Month: September 2011
From the shores of Tripoli
I arrived in Tripoli yesterday. Things here are much less “normal” than in Benghazi: there are lots of young men with guns on the street. Detonations happen, some more than just the usual “celebratory” AK 47 rounds. Procedures at Mitiga airport are haphazard, security at the Radisson (where lots of business is conducted) is tight. The internet is agonizingly slow, especially once the journalists start trying to file in the evening.
But everyone agrees that things are improving. Water and electricity are flowing. Many stores and restaurants are now open, traffic is getting more congested. Lots of people are on the street–often with children (a clear sign of feeling relatively secure).
The Western journalists I talked with last night were on the gloomy side: they worry about Qaddafi being at large, the three major towns still holding out against the Transitional National Council (TNC), jockeying for position among the many militias that control different parts of Tripoli, rascist incidents and slurs against black Libyans, especially those who once supported Qaddafi. All those problems are real.
But I’m far cheerier, because I managed somehow to strike up a conversation last night with a group of young doctors, dentists and engineers trying to preserve the spirit of their jihad (that’s struggle in English, with spiritual but not necessarily specifically religious connotations) against the Qaddafi regime. These people in their 20s spent months caring for wounded demonstrators in their homes to avoid sending them to hospitals, where they would have been arrested (or in some cases killed).
They have organized themselves as Free Doctors’ Forum, Free Generation, Libya Youth Forum and the like in an effort to “bring Libya back to life.” They fear that others may attempt to hijack their revolution. They are cautious about politics–the only politicians they have ever known were Qaddafi and his cronies, so they distrust politicians and political parties even though they want a free political system. The parallel to America’s founding fathers, who likewise feared their revolution would be hijacked and corrupted if political parties formed, is hard to miss. The Libyans want the revolution they just went through to be the last the country will ever need.
Freedom is the word Libyans associate most with their February 17 revolution. Freedom to speak their minds, to associate in groups as they please, to read and view what they want, and to form their own opinions. The young people I met distrust power. They accept NTC chair Jalil as a transition leader but look forward to a day when they can choose their own. They plan to monitor and evaluate the performance of their leaders through independent organizations. They did not use the term “civil society” with me. But they somehow have reinvented the concept. Nor did they know what USAID is (though they had already met with European assistance providers). What a pleasure to discover revolutionaries before they’ve learned the international vocabulary!
The young people I talked with are mildly suspicious about big international organizations–they rightly fear that some of them would rather provide medical services themselves rather than support a Libyan organization that provides medical service. They will resist being hired away from their own nascent service providers to work for the internationals. I wished them fortitude in this, as I’ve seen it happen all too often: the internationals come in under the banner of supporting civil society and quickly destroy the indigenous institutions by hiring away their personnel as translators and drivers.
I ran down to Martyrs’ (formerly Green) Square this morning along the Tripoli shoreline, which U.S. marines failed to reach (they got only as far as Derna) in their effort to suppress Berber (Barbary) attacks on American shipping in 1804. The town was about as quiet as it gets at 9 am Friday, as people sleep late on a day that begins the Muslim weekend. Street sweepers were cleaning up the square after whatever happened there last night. I got a few quizzical looks and one “good morning!” I’ll try later today to talk with people coming out of a mosque, hoping to get a picture of how more religious people regard the revolution and future prospects.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Normal, but still far from ideal
If life seems normal in Benghazi these days, it is still far from ideal. Having previously discussed the positive developments, I need to delve into the directions in which growth and development is still required.
The most obvious to the eye and nose of the casual observer is what my wife and I call “garbagio,” a term we invented forty years ago when traveling in southern Italy (well before we both learned Italian). Every public space in Benghazi seems littered, sometimes to a depth of several inches. I asked some young Libyans yesterday about this. They said things have actually improved a good deal since the revolution, with people cleaning up a lot more than in the past. The garbagio problem developed, they added, because no one felt pride in being Libyan. The public space belonged to the state, so throwing trash into it was a tacit, maybe even unintentional, form of protest.
Libyans held the state in low esteem not only because of the way it treated them but also because they had no voice in it. Essentially no independent civil society was permitted–only service organizations, and they had a hard time even doing things like helping the poor because Qaddafi denied that there were any. Hundreds of nongovernmental organizations have sprouted rapidly in Benghazi, though they are naturally in a rudimentary state, and spontaneous contributions to social improvement like directing traffic if the stop lights go out are common.
There is still little visible sign of political parties. I spent the evening yesterday wandering among the many tents/booths set up in the courthouse square, where people gather each evening to enjoy the sea breeze and talk. The different tents host discussions of issues while a goodly number of men alternately pray and listen to talk radio (or was it television?) broadcast over loud speakers. The Libyans are really enjoying their freedom. They seem almost reluctant to organize political parties because it will lead to divisions among them.
