1 THE ARAB AWAKENING: AN INSPIRATION TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA? BY MICHAEL AYELE ABSTRACT: From Morocco to Yemen all the way through Syria, speedy and consecutive uprisings that took the Middle East by storm also shook the rest of the world. The Arab uprisings had generated much hope, euphoria and optimism. At long last, the people had begun their long march towards liberty and were overthrowing brutal dictators who had committed gross human rights violations and overstayed their welcome. It was for many, the beginning of a new era. Today, almost three years since the fall of Ben Ali, Mubarak and Ghadaffi, no one knows for certain what the future holds for these countries. Tunisia and Egypt (to a certain extent) have been the most successful in concretizing the aspiration and hope of the demonstration. Many uprisings have been successfully repressed and Syria is now facing a civil war that has so far killed over 70,000 civilians with no end in sight. It is critical to empirically analyze the movement from its inception. What role did the young bloggers play prior and during the uprisings? Where did they get their training from? Were Islamists involved and how does the West fit into this complex equation? What are civil society and the general public responsibilities given this historic moment? And what can other African nations learn from the Arab awakening if they wish to establish democracy in their own countries?
39
Embed
BY MICHAEL AYELE ABSTRACT: and overstayed … › wp-content › uploads › 2013 › 05 › The...2012/05/16 · years since the fall of Ben Ali, Mubarak and Ghadaffi, no one knows
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
THE ARAB AWAKENING: AN INSPIRATION TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA?
BY
MICHAEL AYELE
ABSTRACT:
From Morocco to Yemen all the way through Syria, speedy and consecutive uprisings that took
the Middle East by storm also shook the rest of the world. The Arab uprisings had generated
much hope, euphoria and optimism. At long last, the people had begun their long march towards
liberty and were overthrowing brutal dictators who had committed gross human rights violations
and overstayed their welcome. It was for many, the beginning of a new era. Today, almost three
years since the fall of Ben Ali, Mubarak and Ghadaffi, no one knows for certain what the future
holds for these countries. Tunisia and Egypt (to a certain extent) have been the most successful
in concretizing the aspiration and hope of the demonstration. Many uprisings have been
successfully repressed and Syria is now facing a civil war that has so far killed over 70,000
civilians with no end in sight.
It is critical to empirically analyze the movement from its inception. What role did the young
bloggers play prior and during the uprisings? Where did they get their training from? Were
Islamists involved and how does the West fit into this complex equation? What are civil society
and the general public responsibilities given this historic moment? And what can other African
nations learn from the Arab awakening if they wish to establish democracy in their own
countries?
2
THE ARAB AWAKENING: AN INSPIRATION TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA?
Introduction: A Brief History
For centuries, the Arabs have been dominated by outside powers. The Mongols and Persians first
assumed control of the Middle East in the 12th century. The Ottoman Empire would replace them in the
16th century and their rule in the region would last for over 400 years. Following the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire in 1919, it was the turn of the French and the British to sweep into the region. With a
stroke of a pen, they carved up the Middle East and established local chieftains as the monarchs of these
new states.
The European Empires would themselves collapse after World War II and it would be the turn for the
two superpowers to gain control of the region and choose client states to support and control. When
the Cold War ended, Arab states that had supported the U.S prospered. However the Arab states that
were aligned with the former USSR were left with two options: either find new sponsors (something
which Syria did when it moved on to Iran) or try to make their peace with the U.S (which could explain
Libya's renunciation of its nuclear weapons in 1990’s.) In any case, the U.S had become the unmatched
and unchallenged hegemonic superpower in the world and most countries had
to accommodate themselves to its priorities. However, over the past decade, the U.S has lost the
willingness and the capacity to maintain this quasi-imperial stance. It lost its will because the Bush and
Obama administrations had respectively realized that its unqualified support of Arab dictators had
created a terrorist movement that was at its core anti-American. The two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
coupled with the financial crisis and the deep recession has also limited its capacity to act. Taking
advantage of this unique opportunity, indigenous forces in the Arab world fueled by demographics,
technology and a youth movement have begun stirring.i
3
Arab “Uprisings”
The mass movements all shared common characteristics: protest against social and economic
conditions, rejection of dictatorship and fight against corruption. However, it is important to note that
each protest has its own unique features, which in turn require individual analysis. Thus the first
challenge is to understand what has taken place at its inception and in the course of its rapid expansion.
Are we talking about revolutions, rebellions, popular protests, or perhaps intifadas? Was it an "Arab
Spring" similar to the European revolutions of the recent past? Overall, interpretations of what
has occurred in the Middle East and North Africa differ widely. Some see recent events as the birth of a
new era, a radical turning point between past and future and speak of revolution.ii Others have asserted
that "popular uprisings" are changing political arrangements in North Africa and the Middle East, though
it is early to say whether it will lead to a true renewal. Others see them as popular upheavals that have
been unable to bring about reforms that may or may not alter the political and economic power
structure in the Arab World. iii
And finally, there are those who remain unconvinced at all and argue that
the mass movements are controlled from abroad. Observations and interpretations of what has
occurred in the Middle East and North Africa differ widely from one expert to another but it seems clear
that conclusions thus far reached by intellectuals and expert alike, are determined by the optimism of
the observer.
On closer analysis, the term “revolution” is not yet warranted. The upheavals that have shaken the
Middle East and North Africa did not transform the political order of most countries nor shifted the
economic balance of power. The popular movements have also not yet run their course nor achieved
their objectives. Thus it is too soon to label the mass movements as “revolutions.” Still, the extreme
position that argues that Western powers were behind the mass demonstrations is equally
4
unwarranted. The Western allies have clearly played a part and have attempted to control the course of
events, but it is impossible that they actually planned the revolts from start to finish. The term
“uprising” therefore better describes the common character of the demonstrations that have shaken
the Arab countries. Women and men of all religions and social background took to the streets, without
violence, to demand an end to dictatorship, economic corruption, and denial of respect to citizens.
Based on the categories drawn up by Jean Paul Sartre, uprisings are situated halfway between
revolution and revolt. Once it is carried to its fullest extent and overthrows the existing system both as
political rule and economic structure, it can become revolution. On the other hand, if the uprising is
incomplete, it will have expressed the aspirations and hope but failed to concretize their hopes.
Iran’s “Twitter Revolution”
The first mass demonstrations in a Muslim majority society took place in Iran after the presidential
elections of June 2009. As soon as the election returns had been made public, indicating victory for
incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, demonstrations broke out across the country, organized by
supporters of the two opposition candidates, Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi. They lashed out
at electoral fraud and a system that had betrayed the principles of equality, justice, and transparency.
