African mercenaries in Libya: Fact or racism?

afrol News, - Protesters in Libya insist that "African mercenaries," mostly from Niger and Chad, are used against them. Other sources deny this, fearing a possible racist origin of the claim.
Since the beginning of the Libyan revolution, protesters from all over the country have reported of extreme force being used against them by the Libyan army, police forces, plain-cloth regime agents, snipers and - more and more - "black African mercenaries". The last group increasingly is described as the most brutal group.


Protesters are publishing photos and videos on the internet, with a strong message that "this documents the use of African mercenaries." Some of these videos indeed show armed groups of dark-skinned persons, with and without uniforms.


The most valid evidence of the presence of "black African mercenaries" comes from the "liberated cities" of Banghazi and Al-Bayda, where tens of sub-Saharan Africans have been captured in combat and are held in detention. Their confiscated ID cards indicate the alleged mercenaries are mostly from neighbouring Niger and Chad, but also from Sudan and other sub-Saharan countries.


But the existence of sub-Saharan mercenaries in Libya is also denied by several sources. Colonel Ghaddafi in his first televised speech made much reference to these allegations, recalling that Libyans are "both light and dark-skinned" and of mixed origin.
Mr Ghaddafi of course has proven the least trustworthy source in this dispute, and his insistence there are no African mercenaries in Libya therefore rather indicates the opposite.


Another source forcefully denying the existence of sub-Saharan mercenaries in Libya is the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Chad. "Chadians are not sent or recruited in Chad to serve as mercenaries in Libya," the Ministry statement said, adding that Chad was not involved in current Libyan events in any way.


The repeating reports about Chadian mercenaries was "likely to cause serious physical and material harm to Chadians residing in Libya, " said the Chadian government statement, which also called on "Chadian nationals who have lived peacefully in this sister country, to refrain from any action likely to harm their safety."


The military government of Niger - which is currently totally focused on holding free and fair elections to end a period of democratic transition - has not commented the events in Libya or the allegations of Nigerien mercenaries. Even the Nigerien press has shown little interest in the issue.
Any Nigerien government involvement in recruiting mercenaries to Libya is however totally unlikely.


Meanwhile, reports from Western journalists now present in Al-Bayda and Benghazi indicate that the stories about captured sub-Saharan "mercenaries" may be exaggerated or even false. Journalists have been allowed to see some captured "mercenaries", who however were too afraid to speak to them or anybody else.


Local authorities informed them that most of these Nigeriens and Chadians had originally been entering Libya on search for work. In the Sabah Oasis - in the middle of the Sahara and still loyal to Mr Ghaddafi - they had been picked up by officials and promised work in Tripoli. In the capital, they had been sent to army barracks; given arms and a large sum of money and ordered to shoot at protesters.


Benghazi and Al-Bayda revolutionary authorities now felt obliged to protect these "mercenaries" against popular rage, informing journalists these Africans also were victims of the Ghaddafi regime. The "mercenaries" however have not told their own stories to journalists so far.


Africans in Libya live in fear
At the same time, sub-Saharan Africans still in Libya report of increased suspicions and attacks against them.


Unfortunately, there has existed a basis of racism in Libya for a long time - in later years also fuelled by the Ghaddafi regime after scores of Africans crossed the Sahara to reach Libya and Europe in search of work. Sub-Saharan Africans were lowest on the social ladder and increasingly had  reported of discrimination in Libya.


The repeated reports about "black African mercenaries" slaughtering Libyan protesters are coming from all over Libya and from exiled Libyans that have not participated in the fighting, indicating there is more to the reports, which could include prejudices against sub-Saharan Africans in general.


Already on Wednesday, the UN's refugee agency UNHCR, said that the UN "has become increasingly concerned" about the many African migrants and asylum seekers in Libya. "We have no access at this time to the refugee community," said UNHCR spokesperson Melissa Fleming.


"Some of the reports we are getting from third-party sources are very worrying," she added. "A journalist has passed information to us from Somalis in Tripoli who say they are being hunted on suspicion of being mercenaries. He says they feel trapped and are frightened to go out, even though there is little or no food at home," Ms Fleming said.


The "mercenary" hype in Libya is already causing attacks on Africans. A Turkish construction worker told the 'BBC': "We had 70-80 people from Chad working for our company. They were cut dead with pruning shears and axes, attackers saying: 'You are providing troops for Ghaddafi.' The Sudanese were also massacred. We saw it for ourselves."


Meanwhile, more worrying reports are coming from Libyan protesters, seemingly convinced African "mercenaries" are the main enemy. Only yesterday, a video was distributed over the internet showing the distribution of heavy arms to protesters to "defend themselves against mercenaries."


