iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Carina Ray

GET UPDATES FROM Carina Ray
 

Gaddafi and the Mercenary Myth

Posted: 09/27/11 04:05 PM ET

One of the biggest headlines to emerge in the early days of the battle for Libya was that Muammar Gaddafi had unleashed Black African mercenaries to put down the revolution. This turned out to be a largely bogus claim, but it nonetheless found traction among many ordinary Libyans. Why?

The mercenary myth was successful in galvanizing popular support for the rebels because it contained a tiny of kernel of truth. More importantly, it tapped into the smoldering resentment that many Libyans harbored against Gaddafi's gradual shift away from the Arab world in favor of Africa.

For decades Gaddafi used Libya as a base for training fighters from across the Sahel and West Africa. Most returned home, but some remained in Libya, often acquiring the right of abode. Others, particularly trans-Sahelian Tuaregs from Mali and Niger moved back and forth across the region's porous borders. Amidst their precarious desert existence, Gaddafi and Libya emerged as lifelines.

In the mid 1990s Gaddafi moved to quell the very Tuareg insurgencies he had once promised to support. A decade later he awarded Libyan citizenship to diehard Tuareg rebels who rejected the negotiated peace settlement in Niger and enlisted many of them in the Libyan army. It is among the Tuareg, according to Frederic Deycard and Yvan Guichaoua, that Gaddafi is likely to have secured troops to defend his crumbling regime.

Deycard and Guichaoua estimate that pro-Gaddafi elements recruited roughly 1,500 Tuaregs from Mali and Niger, most of who were already resident in Libya, over the course of the six-month conflict. In short they comprise a tiny fraction of the Libyan armed forces. To put this number in perspective, at the beginning of the conflict Gaddafi's army was estimated to be 76,000 strong. Defection and death have greatly reduced this number, but attrition has also been high among foreign combatants, both African and non-African.

So yes, Sahelian, if not Sub-Saharan Africans played a tiny role in extending Gaddafi's shelf life. But this does little in the way of explaining why Black Africans became scapegoats for an entire regime's brutality.

The answer to this lies in Gaddafi's reinvention as an African leader and his re-orientation of Libya's foreign policy and oil dollars towards Africa. Neither garnered the support of most Libyans. Like much of Gaddafi's history, his involvement in Sub-Saharan Africa was idiosyncratic and contradictory. As early as the 1970s, he was already meddling in the region's affairs, most notably in Chad, where he sought to gain control of the uranium-rich Aozou Strip.

By the mid to late 1980s, he emerged as a key player in a number of West African conflicts. Gaddafi not only provided funding and weaponry to a number of rebel groups there, he also trained their leadership in Libya. He backed Liberia's Charles Taylor and Sierra Leone's Foday Sankoh in the deadly civil wars that ravaged both countries throughout the 1990s.

But the real turning point came in the wake of the 1992 U.N. embargo against Libya. Dismayed by the lack of support he received from Arab countries, Gaddafi responded by turning his attention and seemingly endless supply of oil-money toward sub-Saharan Africa. He now sought to firmly position himself as an African leader and a Pan-Africanist.

As a historian of race in modern Africa, and a pan-Africanist, I watched Gaddafi closely as he reinvented himself. His African adventures weren't cheap. They cost him both cash and credibility. For most Libyans, already predisposed to seeing themselves as part of the Arab world, Gaddafi's new predilection for Africa and for asserting Libya's African identity, came at the expense of national priorities and pride. Things soured further when part of Gaddafi's transformation included opening up Libya's borders to sub-Saharan migrants who were a convenient source of cheap labor, willing to do jobs that most Libyans frowned upon.

Exploitation would turn out to be the least of their worries. In October 2000 a wave of xenophobic violence led to the deaths of hundreds of sub-Saharan Africans, and caused thousands more to flee Libya. Gaddafi responded to Libyan and European Union discontent over immigration, by tightening border controls and establishing detention camps where thousands of black African migrants awaited deportation in squalid conditions. Human Rights Watch has documented instances of migrants being dropped off in the desert by Libyan officials and left to die. Gaddafi's pro-African ideologies could be dispensed with at will.

After being disinherited by Gaddafi, these men now find themselves accused of being pro-Gaddafi mercenaries. Libyan rebels have exploited this myth to great effect. Their fear-mongering tactics whipped anti-Gaddafi Libyans into a nationalist frenzy, reminiscent of Germany's Black Peril propaganda in the wake of France's decision to garrison the Rhine with African troops at the close of World War I.