The protests gave themselves names that symbolized the nature of the regime: the “Green Revolution,”
and the “Green Wave,” thus appropriating Mousavi’s campaign color. They were also dubbed the
“Twitter revolution,” as opponents of the regime used the Internet and social networks to communicate
with/and mobilize supporters. Brutal repression followed, as the regime cracked down on anyone who
challenged the official results: demonstrators were beaten, summarily arrested, tortured, and even
raped in custody, according to multiple reliable and confirmed testimonies. iv Public participation was
widespread and drew substantial support from the West.
5
The Tehran regime was clearly in great difficulty and felt threatened on two fronts: by the religious
reform from within and by Western pressure from without. After the reform minded Khatami
presidency, which had opened up promising perspectives, the regime began to crack down on civil,
institutional, and media freedoms, moving toward increasingly harsh repression of opponents.
However, it is important to note that Iran’s protest movement was quite different from the events that
shook Tunisia and Egypt two years later. The Western view of Iran is very biased because of the
successful efforts of Western governments and media to demonize the clerical regime. While it remains
imperative to criticize that regime especially on the restrictions of basic freedoms, and the repression of
political opponents and demonstrators, the dynamics involved must be studied with proper diligence to
avoid mistaken analyses and conclusions.
Iran’s “Twitter Revolution” had little in common with the dynamics that were set in motion in Tunisia
and Egypt because the movement arose from the ranks of upper middle-class youth in the capital,
Tehran, and other large cities, who had rallied behind the opposition. It had very little following among
the rest of the people and in rural areas. It would be a significant error not to take full account of the
broad support still enjoyed by the conservatives, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in particular,
among the lower classes in both urban and rural areas. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that
despite the fierce repression and the impact of images diffused on the Internet and by various news
outlets, support for the protestors was never as massive as it would be later in Arab countries.
Western political pressure and media coverage have clearly distorted the facts and created an optical
illusion when it comes to Iran: while the country is in crisis, the regime continues to enjoy considerable
popular support. Even the best known opponents of the regime, Mir-hossein Mousavi and Mehdi
Karoubi do not call for the Islamic Republic to be dismantled. They do not challenge the religious
parameters of the state but denounce the illegitimate exercise of power. The obligation to criticize the
6
Iranian regime, its abuses and its unacceptable repression is one thing. But such criticism cannot be used
to justify a lack of careful judgment and biased geopolitical analyses. In retrospect, there is something to
be said about the American and European political and media campaigns in 2009, which supported
Iranian demonstrations in the name of freedom and democracy, while at the same time silently backing
the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes whose dictatorial nature was common knowledge. v
Chronology of the Arab Uprisings
The West was quick to support the uprising in Tunisia, and after some hesitation, the uprising in Egypt as
well. In both countries the movement had no political affiliations. Protestors rallied massively, cutting
across class and ideological lines, to demand that the dictators and their regimes simply “Get Out!” The
real and symbolic strength of these movements lies in their two outstanding characteristics: the broad
scope of the mobilizations and its nonviolent nature.
It all began with a Tunisian vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi who set himself on fire in protest of his
wares being confiscated as well as the harassment and humiliation he had to endure from a municipal
official and her aides. He was unemployed though he had a university degree. Poverty, economic
hardship, unemployment, political repression and authoritarian rule had gotten the best of him and he
would end his life on December 17, 2010. His story would go on to reach Tunisia’s men and women’s
ears, earning the sympathy for his family and the outrage for the government. Protests broke out in the
town of Sidi Bouzid that same day. The weeks that followed would bring dramatic change to the Middle
East and North Africa. On January 14, 2011, the Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali would flee to
Saudi Arabia. On February 27, a new government takes office amid confusion. Two months had sufficed
to change the face of Tunisia. To shouts of "Get out!" directed at the despot, his family, and his regime,
the people had bested the dictatorship.
7
Soon, the events in Tunisia had become an inspiration, gathering momentum and intensity in North
Africa. Beginning January 25, 2011 Egyptians followed the Tunisians' lead with massive mobilizations in
Tahrir Square. They in turn toppled President Hosni Mubarak on February 11, 2011. Morocco witnessed
a series of substantial protests called for February 20, 2011 which gave rise to the February 20th
Movement but attempts to mobilize in Algeria fell short. The domino effect was also gaining speed
across the Middle East and the authoritarian governments were starting to panic. In an effort to contain
the protests, the king of Jordan would dismiss his prime minister on February 1st, 2011 with promises of
social reform. A wave of protests and demonstrations also engulfed Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria and
Yemen. Unfortunately, however, they were brutally repressed.
Matters shifted somewhat when unrest broke out in Libya on February 15, 2011, as the population
staged nonviolent protests across the country. Reaction from Muammar Ghaddafi’s government was
immediate. Police and military crackdown left four dead and dozens injured. The demonstration that
followed two days later, on February 17th, dubbed the “Day of Rage” saw even more violent clashes.
Ghaddafi and his son son, Saif al-Islam were threatening to crack down on the demonstrators, whom
they described as “madmen,” as “linked to al-Qaeda” some of whom had “just returned from
Guantanamo.”vi Western media were quick to propagate a particularly somber account of the
repression in Libya and a sanitized version of the opposition, as Amnesty International points out in a
detailed report: “Western media coverage from the outset presented a very one sided view of events,
portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s
security forces were unaccountable massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security
challenge.” The reality was less glorious. On February 27th, 2011, the National Transitional Council set up
with the appointment of former Libyan Minister of Justice Mustafa Mohammed Abdel Jalil as Head of
Coucil which caused quite a stir since he had defected only five days earlier.vii
8
Limited Islamist Influence
The Arab dictatorships have always been to the Western World, a necessary evil since they protected
their interests by stopping the rise of Islamism in North Africa and the Middle East. Western support for
autocrats and against the proponents of political Islam dates back to the early years of the twentieth
century. In the 1930s and 40s, the question arose in Egypt with regards to the Muslim Brotherhood, and
in Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia shortly after their independence. Following the
successful Iranian revolution in 1979 and the electoral victory in Algeria a decade later, Islamists had
emerged as political actors who could not be ignored. It was then that Western powers deemed that it
would be preferable to support despots (despite the blatant contradiction with democratic values) than
deal with Islamists. For decades there has been an alliance between Arab dictatorships and the Western
powers that have supported dictatorial regimes in North Africa and the Middle East to “maintain
stability” and safeguard the West’s geopolitical and economic interests.