But not all Libyan protesters pronounce hatred towards the "mercenaries". A recent video documents how protesters protect an alleged mercenary from a lynching mob after capturing him. And from the "liberated" Kufra Oasis, Libyan youths as their first action helped a large number of stranded Chadians to return to their country.

The Gambia: A Dictator's Anti-Media War

By Alagi Yorro Jallow, 

Originally published in Pambazuka

The disappearance of editors and journalists, destruction of property and threat of imprisonment and harm by Jammeh’s National Intelligence Agency officers mean Gambian media outlets must either praise the ruling party or close their doors. Alagi Yorro Jallow, once an editor of a now closed private Gambian publication, discusses the Gambian government crackdown on the media and regulations under which a Gambian journalist must work.

This month marks the sixteenth anniversary of the military takeover in The Gambia, in which President Yahya Jammeh ascended to power via coup d’état. A former wrestler and soldier, Jammeh has proven himself a tough man to deal with, as the Gambian media has discovered.

Before the military takeover, The Gambia was known as the ‘smiling coast,’ a place of sunshine, hospitality and generosity. It was home to the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, as well as the African Center for Democracy and Human Rights. It represented one of the oldest multi-party democracies in a continent beset by military take-overs and despotic regimes.

All of this changed in July 1994, when a group of junior army officers overthrew the thirty-year government of Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara. The officers first installed themselves as military overlords, and in 1996 rigged the constitution and fixed the presidential elections in favor of their contender. At that time, Jammeh purported to transform himself into a civilian candidate, campaigning on a platform of anticorruption, transparency and decency in all manner of governance.

Western reaction to the coup was swift, and foreign aid dwindled. In search of new allies, Jammeh and the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council made overtures to Libya, Taiwan, Cuba, Nigeria, Iran, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania and Kuwait. These overtures came to form the basis of the country’s foreign relations under Jammeh.

Jammeh assured Gambians that he welcomed their ideas, challenging the press to ‘criticize us where we are wrong and contribute where you can contribute.’ In practice, however, the regime targeted private media and freedom of expression from the outset. On August 4, 1994, Jammeh promulgated Decree Number 4, which denied Gambians the right to discuss political views and express themselves collectively as members of political parties. The government also conducted regular raids on the independent press, subjecting journalists to harassment and deportation.

In the years that have followed, the scale of such attacks has only increased. Government actors regularly wage violence against private media outlets and journalists that publish articles deemed inaccurate or unfavorable to the junta. Such violence can take the form of harassment, detention at the hands of National Intelligence Agency officers, arson and destruction of property, arbitrary arrest, torture and even murder. As a result, Gambian journalists have little choice but to practice self-censorship in their daily work.

Despite national and international concern over the climate of fear and repression in The Gambia, not a single police investigation has culminated in the successful prosecution of anyone responsible for crimes against the media or opponents of the regime. Ebrima Chief Manneh, a reporter with the pro-government Daily Observer, has been missing since July 7, 2007 and is said to be held by the National Intelligence Agency. The agency has repeatedly denied holding him, but reports from local media confirm that Manneh has been held incommunicado in different locations, including the Mile 2 Central Prison and, most recently, Fatoto Police Station.

Newspapers have been transformed into mouthpieces for the ruling party, the Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction (APRC), or otherwise subjected to heavy censorship. Reports on Gambia Radio and Television Services focus on Jammeh’s ‘achievements,’ including his farming skills and his so-called treatment of HIV/AIDS, while ignoring the most newsworthy national events. The president has virtually succeeded in breaking the backbone of the independent media, either by illegally closing down media houses critical of the regime or by reducing them to mere singers of praise.

President Jammeh himself has not held a press conference since 1994. He normally talks only to handpicked representatives of pro-government media houses, and most members of the independent press are routinely left out of state functions and other newsworthy events.

After sixteen years of rule under the leadership of Jammeh and the APRC, The Gambia has descended into chaos. Its citizens live in a fear of reprisals and harassment by government lackeys, its economy is in tatters, its media have been muzzled, and the social fabric of this once peaceful land is in danger of disintegration. A free press is unlikely to emerge in The Gambia unless and until the country adopts and sustains a solid democratic culture, an independent judiciary, and a respectable, apolitical military that is eager and willing to serve under a democratic commander-in-chief.

Alagi Yorro Jallow is founder and former managing editor of the Independent, The Gambia’s only private newspaper before it was banned by the government in 2005. He is currently in residence as a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy.

The Twilight of Tyranny?