But common sense, along with a lack of credible evidence indicating otherwise, suggest that the majority of dark-skinned Africans detained, beaten, or killed by Libyan rebels aren't mercenaries. No mercenary worth his salt would remain unarmed in plain site of an invading army. This raises the unsettling possibility that Libya's rebels branded black Africans as mercenaries in an attempt to legitimize their abuse. An Amnesty International report released a couple week ago verified some of these violations.

The mistreatment and murder of blacks by rebel forces in Libya is an extension of long-simmering anti-immigrant sentiments that are directed specifically at sub-Saharan Africans. Xenophobia and racism are both at play here.

But there is another dimension to the racism that is now tainting the Libyan revolution.

Despite the popular image of Libyans as light-skinned Arabs, there has long been a significant population of black Libyans, particularly in the south of the country. Their origins date back to the earliest days of the trans-Saharan trade, which provided highly sought after black slaves to the Arab world.

Today, their descendents are widely viewed as Gaddafi sympathizers. The town of Tawergha, populated primarily by black Libyans, was an early casualty of rebel forces. Questions still remain about the whereabouts of the towns nearly 10,000 inhabitants. Indications suggest that rebel forces have exacted their pound of flesh from Tawergha. For many light-skinned Libyans, to be black and Libyan is an oxymoron.

But no amount of racial purging will erase the fact that Libya is an African country and that Libyans are Africans too. Post-Gaddafi Libyans must reckon with the complexity of their Arab and African identities in order to avoid reproducing the same brand of divisive rule that fractured Libyan society under Gaddafi.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
02:25 AM on 09/28/2011
I don't think Carina Ray's exposure of the ordinary Libyan's racism should be readily dismissed. I happen to have spent 9 months in Libya along with my cohort of language students from the University of Ghana to study Arabic in Tripoli in 1987/88. We experienced the most horrifying racism of our lives. At the start of our stay we used to go out in groups of 6 or so and consistently had children running after us chanting the word "monkeys, monkeys" after us. It was highly disconcerting. But that was not all. On the excuse that we required special treatment, our classes were completely segregated at the University of Tripoli, where we were enrolled for the period. Furthermore, we were not allowed to stay in the same dormitories or to share housing with other Libyan students but were put up in a hotel (yes, in a hotel) for the entire duration of our studies. The effect of this was that we had minimal contact with Libyan students at the university. None of us (24 in number, if I remember correctly) was ever invited into a Libyan home. The only interaction we could count on having with Libyans then was when we went shopping. That was it. The negative attitudes of ordinary Libyans to the presence of sub-Saharan Africans in their country may derive from multiple and perhaps complex causes, but it certainly pre-dates the war against Gaddafi by several decades.
09:11 AM on 09/28/2011
Gaddafi tended to segregate all foreign vistors from the average Libyans- it was a way to keep Libyans in the dark about what was going on on the outside and foreigners from learning too much inside. Did you have a government minder with you the whole time? Maybe under the pretense of translation or assisting you in your daily life- but he was actually there to keep an eye on you and make sure you only went to government approved places.
06:48 PM on 09/27/2011
One doesn't have to be living in South Africa during the aparthied regime to verify its racists policies and realities of segregation. Your analysis of the the complex politics and history that underlie the abuse of black Libyans and sub-Saharan Africans by rebels, and your thoughts on why more anti-Gaddafi Libyans haven't spoke out against these abuses, deserves our consideration. Dismissing what's been said here just because you don't like that she's pointing to the realities of race and racism in Libya won't help advance the Libyan cause and won't keep the rebels accountable! Don't idealize the rebels just because they got rid of one scourge.
05:35 PM on 09/27/2011
A great article with historical dimensions. The Gaddafi massacre in Benghazi never came but the one by the rebels in Tawergha is real.
04:06 PM on 09/27/2011
1. Thank you for being one of the few people speaking out about the vicious racism of the NATO rebels and the atrocities they are committing against Africans. The hypocrisy is stunning as NATO and the rebels have now committed far worse crimes than they were supposed to have been "protecting people" from.