In his article entitled “As Violence Rages in Egypt is the United States a Democracy Hypocrite?” Bergman
argues that unquestioned military and diplomatic support for autocratic regimes that have no regards
whatsoever for basic human rights has been disastrous and costly for US interests in the past. For
example in 1953, the US had toppled a democratically elected leader in Iran only to install a pro-
Western Shah that would be ousted from power in 1979 and replaced with an Islamist government.
Today the US has to deal with Ahmadinejad; a leader with a very hard line stance on Iran’s right to
develop nuclear weapons, and who is challenging US interests using every means he has at his disposal.
But Iran is only one of the many examples. US support for dictators in Yemen and Pakistan has not bore
fruit as well: “The U.S. has thrown billions of dollars to the leaders of both countries. Money that’s not
looking like it was too well spent as both countries have become safe havens for terrorists” says
Bergman.
9
American and European policy towards Islamism has not been perfectly clear cut. Alliances have been
concluded and openly admitted to oppose the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The Taliban and
Osama bin Laden were then receiving full financial and military backing from the Western powers in the
Cold War. The alliance with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where Islam is the state religion and where the
ruling monarchy claims that Islam is by its essence, opposed to democracy is proof that the West has no
problem with political Islam as long as Islamist leaders promise to protect its economic and political
interests.
With regards to the Arab uprisings, Islamists were the “odd man out.” The mass movements took to the
streets without them, and against the will of their leadership. In Tunisia, the Ennahda movement joined
the protests several weeks after they had begun, just as the Muslim Brotherhood did in Cairo. However
in both Tunisia and Egypt, younger members of the Islamist organizations joined the uprisings first, often
times against the advice of the hierarchy and of the leaders of the older generation. They disregarded
appeals for caution, and soon dissident voices began to be heard within the organizations. They quickly
adopted sharply differing attitudes towards civil society and their own “organizational structure.” They
were engaged in the web-based social networks such as Twitter and Facebook and have managed to
cultivate broad social and political relationship by taking part in virtual debates that went well beyond
their religious and ideological ties.
During the first few weeks of the uprisings, Western media continued to describe the situation in terms
of polarization between secularists and Islamists. There were also those who warned that a replay of the
1979 scenario could take place once again: a situation in which “dangerous anti-Western and ultimately
anti-democratic Islamist” would seize power. The Israeli government was first to sound the alarm by
comparing the mass demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt to the threat of an Iran-style outcome. They
even went as far as to suggest that Mubarak should be supported. viii However when it soon became
10
apparent that the Islamists did not control the protestors and that the people’s aspirations were
stronger than the ruling regimes, western media made a radical shift in its covering of the events. The
massive, non-violent, and well organized demonstrations drew people from all social classes and all
political, religious, and nonreligious social groups. Young people and women had taken a visible and
irrefutable lead, and the media increasingly took notice. The presence of nonreligious and secularist
people in Tunisia and in Egypt, as well as the highly visible Coptic minority presence on Tahrir Square
was evidence that a new form of opposition has emerged. An opposition that has successfully rallied
women and men of all backgrounds around new demands drawn from the core values of freedom,
justice, equality and the transparency of government.
Predictable Arab Uprisings with Strong Support and Influence of Western Powers
In the beginning of the year 2011, a broad consensus had emerged around the world that described the
earliest upheavals as totally unpredictable and unexpected mainly because the Tunisian and Egyptian
regimes had appeared so solid and unshakable. Any fundamental political transformation seemed highly
unlikely because both regimes had the support of American and European power who credited them
with preserving regional security and stability while mercilessly repressing “dangerous opponents,”
“Islamists,” and/or “radicals.” President Obama would even go on to say that history unfolds through
the political will of “people calling for change.” Or does it?
In his book entitled The Arab Uprisings: What Everyone Needs to Know, James Gelvin recognizes that the
Arab Uprisings have revived debates on the predictability of uprisings in general and the predictability of
the Arab Uprisings in particular: “No one really predicted the uprisings, but then no one could have done
so. All rebellions – the Arab uprisings included – are by their nature unpredictable, as are the courses
they take,” he argues. The last part of his argument is correct: no one can know for certain what the
future holds for these countries, in part because the popular movements have not yet run their course
11
and achieved their objectives. Given the twists, turns, and surprises that have occurred thus far, one can
only be cautiously optimistic at best, and make rational guesses based on available data when predicting
the future. On the issue of foreseeing the Arab Uprisings however, they were predictable for a host of
reasons.
A closer analysis of the social and economic in Egypt and Tunisia shows that all the components of a
social explosion were present. The primary cause of dissent and mobilization was economic. While top
leaders were wallowing in luxury and corruption, the prices of basic foodstuffs had soared to intolerable
levels in Tunisia and in Egypt while unemployment impacted ever-widening sections of the population.
Those who had jobs were forced to survive on meager wages and often hold two or three jobs to make
ends meet. Though no one could have foreseen it, the economic data available places the meaning and
demand of the uprisings in perspective.
The past ten years for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region countries have registered an
extreme deterioration in at earnings equality, unemployment, and poverty. The combination of slow
economic growth, population explosion, and decline in labor productivity led to the reversal of the
economic gains achieved during the economic boom in the 1970s.ix According to a recent report put
together by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), on the state of the economies in the Middle East
and North Africa, per capita GDP had grown at a rate of 0.5% annually between 1980 and 2010. To
absorb the unemployed and new entrants to the job market, the annual GDP would have had to grow at
an annual rate of 7.5%.x
The lack of civil liberties, political rights, and independence of media are also important factors that
have contributed to the movement. Syria had been living in a state of emergency (which had stripped all
its citizens of fundamentals rights such as habeas corpus) since 1963, Egyptians since 1981, Algerians
since 1992, Iraqis since 2004 and Palestinians since 2007. There are reliable recurring reports of
12
arbitrary arrest and unlawful deprivation of life committed by the governments of most countries in the
MENA. Furthermore, there have also been recurring reports of politically motivated disappearances,
kidnapping, torture and other degrading punishment.
According to the first Arab Human Development Report published by the United Nations Development
Programme in 2002, almost all Arab states have been categorized as “black hole states.” The term refers
to a political system in which the executive branch of the government is so dominant, that it “converts
the surrounding social environment into a setting in which nothing moves and nothing escapes.” Most
Arab states have also tightly restricted the formation of political parties and employ a large degree of
censorship on their Medias.