Newspapers have sprouted as well, with something like 80 newspapers and magazines now publishing in Benghazi (most not dailies), where there were only six before the revolution. One of the young people I talked with is getting ready to put out a free English language weekly for distribution in Benghazi hotels. Will there be enough foreigners left to attract advertisers now that the National Transitional Council (NTC) seems really to be moving to Tripoli? Maybe not, but The Voice would like to give the enterprise a try. There will of course be a dramatic weeding out of some of these publications, but in the meanwhile it is thrilling to talk with people who are for the first time in their lives discovering that their thoughts and writings might actually make a difference.
Another area where a great deal of “capacity building” (that’s what the development types call training) is needed is human rights. My compliments go to USAID (that doesn’t always happen) for the human rights training that I attended yesterday, conducted under contract to the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Warsaw) by three veterans of the Polish transition. The day was devoted to a moot court to consider the case of a prisoner who had died of a heart attack while incarcerated. The outcome was different from the real case, in which the Polish government lost for the first time at the European Court of Human Rights. But it was argued with an intelligence and style that I hope foreshadows what Libyan courts may be like in ten years.
The court system is in fact a big problem. Corrupted under Qaddafi, it will require a thorough vetting and retraining, something that will take more than a few years. In the meanwhile, Libyans generally want Qaddafi, his family and his cronies tried in Libya, if only because here there is a death penalty not permitted at the International Criminal Court (ICC). But a debate at the human rights workshop ended with the young Libyans voting to send Qaddafi to the ICC, due to the difficult problems of meeting international standards and preventing the trial from becoming a political nightmare.
The political nightmare could be deadly, as Libyans are still armed to the teeth. This will only change if stability is maintained and a spiral of revenge killing prevented, as few will give up their guns if they really think they need them. There has been some effort to collect the weapons, but there are still a lot more out there. Re-restablishing the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force will not be easy or immediate.
Surprisingly, I’ve found relatively little complaint so far about the economic situation. One Libyan did say that his salary of 350 Libyan dinars per month working in oil services was low, but he seemed to mean that in comparison to international wages rather than in comparison with what other Libyans make. I suspect the grumbling will increase, but Libyans are clearly pleased that Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the chairman of the National Transitional Council (NTC), lives in a modest house in Benghazi and is thought to be uncorrupted. At least to some, that makes a big difference and may account for patience on the economic front.
With apologies for the lack of photos–I have no way of getting them from my nonfunctional cell phone to my computer–these are some of the ways in which Libya is still far from the ideal.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Benghazi: a normal life, for the moment
It would be wrong to suggest that everything is going well in Libya. Yesterday’s attack on oil facilities at Ras Lanouf by Qaddafi’s forces and the failure of an apparent government (that is Transitional National Council)-led offensive at Surt show otherwise. But here in Benghazi even yesterday’s inspiring TNC rally in Tripoli seems far off.
Life here is about as close to “normal” as it ever has been. No one is visibly carrying weapons. The one detonation I’ve heard did not cause any reaction among the Libyans present–they knew right away it was a car engine backfiring. By all reports, people feel far freer to speak their minds than they did under Qaddafi. They also feel freer to drive down one-way streets the wrong way and run red lights, though they do both not with abandon but with caution. Mostly they go about their business trying to earn a living and support their families, which has not gotten easier. Salaries and other payments made through banks are not fully available to depositors, who can only withdraw one-third to one-half of the total amount.
Libyans know that this is the price of liberty and hope it will not last. There are some good omens. Egyptian oil service workers told me this morning that some wells in the east are already producing, the Libyans are respecting pre-revolution contracts and the people they deal with are clearly more relaxed and taking more responsibility than under Qaddafi. Libyan Air has started up service between Benghazi and Misrata, Turkish Airlines starts to fly to Istanbul on Thursday, and there are rumors of British Air and others preparing to fly.
None of this of course affects most Libyans, who live in what can only be described as poverty despite the enormous oil and gas wealth produced during the Qaddafi regime. That money seems to have gone into the pockets of few people, who deposited a great deal of it in bank accounts and investments abroad. Benghazis are certainly convinced that none of it came here. They are quick to note the outlet for raw sewage that fouls their spectacular beaches and the empty square from which Qaddafi removed the grave of Omar Mukhtar, hero of the resistance against Italy in the early 20th century. Qaddafi did not want any competition, even from a long-expired hero.
The road ahead will not be easy. NATO spokespeople may suggest that finding Qaddafi is not so important, but they are wrong. Few believe Qaddafi can mount the same kind of resistance that emerged in Iraq, or attract the kind of foreign assistance the Sunni insurgency there benefited from, but many in Washington and elsewhere have gotten worried about the possibility of an insurgency.
