always the balanced skeptics, weren't fully convinced. They called on serious discrepancies to suggest the tribal gathering was an inside job.
A rebel spokesman dismissed claims that those attending the Tripoli conference represented all Libyan tribes. "Libya doesn't have 850 tribes," said the head of the political committee of the rebel's Transitional National Council, Fathi Baja, in the eastern city of Benghazi. "Gadhafi is just a big liar. ... He never had any legitimacy. The Libyan people did not choose him."
Na'eem Jeenah, director of the Afro-Middle East Center in Johannesburg, South Africa, has said Libya has about 140 tribes and clans.
Is that it? Someone perhaps confused the words for "clan" and "tribe" and gave a wrong number that anyone could unearth? This is the proof he's a liar about the significance of this gathering? Can anyone name the tribes not involved?
The big tribe gathering is a complete success. It's totally live on Libyan TV. Every speaker, maximum 10 minutes and also much shorter, is presented by name and tribe. There is also a list of names in Latin letters.
Still the media claim that they cannot verify, of course since they don't speak a word of Arabic and have no translators, they can always claim they cannot verify. I don't speak Arabic either but I had somebody next to me who translated. It was very revealing, even Eastern tribes were there, it's still going on now. Literally hundreds of tribe and clan chiefs from all over Libya.
The 3 stooges agreed to give 250 million euro or dollars or whatever to the rebels during their mafia sessions in Rome, peanuts for their shoestring murder scenario, and they still need Qatar as paymaster.
When are they going to realize how ridiculous they really are?
Now, if in this supposedly democratic millieu, all voices came out for Gaddafi staying, I would find that suspicious. I'd like to learn more. Someone should have by now mentioned the old man might sacrifice himself (to the ICC and Milosevic's lonely fate) to save the system. If no one's allowed to even suggest that, well, that's one reason I could buy the system there does need serious change. I wish they could pull off the coup of doing it on their own terms, but that's not happening yet.
One problem with who attended or didn't is a combination of geography and a farkin' civil war. As Richard Boudreaux notes in the Wall Street Journal (Via Pan-African News):
TRIPOLI, Libya—Hundreds of tribal leaders from government-controlled areas of Libya gathered under a giant tent here Thursday to call for an end to an armed uprising against Col. Moammar Gadhafi and aerial attacks by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on his forces.
But what the government billed as a nationwide show of support drew only limited participation, with tribal chiefs from three regions of western and central Libya in attendance.
One source says at least some eastern tribes, clans, whatever, did have their representatives there. But by this, it was mostly attended from government-held areas - the western two-thirds, the southern half, the largest city and capitol, and everything around the third largest city, Misrata.
This limited attendance could have different reasons. One, it could mean all the eastern tribes who didn't show are firmly against Gaddafi and just refused to add their voices to a "staged event." Or, of course, they feared arrest on visiting Tripoli. I would.
Another possibility is the few loyalist tribal leaders still in the east might be known and stopped by rebel security before getting there. There are only about two roads you can really take to get anywhere in Libya, after all. Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim did say the "security situation" in eastern Libya limited attendance at the conference.
But here's the thing about the one who did attend - these are the people, leaders of the socially-important tribes, of at least half of Libya. Their fate is in the balance here. The West, Secretary Clinton and the rest, intend to subject these people and those they represent to rule by the "pro-democracy" rebel forces that the WEST, not Libya, has adopted. They control parts of Libya, by the sole grace of NATO air power and other slimy neo-imperialist support. But they are not "the people of Libya."
A better answer to that description, if still imperfect, met yesterday in a democratic congress on their future. They may still come around to change, but a solid majority, it sounds like, are firm that it shouldn't happen now, not like this. Not like this. Not if their voices matter. (To Fox News at least, they don't). This "humanitarian" campaign is demonstratably anti-democratic.
So, let's continue with Boudreaux. He passes on a critique by George Joffee, a Cambridge University professor, who is clearly an anti-Gaddafi activist and thus dismisses the whole event as a Gaddafi stunt with "coerced" tribal leaders. The usual crap. Again, but with some useful detail, he focuses on which tribes were and weren't there and what areas they represent. It doesn't seem to matter what the ones who were there said:
"We reject the fighting in Libya...we strongly reject foreign intervention," declared Abed Abu Hamada , leader of the Megharbah tribe, in a speech to the televised gathering of white-robed elders. "We call on our brothers in the eastern regions – the armed ones, the misled ones – we call them to peaceful dialogue."
[...] Even among the tribal leaders present, backing for the government was limited. [Plus one then for credibility] ... Nearly every speaker pledged allegiance to Col. Gadhafi. [plus five for relevance]
Mansour Khalaf, who heads Libya's largest tribe, the Warfalla, told reporters during the conference that although he denounces the uprising and supports Col. Gadhafi's leadership, he would not send armed followers to join the Libyan army's fight against the rebels, as some other tribes have vowed to do.
Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said the "security situation" in eastern Libya limited attendance at the conference. But he insisted that it was broadly representative and urged Western leaders who have called for Col. Gadhafi's departure to take note.
"Their message is national unity and no to foreign intervention," he said. "They are not siding with someone against someone else. Of course, they're rallying behind the leadership of the country, but they're saying, we want our brothers in the east to come talk to us so we can find a peaceful solution to this crisis."
[...] Rebel leaders [say] there's nothing to discuss as long as the Libyan leader remains in power.
Update May 7: There's a video on Youtube:
And at least one more:
Update May 7: And at conference's end, a call for a peaceful surrender of the Western-backed winners. Tribal Chiefs Call for Amnesty.
In a meeting that ended in Tripoli late on Friday evening, the National Conference for Libyan Tribes called for a "general amnesty law which will include all those who were involved in the crisis and took up arms".
"The general amnesty law is a means of laying the path ahead for a new era of peace and forgiveness," it said in a statement. No timetable for, nor details on, the proposed law were mentioned.
The statement also referred to opposition fighters as "traitors" and pledged that tribal leaders would not "forsake" or "abandon" Gaddafi. The statement goes on to call for towns "hijacked" by opposition fighters to be "liberated". "The conference also calls all Libyan tribes neighbouring the towns and cities hijacked by armed groups to move peacefully in popular marches to liberate those hijacked towns, disarming the armed rebels," it said.
I have to say, this might not be very realistic.
And, if any journalists or anyone has copies of the list handed out, the statements given, or any primary source materials like that, I'd be delighted to be sent copies at caustic_logic@yahoo.com for publication here.
I have explained that each major tribe includes several tribes such as the tribe has 4 Zwayer ie tribes within that branch of the tribe who lives in a particular area take a different name and in colloquial language we would say that they are sub-tribes.
Thus each branch of the tribe has sent his own name several people at the big meeting.
The scale would be the major tribes, then the subtribes and then comes the family.
Subtribes word is invented because they call me as well but tribes that belong to a large tribe.
Otherwise, clans. The mammoth Warfalla tribe has 55 clans, for example.
Also, on Eastern representation. WSJ, May 8:
Moussa Ibrahim, a Libyan government spokesman, said about 200 elders from the rebel-held east took part in the conference and would exert their influence back home. But in interviews, two of those elders said they had fled the region weeks ago, after the rebel takeover, and didn’t plan to return anytime soon. [source]
World attention has lately centered on the Misrata theater of the war, with its urban fighting and government shelling in a "medieval" siege. The humanitarian concern, however, masks a more strategic one. (see Why Misrata Matters) As soon as it became clear the United States was tired enough of the stalemate to commence drone warfare over the city (and bring the civilian protection so loved in Pakistan), the Libyan army finally made the decision to remove themselves from Misrata.
Some units were shot at on their way out, and thus left under rebel fire, but the ones captured swore they were leaving anyway. And it was on orders from above, not from low morale (not that it's high). The rebels and their supporters worldwide have nonetheless claimed that they single-handedly forced the retreat. The Associated Press noted:
A resident of Misrata says rebel fighters have driven Moammar Gadhafi's forces to the edge of the besieged city in western Libya [and that] rebel fighters on Sunday cleared the rest of Tripoli Street, a thoroughfare previously controlled by Gadhafi loyalists. He says opposition forces took control of the main hospital in the area.
"Our freedom fighters have managed to defeat the soldiers of Gaddafi" by forcing them out of Misurata, Khalid Azwawi, head of the local transition committee, said late on Wednesday.
"[T]he rebels had managed to cut off the Gaddafi troops, they had managed to break their supply lines. And this is why in the end the rebels were able to flush them out."
A wounded Libyan government soldier captured by rebel forces in Misrata said on Saturday the army had been ordered to retreat from the city. "We have been told to withdraw. We were told to withdraw yesterday," the soldier, Khaled Dorman, told Reuters.
Lying in the back of a pickup truck, he was among 12 wounded army soldiers brought to a hospital for treatment in Misrata. As he spoke, other uniformed soldiers moaned in pain, saying "My god, my god." Another serviceman, asked by a Reuters correspondent if the government had lost control over Misrata, said "Yes."
But this isn't a government surrender, says the government. They're intent on at least clearing out this rebel stronghold in the west. The idea now, reportedly, is to allow in the civilian tribes, who are itching to re-open Misrata's port for the rest of the region not trying to secede. They would presumably be armed by the government - one can hardly imagine a standard Libyan tribe having many rocket launchers or tanks. As Chinese news site Xinhuanet reported on April 23:
[Libyan government spokesman] Khaled Kaim said, "The situation in Misrata will be eased, will be dealt with by the tribes around Misrata, and the rest of Misrata's people, not by the Libyan army and you will see how they will be swift and quick and fast and the Libyan army will be out of the question, out of the situation in Misrata because Libyan people around Misrata, they cannot sustain it like this. The sea port has been seized by the rebels and the tactic of the Libyan army is to have a surgical solution but it doesn't work. With the air strikes, it doesn't work and we will leave it to the tribes around Misrata and Misrata's people to deal with the situation there in Misrata."