The role of the Internet and particularly that of Wikileaks, combined with the efforts and success of
European and American organizations in training youth bloggers (critical of the regimes they lived in,)
are all important factors to be considered in order to better understand the inevitability of the Arab
Uprisings. Young people trained in the use of the new communications technologies made available by
the web exploited the resources of the internet and social networks like Facebook and Twitter to
powerful effect. Well before the uprisings, opposition bloggers were informing, criticizing and spreading
the message of nonviolent resistance with success. They had a powerful impact on young people who
had been informed and brought into action through social networking. Their training sessions on non-
violent mobilization stressed the need of psychology.xi The suicide of Mohammed Bouazizi provided the
spark they needed to literally light the blaze. But where exactly did they get their training from?
Two television documentaries broadcasted by Al-Jazeera revealed how Egypt's April 6th Movement had
been set up three years earlier in 2007. The Al-Jazeera journalists reported on the young people's
training trips to Serbia and the Caucasus. It is important to note that the mass movement in Serbia, in
1998 was led by Srdja Popovic, founder of a group called Optor (Resistance). The group used text
13
messaging, the Internet, and social networks to galvanize the population against the government led by
Solobodan Milosevic. The movement chose as its symbol the clenched fist, which had been used in the
anti-Nazi resistance, and successfully overthrew Milosevic two years later in, October 2000. In 2004,
Popovic set up an organization called CANVAS, a training center specializing in nonviolent action and
strategy. There he developed the three principles of popular mobilization: unity, planning and
nonviolent discipline. The center provided training for young activists who would later lead the "Rose
Revolution" in Georgia and the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine. Young politicized leaders would soon
flock into Serbia for training, including many from North Africa and the Middle East. Tunisians received
their training there and Mohammed Adel, one of the founders of the April 6th Movement, was trained
for a week during the summer of 2009.
A significant number of young activists and bloggers were also given training by three American
governments financed nongovernmental organizations (NGOs): the Albert Einstein Institution, Freedom
House and the International Republican Institute. The methods and principles of these three are
identical: celebrating democratic values, mobilizing people nonviolently, and bringing down regimes
without confrontation with the police or the army by using symbols and slogans to shape mass
psychology and exploiting the potential of social networks and more generally, the Internet. Powerful
American corporations were also directly involved in the uprisings. Google, Twitter, and Yahoo were
involved in the training of the bloggers and were also disseminating information on the Web promoting
pro-democracy activism. The companies have indicated that they value Internet freedom and their
interests have coincided with those of the U.S administration. Google has now been working with U.S
and European officials to build a case that would make Internet censorship a trade barrier. In the
conference entitled “Liberty 2010,” Google with the participation of activists, bloggers, NGOs,
researchers, governments and corporations’ representatives has launched the Middle East and North
14
Africa Bloggers Network. It should be noted that the initiative is associated with the U.S Democratic
Party.
It would border foolishness to think that that the great powers such as the U.S, France, Germany, Russia
or China were nothing more than casual observers of the growing turmoil in the Middle East. Their
relationship with national governments, their links with the region's military establishments and their
carefully calibrated dealings with each country clearly reflects their involvements before and during the
uprisings. A closer analysis of both Tunisia and Egypt reveals a context and implication far more complex
than that of unique homegrown mass movements springing from the desire and the mobilizations of
young people responding emotionally to the death of Mohamed Bouazizi.
Today, there is some debate among bloggers on whether to accept U.S funding or to attend training
sessions organized by institutions linked to Western powers. Within the movement itself, bloggers and
cyber activists of both sexes have rejected America attempts to control and direct them, as well as
American financial support. Some have even refused to meet or be seen in the company of ex-president
Bill Clinton when he visited Cairo. In Tunisia as well as Egypt there exist within civil society forces that
cut across political boundaries and display genuine political awareness and autonomy.xii
Between Manipulation and Liberation
As pointed above, there is a substantial body of data, which proves that the U.S and European countries
were either aware or directly involved in the training of bloggers and activists in the Middle-East and
North Africa. Ever since 2004, but more systematically between 2006 and 2008, young people were
trained at these and other centers in the strategy and tactics of nonviolent mobilization: social networks
and the use of symbols (where the clenched fist appears again in Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt and Syria). Not
only were the US administration and certain European countries aware, they had funded the training
programs and helped develop organized networks of bloggers in the Middle East and North Africa. They
15
had full knowledge of the activities and mobilizing efforts of the cyber-dissidents. They had also studied
their objectives and identified the leaders. The Arab uprisings can thus not be described as spontaneous.
It did not suddenly spring from nothing, taking everyone by surprise. The U.S and Europe were
supporting despots while as the same time training their opponents. In light of these facts, we should be
asking questions about the ultimate goal of training aimed at young people in countries whose
governments were autocratic allies of the West.
There is a clear difference between the process of training leaders on the one hand and attempting to
control events to seize historical opportunities on the other. Well before the uprisings, opposition
bloggers were informing, criticizing and spreading the message of nonviolent resistance with success.
They had a powerful impact on young people who had been informed and brought into action through
social networking. The training sessions on non-violent mobilization stressed the need of psychology, of
a positive message. xiii Thus for the internet driven movement to be successful, they had to maintain
and use an emotional momentum. The suicide of Mohammed Bouazizi provided the spark that lit the
blaze.
Things turned suspicious when Wikileaks revealed that the US administration was well acquainted with
the April 6th movement that was instrumental in organizing protests against Former President Hosni
Mubarak. In 2008, they had invited some of its members to the United States. The US Ambassador to
Egypt (Margaret Scobey,) had even sent her government “sensitive” information which indicated that
“opposition groups had drawn up a secret plan for regime change to be activated before the election
scheduled for September 2011.” xiv Many activists had also met with Mohamed El-Baradei in the United
States in 2008-2009. xv
Demonstrations called by young members of the April 6th movement began in Cairo on January 25th:
eleven days after the fall of Ben Ali. The date was symbolically significant in Egypt as it was declared a
16
national holiday in 2009. “Police Day” commemorated the deaths of fifty policemen on January 25, 1952
for refusing to hand over their arms to the British at police headquarters in the town of Ismailia. The
holiday was meant to enhance the reputation of the police and to underline their commitment to
protect the Mubarak regime. It should be noted that the Egyptian public detests the police and images
of police brutality against nonviolent demonstrators in Tunisia spoke eloquently to Egyptians who were
well aware that the police treated people with total impunity. In designating January 25 as a “Day of
Revolt,” Egypt’s younger cyber-activists had exploited the symbolic impact of the date to the maximum.