2. Unfortunately your identification of the perpetrators of these crimes is completely incorrect. Far from it being "average Libyans" who are lynching blacks en masse, it's an armed minority of Libyans, in Militias financed by businessmen, assisted by foreigners and ex pats, led by terrorists and defecting neoliberal bureaucrats, with the world's largest air force backing it up. Many "average Libyans" have been killed by the rebels for the colour of their skin, and many more killed or kidnapped for not being supportive of collaborating with the colonial powers. Russia Today news carried a report recently of an "average Libyan" in the streets, refusing to show his face, letting them know that he just lost his friend because he was black. The only "average Libyans" who think it's acceptable to racially cleanse Africa may be some of the hardcore Benghazi rebels, the same ones that held anti-African riots a few years ago. These are the ones who called in France to destroy Libya, not those waving a green flag today - or more commonly in NATO areas are afraid to voice their politics for threat of rebel imprisonment or execution.
04:48 PM on 09/27/2011
Thanks for your comments. If you re-read my piece you'll see that no where do I accuse average Libyans of lynching blacks en masse. I make it clear that rebel forces have committed these atrocities. My concern was to shed light on why many Libyans came to believe that Gaddafi unleashed black African mercenaries to put down the revolution. Unfortunately the racism that has tainted the revolution is more widespread than what you are willing to admit (that it only exists among hardcore Benghazi rebels). And I believe that racism was, in part, a manifestation of popular discontent with Gaddafi's reorientation away from the Arab world in favor of Africa (although as I also point out, Gaddafi's involvements in sub-Saharan Africa was largely destructive). And we are both in agreement that black Libyans have also been targeted by the rebels.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lawrence of america
05:41 PM on 09/27/2011
i want you to understand that you are completley out of place here. you are spreading false accusations and trying to use amnesty and hrw to support your erroneous claims.

"For many light-skinned Libyans, to be black and Libyan is an oxymoron." This has to be the silliest statement i have read from a supposed expert. Have you been to libya? a true Libyan is defined by his tribe, his family and his history. All libyans will have black cousins, white cousins, pakistani looking cousins, because we intermarry. I am from benghazi and was there for a large part of the revoltution, you are spreading falsehoods, ma'am.
05:52 PM on 09/27/2011
Your position is still begging the question in some ways; there is the implication that the "average Libyan" is in favour of NATO bombing and the new rulers who invited them. This has not been shown by your article nor is it evident in news sources, where it is still not difficult to find quotes from civilians expressing regret over the bombing of their country and supporting Jamahiriya. Taking the rebels at their word that everyone is on their side is not good enough. There is not sufficient grounds to assume that the "average Libyan" is on the side of the rebel leadership. That would also be a whole country of collaborators - remarkable indeed.

Additionally, some cases of Gaddafi's adventures funding some pernicious groups isn't enough to prove the involvements in sub-Saharan Africa largely destructive. It ignores the amounts of money spent on African-centred development, and the long term projects set up to continue that. With Libyan development money stolen by NATO the AU has quickly folded and taken a terrible position recognizing a government put in power by bombs and the force of imperialism to not upset the delivery of more funds in the future. The African leaders have crossed an international picket line and the same miserable "reasons" to wage war on Libya can be used against them now with even more credulity. As a pan-Africanist you would do well to call for imperialism to be buried in Africa not given a foothold.
04:00 PM on 09/27/2011
I am confident that your accusations are inaccurate. I fail to see how you have come to the conclusion that Libyans killed back Africans just because they were Xenophobic or as a reaction to Gaddafi's imposition of Africa on Libyans. Your conclusion is false and regrettable. You should have visited the many areas were unspeakable offenses were committed by mercenaries from all parts of Africa including Tuareg, Mauritanians, Moroccan Saharan and other Africans in smaller proportions . As an assistant professor from a reputable College you should have interviewed the many Libyan victims and visited Libya to conduct more research before you accuse Libyans of heinous crimes and not come to these serious accusations through long distance research. I am a Libyan who has witnessed the conflict from start to end and assure you that I am offended by your unjustified and unsubstantiated accusations. Come visit Libya and examine how tolerant and accommodating we are and see first hand the horrible crimes perpetrated by Gaddafi on Libyans through paid mercenaries.
04:55 PM on 09/27/2011
....again, I'm not accusing all Libyans of killing Black Africans. Nor do I deny the participation of a small number of so-called Black African mercenaries who fought on behalf of Gaddafi. I suggest that you read the recent Amnesty International report if you want further evidence on the abuses that have been perpetrated by the rebels against Black Africans -- detentions, beatings, and death.
05:47 PM on 09/27/2011
There is just too much evidence, videos and proof to just sweep this under the rug.
09:24 AM on 09/28/2011
Obviously there was regrettable behavior- but I seem to find a lot of what we know about what was happening was based on rumors. It's difficult to get the full story when its coming from a group of people in a panic. I have journalist friends who were interviewing refugees on the Egyptian border, and the majority reported leaving because they were concerned about hostility and they heard stories of incidents in other areas- not that they had experienced anything themselves.

I think Libyans are laying the groundwork for a more inclusive Libya- recognizing the Tuaregs and using Berber as one of the official language of Libya is a big step forward. Theres a lot of mess to sort out with 40 years of poor leadership.

I'm not excusing the Arab racism towards Sub-Saharan Africans, which I've witnessed and I find disgusting. But we're no longer in the age of Arab Nationalism and its not clear what role Islam will play in these governments- but I think the miniorities in the region will be able to assert their power in ways they have been unable to under previous regimes.