They are right to worry: insurgency would make it far more difficult for the TNC to pursue the moderate course it has so far chosen, favoring reconciliation over retaliation and avoiding revenge against those who fought for and protected the Qaddafi regime. I am already receiving from a Belgian email address pro-insurgency emails. It only takes the beginnings of suspicion that people are associated with an insurgency to generate fear in the population and a harsh crackdown from the authorities.
None of that is yet apparent in Benghazi today, however. A friend is teaching a human rights class. A colleague is arranging a conflict management workshop. A journalist classmate is tracking the TNC and trying to ask them tough questions when they seem to do things different from what they say. The Egyptian oil service company people were off to arrange well workovers. Traffic is heavy, the markets are bustling, people are walking, bargaining, shopping, working. Water, and since this year’s August Ramadan also electricity, are flowing.
Libyans have experienced both autocracy and war. The normal life so many people who have lived in those conditions crave has arrived in Benghazi, at least for the moment.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A sense of direction
Friday night’s attack on the Israeli embassy in Cairo has already generated more heat than light. The analytical question is what were its short and long term impacts?
One in the short term is the recognition by many on both sides of the rather wide Egypt/Israel divide that the Camp David accords, however defective they may be regarded in particular details, have an enormous benefit: they eliminate the need for either country to be constantly on a war footing, thus avoiding enormous burdens that neither country would want to take on in the current environment. Several Egyptians I spoke to yesterday viewed Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statements as far more forthcoming than he has been in the past. Even Egyptian Salafists seemed to think the attack a bad idea, therefore possibly incited by the U.S. and helpful to Israel.
Egypt wants to renegotiate some aspects of the accords. The recognition on both sides of their value may make renegotiation easier, though I imagine the Israelis will want provisions that make it more difficult for a future Egyptian government to renege on the accords entirely. Politicians are now competing to see who can be more opposed to the current version of the accords and more vigorous in pursuit of renegotiation. It is widely believed that the military will not allow the accords to be abrogated, which ironically frees the politicians to call for precisely that, knowing that it won’t happen. Over the longer term, democratically elected politicians could find themselves trapped by their own promises.
The economic impact of Friday night’s riot is likely to be substantial. I’ve enjoyed some of Egypt’s fine tourist attractions the last few days: the step pyramid at Saqqara as well as the more famous pyramids and sphinx at Giza. We were almost alone at Saqqara. There were a few more people at Giza, mostly Egyptians enjoying a fine Saturday. No long lines of tour buses, no wait for anything. We also enjoyed a good lunch at Meena House, the spectacular hotel at the edge of the Giza pyramids. It, too, was deserted. The attack on the embassy will likely set the recovery in tourism to Egypt back another six months to a year, which means a lot to the significant percentage of the population that depends on it for their livings.
For those who thought the revolution was about making things better for the average Egyptian, the attack on the embassy is therefore not only a diversion, but also a perversion of priorities. Friday’s demonstration was supposed to have been about “correcting the path,” but it was far too small to get the army to accelerate the handover to civilians or even to get it to fix a date for elections. To the contrary, the embassy attack inspired a re-imposition of emergency laws, not a loosening of military controls. One keen American observer I spoke to suggested that the “scales are falling from Egyptian eyes” and they are now recognizing that their “revolution” was in fact hijacked by a military coup, one that was popular for a while but is now much less so. But even many of those who may no longer be enthusiasts for the army do not want to see disorder and disruption, which is becoming more widespread.
What the Egyptian transition seems to lack today is a clear sense of direction. People are doubting whether the military really intends to turn over power to civilians. I’ve already found in my few hours in Libya a dramatically different spirit: Benghazi at least thinks it knows where it is going and has advertised the fact repeatedly on the road from the airport: “we have a dream,” the signs read. Even though Qaddafi and his sons are still at large, people here are determined to push ahead to establish a more open and democcratic regime. I have little doubt but that Egyptians also want that, but they seem less sure of how to get it. The complexities of Egypt are far greater than those of relatively unpopulated and hydrocarbon-rich Libya.
PS: For those who might still wonder whether the football hooligans were in fact at the Israeli embassy Friday night, I discussed the matter yesterday with an Egyptian observer who knows their leadership well and stayed on the streets until 5 am. He assured me that the leaders of the “ultras” had not participated but that younger adherents had. They precipitated the confrontation with the police with gusto and determination.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What I said and didn’t say
I’m not much into the duelling aspect of blogging, but there has been enough misunderstanding of what I wrote yesterday about my experience in Tahrir that it may be enlightening to respond to at least a few of the criticisms.