While the US had knowledge about the plots of the opposition, the Obama administration was hesitant
on how best to respond in Egypt. This was in part due to the internal tensions within the high command
of the Egyptian armed forces which has been trained and funded by the US for decades. The Egyptian
high command was split: a faction of the military stood for the status quo while other favored reforms.
But the United States never lost touch with high ranking Egyptian officers. According to Anthony H.
Cordesman, there are many factions in the military in Egypt who either have to answer to power centers
in the Defense or the Interior Ministry. Forces linked with the Interior Ministry preferred the status quo
and were responsible for the crackdown on protestors while those linked to the Defense Ministry
wanted change and had decided to drop Mubarak. xvi
U.S calls in 2003 for democratizing the Middle East should also be taken into consideration in explaining
the mass movements. Former President George W Bush explained that the war in Iraq constituted a first
step toward a global democratic movement in the Greater Middle East and that Islam was by no means
opposed to democracy. On November 6, 2003, he would even go on to say that his involvement in the
Middle East was akin to Ronald Reagan’s support for Eastern Europe’s struggle for democracy in the
1980s. The Obama administration has also made it clear that for economic and political reasons, the
region's dictatorship had to change as a necessary precondition for opening up Arab markets and
17
integrating the region into the global economy. These two factors forced the West not to support the
status quo and back the dictatorships for reasons of security and stability. Moreover, the rise of new
economic players such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Turkey in the Middle East confirmed that
the risks of inaction were just too much.
The United States had also been present in Tunisia for a decade and had established contacts with all
political groups. They knew that Ben Ali was ill and seriously weakened. While collaborating closely with
the regime in military and security matters, the US government was also inviting opposition figures to
Washington for talk since 2006. xvii There had been close contact between US embassy and General
Rashid Ammar, commander in chief of the Tunisian army. Foreign Minister Kamel Morjane, General
Ammar and former general David Petraeus had even met to determine the best strategy to prepare for
the post Ben-Ali era. It was during that meeting that they decided that the army would be kept neutral
and would not be called upon to open fire on demonstrators. Though the army was kept neutral, the
police responded with violence, on January 11. That same day, Hilary Clinton issued a communiqué
denouncing the excessive use of force while France’s Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie offered the
Ben Ali regime French military support to crush the uprising.xviii Advised to leave with his family until the
situation was brought under-control so that he could make a triumphant return, Ben Ali had walked into
a trap. He left the country by air and was prevented by American intervention from landing in France or
Cyprus before finally being rerouted to Jeddah, where he now resides. Hillary Clinton is said to have
spoken personally with Saudi Prince Nayef Bin Sulltan to request that the Kingdom accept the fallen
dictator. According to a Tunisian diplomat, on January 14 the US Embassy gave the green light for Ben
Ali’s departure. xix
Cynical Geopolitical and Economic Calculations
18
In his article entitled “How Libya became a French and British War,” Michael Elliot argues that even
though Libya has oil, “it's hard to make the case that there is some pressing commercial reason for
Britain and France to take the lead in the way that they have done.” He goes on to add that both
nations intervened in Libya because they genuinely believe that the world is a more secure place if other
democracies help the U.S “carry the diplomatic and military load of ensuring global stability.”
Mr. Elliot reasoning is flawed and naïve because the situation in the Middle East and North Africa is
complex and involves a host of issues that go beyond the simplistic political viewpoint that limits itself to
putting forward democratization as the sole solution to their problems, as if no other political,
economic, or strategic issues were in play. When nations have supported dictatorships for so long in the
name of frequently undisclosed economic and military interests, it would today be foolish to consider
the North’s support for democratization as the sincere, unselfish expression of a new found love for the
peoples of the region entirely devoid of any strategic calculations. As in any economic reckoning, it
seems wise to enquire about the expectations of the parties involved and about their anticipated
benefits.
Ghaddafi’s power relied on a decentralized system of clan alliances in which tribal affiliation was more
important than good or bad relations with Tripoli. The country was a key regional player: liberating and
then controlling it promised significant political and economic interests for all concerned. Under
France’s lead, operations were launched under the aegis of NATO, whose errors of judgments and
blunders grew to alarming proportions.xx
Meanwhile Americans were attempting to organize the
rebellion to better profit from the situation irrespective of the outcome. Sources revealed that the CIA
had been directly involved even before the uprising and that it had been working continuously and
strategically with the rebels.xxi The West had accepted the risks of working with a Transitional Council
made up of former Ghaddafi cabinet ministers (some of who were agents of foreign powers), ostensibly
19
repentant Islamists, and uncontrolled, even extremist element.xxii What reasons justified the Western
intervention in Libya while NATO remained passive and silent in the face of brutal crackdown on the
civilian population in Syria? Initially advanced, the humanitarian claim simply does not hold up. The
strategic importance of Libya, which had long eluded foreign control outweighs by far the ingenuously
humanistic statements of French leaders. The truth before the Arab Uprising was that Libya’s oil wealth
had restored Ghadaffi to the good graces of the international community and Sarkozy had even given
him the red carpet treatment in Paris just a few months earlier.xxiii
So, what specific event deteriorated
relations with Libya to the extent that NATO had to militarily intervene?
True, he had embarrassed Sarkozy with his African policy of building economic ties and financially
supporting leaders to Libya’s east, west, and south which thwarted French ambitions in the region. True,
he was also not in good terms with the U.S and Israel. As a partisan of the two-state solution, Ghadaffi
never concealed his support for the Palestinian resistance and had even made a personal call for them
to gather peacefully at their disputed borders when the Arab uprisings had begun. xxiv He constantly
linked criticism to the United States and Europe to criticism of Israel while pointing to the cowardice of
the Arab countries. In the regional context, it was clear that Ghadaffi’s alliances with partners like
Venezuela, South Africa, China and Brazil that were for less pro-Israel than the United States and Europe
were as dangerous as his economic power and autonomy. The role of French media intellectual Bernard
Henry Levy, who for a few days functioned as France’s foreign minister and even brokered a deal with
the Transitional Council proved telling given that he has made a reputation on medias for his open
support to Israel. xxv Israel favored Ghaddaffi’s ouster mainly because of the danger represented by his
international alliances and his support for the Palestinian cause. The lure of oil combined with his
outspoken anti-Israeli position in Africa (particularly in Chad, Sudan and South Africa) must be taken into
account. Recent developments can also not be overlooked. A wealthy and autonomous Libya with the
intention of creating new alliances with Tunisia and Egypt could have opened new strategic relations
20
between the countries of North Africa and the Middle East. Western countries feared that this would
create an uncontrolled zone thereby turning the region into a high risk area for their presence in the
region. True to his reputation as a disturbing and provocative character, Ghaddafi nonetheless displayed
undeniable strategic abilities.