Libyan tribal leaders are trying to get rebels in the city of Misrata to lay down their arms within 48 hours, a government official said early Sunday, after a day of fierce clashes between opposition fighters and Moammar Gadhafi's forces.
If negotiations fail, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim said tribal chiefs may send armed supporters into the city of 300,000 to fight the rebels. In the meantime, the Libyan military is halting operations in Misrata, Kaim said.
However, the Misrata area is not known to have very large or dominant tribes, and rebels in the city questioned how much support Gadhafi had among them. It is also unclear whether the rebels would be willing to negotiate, particularly after claiming to have forced government forces to retreat. Kaim said tribal chiefs are still trying to get in touch with the rebels.
There is still to my knowledge no confirmation from the tribes themselves. So far it's just what Kaim and other government sources say. Rebels are skeptical of the tribal will or ability to challenge their right to hold the city. After all, it is the rebels alone in Libya with the power to require NATO or CIA (drone) air strikes! Or any "legal" air support at all! It is they alone who are recognized as the legitimate government by France, Qatar, John McCain, and their old pals in Italy! If that doesn't scream legitimacy in Libyan society, well... it doesn't. And they might not be as popular in the west of the country as they've led us to believe.
Reports of heavy bombardment continued into the 24th despite the touted army pull-out. The BBC, in a video report, got word of this from a doctor at a local hospital, who cited 10 killed and 45 wounded. Their reporter Orla Guerin also provided some camouflage for the promised tribal moves, explaining fears that "the Army might re-invade in civilian clothes." That's what it will probably be, in reality or presentation, if the tribes do attack. The rebels feel this empty threat is "a game, this is a trick," Guerin explains, "and that he does intend to keep up the seige, and that he has no intention of freeing Misrata."
All such concerns aside, government forces are effectively gone from the city proper, and these attacks could just be parting shots or rearguard actions. Only time will tell if this retreat holds, or if the tribal approach will come to fruition. If it does, it will show that large, functioning sections of the Libyn polity is still with the government, a message the west is loathe to consider. And it would sorely test the rebels' tactical air support from NATO. Will they be willing to kill non-uniformed, civilian fighters as they go up against their allied non-uniformed civilian fighters? Kill the people of Libya to save the people of Libya?
It will also, likely, be cried foul over, as the regime using "human shields." That usually happens when NATO's rendered powerless. Or worse yet, rebels will insist they're army in diguise and NATO will call that good enough and destroy them anywyay with preadator-fired "Hellfire" missiles.
The Guardian, April 24:
Tribal leaders have not confirmed any intervention, and rebel leaders in Misrata are sceptical about the government's statements. But Kaim said early on Sunday that the tribes were "trying to get in contact with the rebels".
[...]
Ahmed Mohamed Said, a computer engineer turned rebel, said it was ruse to make the conflict look like civil war, rather than a government turning on its own people, and thus prevent Nato from assisting the rebels from the air. "Gaddafi wants it to look like brothers are fighting brothers," he said. "That will never happen."
[...]
[Khalid Kaim] added: "The leaders of the tribes decided to do something to bring normal life back. Their main demand is that foreign fighters leave the town or surrender themselves to the army." The regime maintains that rebels fighting in Misrata and the east of the country are being driven by al-Qaida and Hezbollah militants – a claim rejected by the opposition.
Kaim said the tribal leaders want to reopen access to the port, which has been under the control of rebel forces since the siege began. The port served all Libyans, he said, but was of particular interest to tribes south of Misrata.
"The leaders of the tribes are determined to find a solution to this problem within 48 hours," he added. "The other option is military intervention."
He claimed the six tribes in the region could muster a force of 60,000 men to "liberate" the city. Any assault by the tribal forces would be ruthless, he claimed. "The tribal leaders are pushing to intervene militarily," he said. "We have to do our utmost to stop this. If the tribes move into the city, it will be very bloody, and I hope to God we will avoid this."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/24/libya-misrata-tribal-leaders-talks
---
Any further developments in this subject will be inserted below.
---
May 15: Well, obviously the 48-hour deadline has passed. Misrata has remained under seige, and it appears to from Government forces, who remained near the city and hold or held until recently (accounts differ) the airport and a military base. NATO and the rebels have reportedly worked well together tho whittle this back.
So far, the tribes haven't taken their own part in fighting, but they seem to be working that way still. On May 5, Tripoli hosted a large gathering of 2,000 tribal leaders, who by and large called for the rebels - especially in Misrata - to surrender. One source notes:
Mansour Khalaf, who heads Libya's largest tribe, the Warfalla, told reporters during the conference that although he denounces the uprising and supports Col. Gadhafi's leadership, he would not send armed followers to join the Libyan army's fight against the rebels, as some other tribes have vowed to do.