Let me focus on Angry Arab, whose comments have been repeated elsewhere. He writes under the heading “dumbest comment of the day”:
Daniel Serwer, who is in Cairo, reckons last night’s violence at the Israeli embassy had more to do with discontent against Egypt’s military rulers than Israel. He also suggests (see 11.12am post) that many of those protesting could be regarded as football hooligans.
This is dumb, but it is not what I said. I wrote: “The predominant themes in Tahrir however had little to do with Israel.” I then went on to outline what those themes appeared to be. I’ve checked this point several times: people in Tahrir were talking, chanting and singing about mainly internal Egyptian issues.
I never suggested that Egyptians were not angry with Israel. Nor did I suggest that the attack on the Embassy had more to do with Egypt’s military than with Israel. In fact, I wrote:
Egyptians regard the Israeli killing of several Egyptian policemen in Sinai in the aftermath of a terrorist attack inside Israel as humiliating and want a more fulsome apology for it.
I went on to conclude that peace between Egypt and Israel could not be maintained unless the people are committed to it, “society to society.”
Angry Arab also suggests I said “many of those protesting could be regarded as football hooligans.” What I actually said was “some of whom were surely what would be termed football hooligans in Europe.” I might prefer today to have said “likely” rather than “surely,” but the point here is that I never said “many of those protesting” (I added the bold face) could or should be regarded as football hooligans, which is what Angry Arab said I said. In case there is any doubt: I assume most of them were Egyptians angry with Israel.
Accuracy is not Angry Arab’s strong point. Let’s take this statement: “this ‘US blogger’–whoever he is–because she holds a PhD from Oxford University and is a young academic.” Yes, I am a PhD, from Princeton not Oxford, male and not young, all of which is readily ascertainable from this website.
I don’t however expect anyone to believe me because of age, education or gender. I only expect to be quoted accurately and debated honestly. That is not what Angry Arab did. I would rate his comments dumbest of my day.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
My Tahrir experience last night
I spent yesterday evening in Tahrir square, which meant that I missed the attack on the Israeli embassy that has dominated the news from Cairo. Colleagues on their way back from the pyramids got caught in a pitched battle betweeen rock-throwers and riot police in front of the Saudi embassy, down the street from the Israelis. They got a good scare, but were uninjured.
My own contact with the would-be rock throwers was limited to their recruiting marches through Tahrir, where most people were ignoring the chants of “to the embassy!” sung out by fist-pumping small groups of young men. But they apparently managed to assemble thousands at the embassy, some of whom were surely what would be termed football hooligans in Europe. The arrival of Ahli and Zamalek (the two Cairo teams) fans in Tahrir was greeted earlier in the evening with a roar of approval.
The predominant themes in Tahrir however had little to do with Israel. A big sign denounced the media cronies of the Mubarak regime, all still in their jobs. Another called for justice for those who had resisted the revolution, noting that they are not even arrested but pro-democracy demonstrators are still being processed in military courts.
Anti-military sentiment tinged the speeches, which called on Egyptians to be like one hand, a civilian one. The crowd wanted the army to fulfill its promise to turn over power to civilians. “Liberty, social justice and bread” was a popular chant–it sounds a lot more rhythmic in Arabic. The atmosphere is a bit like Hyde Park: anyone with a microphone stands on a soap box, quickly assembles a crowd and holds forth, to the amusement and banter of the listeners, who denounce him for hogging the mic. The Communist Party was handing out leaflets that denounced human rights violations by the military and called for liberation from everything, including bachelorhood.
Women were less than a quarter of Tahrir’s population last night, many but not all covering at least their hair. “The one who governs shoud be bigger in wisdom than beard” was a popular, I am told Koranic, quotation. But neither religion nor secularism was on serious display so far I could tell.
If there was any link between the general sentiment of the crowd and the violence at the Israeli embassy, it may lay in the idea of humiliation. “Keep your head up, you are Egyptian” was a strong current in the speeches. Egyptians regard the Israeli killing of several Egyptian policemen in Sinai in the aftermath of a terrorist attack inside Israel as humiliating and want a more fulsome apology for it. As Rob Satloff suggests, “a more generous statement on the unfortunate killing of Egyptian security forces might have been
both appropriate and helpful.”
That would not likely have carried much weight with last night’s rioters, who destroyed a security wall built recently in front of the embassy and injured a lot of people. But it is only by making the “cold peace” between Israel and Egypt a warmer one that politicians on both sides of the Sinai border will be able to convince their electorates that the Camp David accords are worth defending.
This is the real meaning of the Arab spring to Israel, as Satloff also notes: peace is no longer an issue that can be settled president to prime minister, or even government to government. It will have to be society to society, which is much harder, especially if your ambassador has fled from Cairo and the Egyptian one has been withdrawn from Tel Aviv as well.
RSS - Posts