At the very core of these competing claims interests lies Libya’s oil wealth. The country exports more
than $31 million worth of crude annually; 80 percent of which was shipped to the European Union.xxvi
As an OPEC member and Africa’s fourth largest oil producer, Libya enjoyed substantial autonomy vis-à-
vis the West while Europe dependence on Libyan oil production was considerable (contributing to 10
percent of French imports and as much as 25 percent for Italy). In addition, new and promising reserves
had recently been discovered. The stakes were high: the regime National Oil Corporation controlled the
bulk of Libyan production and only offered access to foreign firms through joint ventures. When they
stopped production and repatriated their personnel, he threatened to turn in the future to China, India
and Brazil. On September 1st, 2011, the Parisian daily Liberation revealed a deal dating back to March 19,
2011 between the Transitional Council and France, granting the latter 35 percent of Libya’s oil exports
after Ghaddafi’s anticipated downfall. xxvii Even before Ghaddafi had been located, and while the
fighting continued, French, American, Chinese and Turkish firms had begun the hunt for contracts.
France’s Minister of Foreign Trade had even travelled to Libya with a business delegation to secure
contracts in oil, telecommunications, transport etc. xxviii
The uprising in Libya revealed the unspoken economic considerations that underlie the dissimilar
treatments faced by Arabs and African countries. The wish to maintain economic and geopolitical
control in Tunisia and Egypt in the disguise of political democratization is radically different from the
intention to exert full control over Libya’s political alignment while getting direct access to the country’s
oil reserves. Knowing Ghaddafi’s personality, there was simply no other way to achieve these goals
21
without direct military intervention. Behind the fine words of humanitarian concern and the
celebrations of values such as freedom, dignity and the struggle against dictatorship is concealed a
battle for economic domination, control of oil reserves, and coldly cynical geopolitical calculations. How
else could the silence over repression in Syria (where Bashar al- Assad has banned all non-state media,
cut off Internet access and has commanded the army to fire point-blank at unarmed civilians) be
interpreted? (As of this writing, more than 70,000 civilians have been killed while thousands more are
injured.) Geopolitical considerations are the decisive factors in deciding upon support of lack of support
for the Arab peoples in their quest for freedom and dignity. Syria allies, which include Russia, China, and
Venezuela (where Hugo Chavez shamelessly described Bashar al-Assad as a “humanist and a brother”)
all opposed any form of military intervention. xxix Their position did shift during the weeks of repression.
Turkey, Russia and China finally requested that the Syrian president end the crackdown. Yet the fact
remains that the regime was free to act and kill and that the U.S, Europe and Israel spoke from the
outset in favor of internal reform (leaving the Assad regime in power).
In 2003, former friend and ally (during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War), Saddam Hussein, suddenly became
a tyrant with a sinister face in contrast to the purity of American policy. Prior to U.S invasion of Iraq, we
were told that it was all about weapons of mass destruction, freedom and democracy. 10 years later, we
know that they were all lies. It seems that France and Britain were playing in Libya the US game in Iraq.
Today we are learning that the war that was supposed to be fought for democracy, freedom and dignity
was far less glorious than the French and British government made it sound to be. There was clearly a
greater concern for business than human lives. xxx
Tensions in Europe
The willingness of European powers to militarily intervene in Libya was a defining moment in the
political life of the continent. Libya has set a precedent for further military intervention with Sarkozy
22
arguing that the “responsibility to protect” principle in the UN Resolution 1973 allowed for further
intervention in Africa and the Middle East. The Ivory Coast has already been the first victim with French
and U.N forces opening fire from helicopters on military camps operated by former leader Laurent
Gbagbo. Since then, France has sent an additional 500 troops to reinforce its 1500 strong military
presence in its former colony to ensure the victory of its friend and ally, Alassane Ouattara. France has
also intervened in Mali.
There are however countries in Europe who have been critical (some more vocal than others) of France
super-active role in the Middle East and North Africa which will certainly lead to tensions in the future.
Following a series of unilateral diplomatic moves such as calling “targeted air strikes” and being the first
leader to officially recognize the Libyan rebels as “the only legitimate representative of the Libyan
people,” Sarkozy was criticized by Belgian Foreign Minister Steven Vanackere who said that this had
triggered “negative reactions.” The Luxembourg Prime minister noted that such actions should not have
been taken “on the day before” EU leaders were scheduled to meet for a summit in Brussels to discuss
the deteriorating situation in Libya. EU High Representative Catherine Ashton even warned that, “We
cannot unilaterally rush into recognizing groups.”