By John Feffer, March 1, 2011

Back in 2005, Congress considered a bill to remove two dictators a year for the next 20 years. "Some people think a world without tyrants is utopian," former U.S. ambassador to Hungary Mark Palmer told me that year. "And they think it's more utopian to have a deadline." Palmer, whose book Breaking the Real Axis of Evil inspired the ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2005, continued: "we're down to a limited number of dictators, and it's entirely feasible to get the rest of them out. Most are pretty creaky and won't even live until 2025!"

The ADVANCE Democracy Act picked up only 17 co-sponsors in the House and died in committee in 2007. That same year, President George W. Bush's pledge to support "democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," was no more successful. Democracy promotion was fatally weakened by the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. economic and military support for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and several other authoritarian regimes over the years – a double-strength double standard – dealt this philosophy a death blow.

But today, pundits on both the left and the right are again dreaming of a world without tyrants. For them, a 2025 deadline is far too generous deadline.

Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia's Ben Ali are now gone. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi commands a dwindling number of supporters. Ali Abdullah Saleh is facing daily protests in Yemen. Paul Biya in Cameroon and Omar Bongo of Gabon might be in the next hot seats. Protests in China and Cuba, though small and immediately squelched, have drawn inspiration from the popular uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. Dictators everywhere are calling their Swiss bankers and readying their escape jets. Perhaps North Korea's Kim Jong Il is reserving one of Robert Mugabe's villas in Zimbabwe, where he and his family might join Gaddafi in the last refuge for scoundrels.

Are we seeing the beginning of the end of an era that stretches back to the very origins of human political organization? And will Bush and his neoconservative advisors go down in history as philosopher-kings who, however unwittingly, set the wrecking ball in motion against the entire edifice of tyranny – rather than just targeting the tyrants not on our payroll?

To answer these questions, pundits are digging into history to find the most appropriate parallel to the current uprisings: the "springtime of nations" in 1848 when popular revolts spread throughout Europe and as far away as Brazil; the transformations in World War I's wake, the Russian revolution, and Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points; and the victories for self-determination during the decolonization that followed World War II.

Perhaps the best comparison is the end of last century’s cataclysmic change. The late 1980s and early 1990s saw the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, authoritarianism in South Korea, and apartheid in South Africa. "In 1991 alone, over 30 African countries were rocked by pro-democracy revolts," writes Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) contributor Francis Njubi Nesbitt in A Middle Eastern Dream Deferred? "Millions turned out for peaceful pro-democracy demonstrations.  Military dictatorships fell like dominos. Between 1985 and 1989 only five countries held competitive elections – Botswana, Gambia, Mauritius, Senegal, and Zimbabwe. From 1990-1994, more than 38 countries held truly competitive elections of which 29 openly challenged dictators." 

So far, the uprisings haven't been quite as influential. Nor are they achieving systemic change. Egypt's and Tunisia's military brass and political elite remain in charge. But it's early in the game. If public protests persist – as they have in Tunisia, resulting in the departure of the prime minister and two other ministers from the previous regime – some form of democracy might prevail, with real political parties and contested elections.

One conventional explanation for why democracy will eventually win out is that, whatever its virtues or flaws, it's the political system perfectly matched to the technology of our times. Tyrants can't compete against Twitter, WikiLeaks, and blogging. One-person rule requires control of the mass media. North Korea's Kim Il Sung, by using films as a principal mode of propaganda, understood the importance of controlling the message. But YouTube and DVDs of South Korean soap operas have eroded that monopoly. These technologies are the equivalent of arming the population. It equips them with the means of linking and friending movements into existence.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have supported the use of these technologies as public diplomacy tools for promoting democracy. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently noted that: "We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship. We are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them in local languages, and with the training they need to access the internet safely." But this contention that technology is the mother of revolution – and the United States the midwife of this revolution – doesn't fully explain why we're experiencing the twilight of tyranny.

Here's why advocates of democracy promotion may well be right about tyranny's end – but not about how we will get there.

First, the events taking place in the Middle East aren't happening because of U.S. policy but despite it. Washington favors stability above all, because the status quois both predictable and favorable to the United States. This explains the double standard of supporting democracy in Iraq but not Saudi Arabia – a position many conservatives uphold in their lamentations over Mubarak's fall, as FPIF contributor M. Junaid Levesque-Alam points out in Focal Points. It also explains why the Obama administration hesitated to support the uprisings until it became clear that the status quo was no longer tenable. Even then, as FPIF contributor Fouad Pervez explains in Democracy Doesn't Equal Instability, "the Obama administration backed a transition to Omar Suleiman in the interests of preserving 'stability,' or more appropriately, existing conditions. If the army opts to implement some reforms but still tries to maintain much of the status quo, will Washington protest?"