Other European leaders grumbled that Sarkozy's unilateral announcement upset their efforts to forge a
common position on Libya. Germany was perhaps one of the more vocal critics of France. Alongside
Brazil, China, Russia and India, Germany chose to abstain on UN Security Council Resolution 1973
against its NATO allies for two reasons. First, Germany has been seeking closer relations with Russia for
years, on which it relies for its gas supplies. Second, German trade with China is in excess of $100 billion
a year. Berlin is working under the assumption that that its economic influence in North Africa and the
Middle East is the best way of projecting Germany’s global interests.xxxi In clear opposition to the US-
French-UK-led operation, Germany had even offered to deploy naval and military mission (EUFOR Libya)
23
to relieve the besieged city of Misrata during the European Union’s Luxembourg summit on Libya. The
mission was supposed to be a 7.9 million-euro operation to be based in Rome and aimed at an initial
mobilization of the EU’s two battle groups, made up of 1500 troops. Germany would have contributed
990 troops. The offer failed to gain ground and was eventually rejected by the UN. However the
government of Angela Merkel insisted that it was ready to participate in any “humanitarian mission”
asked of it by the UN. xxxii
One important country that has expressed concern over France’s “prominent role” in the UN mandated
intervention in Libya is Turkey. Defense Minister Vecdi Gönül even went on to say that “it seems
impossible for us to understand France being so prominent in this process. We are having difficulty in
understanding it acting like the enforcer of United Nations decisions.” It should be noted that Turkey
has spoken against intervention arguing that the operation should have been under UN
governance and should not have been launched at a meeting attended by a small group of
countries.xxxiii
The Libya campaign and the Arab Spring have raised important questions about the strategic objectives
and priorities of the EU diplomacy. They have also raised key questions about the EU’s ability to manage
crisis when they arise and the capability of the European External Action Service as a foreign and
security policy instrument in the Lisbon Treaty. European allies have struggled to overcome divisions and
this has subsequently led to smaller alliances between Member States. The main concern remains that
smaller European Alliances such as the Franco-British defense cooperation will undermine a coordinated
and coherent Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) in the future.xxxiv
Few Successes and too many Failures: MENA in Crisis
24
While it is tempting at first glance to speak of a “domino effect” in discussing the courage and energy of
the popular uprisings, each country must be studied separately to better understand the dynamism of
the region as a whole. Tunisia has moved rapidly toward a democratization that seems destined for
success. In the elections to the Constituent assembly held on October 23, 2011, 51 percent of Tunisian
citizens registered vote, and the election produced a clear victory for Ennadha, an Islamist party. The
Congress for the Republic (Ettakol) led by Moncef Marzouki and the Democratic Forum of Labor and
Freedom led by Mustapha Ben Jaafar finished in second and third place respectively. The three parties
rejected the “secularist-Islamist” polarization and agreed to cooperate and join forces. Positions were
assigned under a tripartite agreement: Mustapha Ben Jaafar of Ettakol was elected president of the
Constituent Assembly while Moncef Marzzouki was elected president of Tunisia on December 12. Three
days later, he appointed Hamadi Jebali (of Ennadha) as prime minister. Of all the countries, to have
experienced a mass uprising, Tunisia appeared to be best situated to bring about a genuine change of
regime. Since the election, the blows dealt by hard line and extremist factions have hit hard following
the government failure of devising an economic and social policy that would ease the crisis. Popular
impatience is understandable, but it has opened the door to populists on both sides. Secular
fundamentalists, like the literalist Salafis and the Jihadist, are doing everything in their power to
destabilize the government.
The course of events in Libya is troubling: the armed forces of NATO supported an armed rebellion.
Under French and American authority, they have successfully tracked down Ghaddafi on October 20,
2011. He was taken alive and then lycnched in circumstances that showed little respect for human
dignity. Though he was a brutal dictator, he should have been brought to trial. xxxvFour days later, the
president of the NTC announced that Shar’ia would form the basic law of the land and made striking
references to divorce, marriage, and the legislation of polygamy. The proclamation affirmed to Libyans
the total independence of the NTC and its new leadership. It also served as a warning to the West to
25
downplay its current and future role in determining the country’s reorientation and reconstruction. The
following weeks revealed that political and economic dealings between new Libyan authorities, the U.S,
France, and the United Kingdom had been fraught with tension. The economic agreements and
reconstruction contracts signed provide proof that NATO support was far from humanistic and that
Western governments had intended to play a determinant economic and political role in Libya. In recent
months, Libya has been torn by clan and tribal strife and only its oil industry has been secured for the
greater benefit of American, French and British interests.
Events have taken an equally sobering turn in Egypt. The victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in the
legislative elections and the second place showing of the Salafist an-Nur party seem to mirror political
developments of Tunisia. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The Egyptian Army rules the
country behind closed doors. Its violent intervention in Tahrir Square and continued suppression of
demonstrators across the country is proof of the army can act with impunity.xxxvi In recent months,
Egypt has been in the throes of a profound crisis. In an effort to neutralize the power of the armed
forces and the judiciary, which prevented him from applying his policies, President Mohamed Morsi
preemptively assumed “temporary” powers that curiously recall former President Mubarak’s
perogatives. In all fairness, the opposition parties combined with institutional interference had made
governing all but impossible. We will soon see whether the president’s measures are indeed
“temporary,” and designed to speed up the democratic transition, or a return to dictatorship. xxxvii
Unintended Consequences and Responsibilities
Syrian society is composed of a Shiite Alawite sect who rules over a country where the majority is Sunni
Muslim.xxxviii Contrary to appearances, the uprisings in Syria were not desired by the U.S and Israel.
Opposition parties and resistance are difficult to identify and control. Leftist/secularist anti American
tendencies, pro-Shiite, pro-Iranian and Islamist groups form a configuration that would clearly be
26
difficult to manage. If the regime were to collapse, very few know what might actually be the outcome.
Western countries had apparently neither anticipated nor wished for what has happened. Clearly, the
determination of the people has been strong as they have gradually managed to change the positions of
the country’s allies and enemies, who seem to have now understood that the regime is in danger and
unlikely to survive.xxxix
Though nothing has definitely been achieved by the mass protests, Syrians have
shaken the regime and put change on the agenda.
Bashar al-Assad heads a dictatorial regime founded on usurpation and corruption, a regime that has
never hesitated – dating from his late father’s decade long rule – to kill and torture its opponents by the
tens of thousands. In a country, where terror is the domestic policy, the numbers are alarming: in just
over two years, more than 70,000 civilians have died in Syria. Since August 2012, more than 5000
Syrians have been killed every month, a rate of almost 170 per day. xl The International Community
looks on helplessly as UN special representatives submit draft proposals and presidents and prime
ministers mouth fine words. And still, the civil war grinds on, with its daily reports of atrocities and
manipulations. In recent months, American and European positions have shifted and pressure against
the Syrian government has increased. Official support for the Syrian opposition and the Free Syrian
Army has firmed up. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have emerged as full participants, directly financing and
arming the political and military opposition. Neighboring Turkey has even altered its “no problems with
neighbors” policy to one of active support for regime change in Damascus. Beijing and Moscow,
meanwhile, continue to back Bashar al-Assad (while hinting that they might contemplate a future
without him). Syria has become the theater of a regional “low-intensity conflict,” under control, and
cynically more useful than harmful. The dividends may prove substantial in both the short and long
term. All the pieces on the chessboard have been maneuvered into place to create a stalemate. Neither
a political nor a military solution seems possible in the near future; the civil war drags on, and the
number of deaths grows day by day.
27
We can – and must – oppose the autocratic regime of Bashar al-Assad without falling into the trap of
oversimplifying the conflict and blindly supporting the resistance. The Syrian opposition, by virtue of its
structure, does not inspire confidence. Several of its allies, judging by their declared and undeclared
intentions, are outright dangerous. In the face of growing confusion, we must combine a principled
position that opposes any form of dictatorship with a political vigilance that leaves no room for naivety
(unconditional support for the opposition).
Syria’s situation is similar to that of Bahrain. There, protests broke out on February 14, 2011 and spread
rapidly. A demonstration took place on February 23 included people from all social-backgrounds. The
demonstrators demanded reform of the ruling regime and an end to inequality in the application of laws
governing naturalization. Slogans called for Sunni-Shiite unity. The government responded with a violent
crackdown, portraying the demonstrators as Shiite radicals intent on overthrowing the regime. King
Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa quickly played the religious conflict card, declared a state of emergency and
called in his allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to suppress the movement. Saudi Arabia, the
United Arab Emirates, and Qatar promptly rallied behind the regime at the same time that they sided
with rebels in Libya. xli The stakes were extremely high: it was imperative to contain the Arab uprisings
and prevent them from reaching even one of the sheikdoms.xlii
Collapse of the regime in Bahrain would
have sent shock waves through the entire Arabian Peninsula. The Arab League’s claim that the conflict
was a religious one and that the population’s demand had nothing in common with the people of Egypt,
Libya and Tunisia has come under sharp criticisms. Neither the U.S nor Europe reacted to the Bahraini
regime crackdown. Once again, economic considerations, regional stability and access to oil triumphed
over support for democratization. xliii
Civil society and citizens of the various Arab countries must commit themselves to imagining and
creating a vision for the future drawn from their own history, their memory, their cultural references,
28
their values and their hopes. They must reclaim the meaning of their revolt even though they were not
its sole instigators. Caution and optimism must be combined with determination and commitment. The
leaders of successful uprisings today and tomorrow will be defined by their clear sighted optimism and
their hard headed dedication. Political liberation requires freeing minds using close analysis of facts.
Arab Uprising Spreading Among Sub-Saharan Countries
After the excitement and euphoria of the Arab Spring, observers around the world wondered whether
Northern Africa would inspire its neighbors in sub-Saharan Africa, which share many of the same
demographic characteristics, including a large percentage of unemployed people, high food prices, and
years of oppression and unrealized opportunity at the hand of often-brutal dictators. At the time,
political commentators in several corners of Africa seemed optimistic that the Arab Spring would indeed
spread southward. They were correct: uprisings have followed in Angola, Benin, Mauritania, Malawi,
Mali, Senegal and Uganda.xliv
Angola
A series of protests in the Angolan capital of Luanda against long time president Jose Eduardo dos Santo
have raised some eyebrows. The protest started in March 2011 by young people using Facebook and
Youtube to spread the message of dissatisfaction with dos Santos 32 years rule. The regime has been
marked by disappearing government funds close to $1 billion, state-sponsored censorship of the
press, and arbitrary killings and disappearances. Dos Santos’ latest notable act was
spearheading changes to the Angolan Constitution that did away with direct presidential elections
and would allow him to stay in power until 2022. However, there is no denying that he still enjoys some
support from some older Angolans who feel a loyalty to him and the MPLA because of the party’s
role in Angola’s fight for independence against Portugal from 1961-1974. He has also been credited
Tunisie: la fin d’un tabou. Enjeux autour de la succession du president et degradation du climat social by
Vincent Geisser and Labri Chouikha xviii
French minister defends offer of security forces to Tunisia, by Kim Willsher from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/18/french-minister-tunisia-offer
xix Behind the scenes of Ben Ali’s final hours dated January 25
th 2011, from Le Figaro:
https://plus.lefigaro.fr/note/behind-the-scenes-of-ben-alis-final-hours-20110125-382712 xx
“In Strikes On Libya by NATO, an Unspoken Civilian Toll,” dated December 2011 from the New York Times:
“C.I.A Agents in Libya Aid Airstrikes and meet Rebels,” dated March 2011 from the New York Times: http://warincontext.org/2011/03/31/cia-agents-in-libya-aid-airstrikes-and-meet-rebels/
“Hugoo Chavez and the Arab Spring,” dated June 20, 2011 from: www.theworld.org/2011/06/hugo-chavez-arab-
spring/.
xxx Tariq Ramadan, September 2011; Hope and disappointment in Libya: http://www.tariqramadan.com/Hope-and-Disappointment-in-Libya,11723.html?lang=fr xxxii
From World Socialist Web Site on 5th
April 2011; The war against Libya and the eruption of European Imperialism: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/pers-a05.shtml xxxiii
From Today’s Zaman on 30th
April 2012, Turkey criticizes France’s role in Libya Intervention: http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=238853 xxxiv
From Great Britain Office on June 2011: Libya and its implication for the UN, NATO and the EU: http://www.kas.de/grossbritannien/en/publications/28638/ xxxv
“Muammar Gaddafi Killed, Captured in Sirte,” from the Huffington Post:
In Senegal, Years of Frustration come to a Head, dated February 2012 by Brandon Harris from Freedom House: http://www.freedomhouse.org/blog/senegal-years-frustration-come-head
April 2012 by William Lloyd George from ALJAZEERA: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/201241572956363410.html l “Mali rebels face backlash after months of instability and violence,” dated May 2012 from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/16/mali-rebels-instability-violence?newsfeed=true li Mali’s worst human rights situation in 50 years; dated 16 May 2012 from Amnesty International:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/mali-s-worst-human-rights-situation-50-years-2012-05-15 lii U.N Security Council asks for Mali Plan within 45 days; dated October 2012 from Reuters:
Resolution 2085 from the UN: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2085(2012) liv
Hollande: L’operation au Mali “n’a pas d’autre but que la lutte contre le terrorisme.” from Le Monde: http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2013/01/12/la-france-demande-une-acceleration-de-la-mise-en-place-de-la-force-internationale-au-mali_1816033_3212.html lv Mali Conflict overshadows A.U Summit; from News 24: http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/DRC-Mali-
conflicts-overshadow-AU-summit-20130128 lvi
The War on Mali. What you should know: An Eldorado of Uranium, Gold, Petroleum, Strategic Minerals; from Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-on-mali-what-you-should-know/5319093 lvii
Decouverte du Petrole au Mali: le premier forage en Mars 2010. Les vrais raisons de la guerre au Mali: http://lynxtogo.info/links/oeil-du-lynx/3463-decouverte-du-petrole-au-mali-le-premier-forage-en-mars-2010-les-vraies-raison-de-la-guerre-au-mali-.html lviii
Le Mali, La France et les Extremistes: by Tariq Ramadan: http://www.tariqramadan.com/spip.php?article12693