Second, neocons assumed that new democracies would be pro-American, much as Eastern Europe backed U.S. foreign policy during the Bush years when "old Europe" equivocated. But new democracies like Indonesia and South Africa have proven rather independent in their global perspectives and favor a more equitable distribution of power in the international system. A democratic Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran will likely make geopolitics harder – not easier – for the United States (at least for those who hang on to the notion of U.S. economic and military supremacy). Democracy is more unpredictable than the House of Saud.

Finally, the uprisings were a response to economic injustice: the rise in food prices, exasperation over corruption, and the lack of jobs for 20-somethings. This injustice isn't merely a function of local conditions. As the UN University's World Institute for Development Economics Research discovered several years ago, the richest 10 percent of the world own 85 percent of all global assets, while the poorest 50 percent own a mere one percent. This gap is growing. The division of the world into rich and poor, what Citigroup describes as a “plutonomy and everyone else,” worries even big financial services companies like Allianz.

The tyrants are gone or on their way out the door. The bankers and plutocrats are worried that their turn is next. Whether in Egypt or in Wisconsin, democracy is not an end in itself – but a means to challenge economic tyranny. Those protesting in the Arab world don't just want to live in truth, like Vaclav Havel: they want to live in justice. Perhaps one day soon, Congress will debate a bill called the ADVANCE Economic Democracy Act that promotes fair trade, strong protections for workers and the environment, a financial transactions tax, and other ways of bridging the ruinous, destabilizing, and fundamentally undemocratic gap between rich and poor. Only then will night fall on tyranny.

SENEGAL/GAMBIA RELATION State To State; People To State And People To People

The exportation of Iranian arms to our sub-region which is dramatized by the seizure of 13 containers carrying anti aircraft ammunition, rockets, mortars, and grenades in Nigeria has put Gambia and Senegal in the spotlight. Since there is an armed uprising in Casamance the issue of the weapons has become a security concern in Senegal as skirmishes between the Senegalese troops and the Casamance combatants lead to deaths. This has led Radio and Television stations as well as the press to invite Government Officials, Academics, Human Rights Defenders, Media Practitioners and Religious leaders to express their concerns. Foroyaa has followed the debate. 

Some of the comments do not make any separation between the Governments and the people. If they are in Senegal they would say that Gambians have inferiority complex because of their size and tend to be aggressive against every Senegalese as a way of showing that they are not inferior. Some would argue that there is a hidden agenda by the state in The Gambia to link Casamance with Gambia and Bissau to build an empire. Some have accused the Gambian state of arming the Casamance Independentists and have questioned why the Senegalese state has not broken relation with the Gambian state.

In our view, there can be no proper analysis unless one separates government from people and evaluate how the two States relate to each other; how each state relates to the people and how the people relate to each other.

An objective analysis would reveal that the Casamance crisis started when neither Jammeh nor Wade had become head of state. It started during the time of Jawara and Joof in Senegal. The crisis has been fueled since 1982 which is 29 years ago. Our findings reveal that contrary to the impression being given that the Casamance Independentists are fighting military men from the North of Senegal many people who are posted in Casamance are also from Casamance. The news of the most recent killing of soldiers was investigated by Foroyaa and we have discovered that one of the soldiers has Jola speaking relatives in the Gambia. The person concerned had recently returned from studies and has in fact married a wife recently. Which state is Gaining from such deaths? It goes without saying that Millions are being spent to maintain troops in Casamance. This has led to thousands of farms being abandoned and families have had to leave Casamance to settle in The Gambia. The children of many of these settlers do not go very far in school. Some become maids and gardeners in homes while others become labour hands. Those who become fighters stay in the bush without going to school or learning skills. In short, if they were to abandon the fight today they would not be able to live productive lives other than farming. Neither the Gambian state nor the Senegalese state is benefiting from the war. In fact, the fighting among the combatants is resulting in more deaths and arrests than there engagement with the states. Many Gambians have died because of landmines and neighbouring Gambian villages have experienced relative insecurity and invasion of refuges from the border area. The addiction of Gambian youths from Narcotics peddled from the border area constitutes a social menace that is not serving the interest of either state. The recent discovery of arms and ammunition abandoned in gardens of Gambian women and other farm lands pose a real threat to the population of the Gambia . There is no doubt that it is in the interest of the Gambian people to have a developed Casamance which would be able to guarantee the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of her people. Few Gambians would support the continuation of war in Casamance. The analysts should not attack the Gambian people or the Senegalese people. They should say that the two countries are yet to have governments which have put the mission to end the Casamance crisis at the top of the agenda. This is why the state to state relation of the two governments continues to vacillate from cooperation to confrontation. These policies are the creation of states not the people. If the state to people´s relation was such that the policies of the Governments emanate from the people then there would be no war in Casamance. What is therefore necessary is for the fraternal people to people relation which exists between the two peoples to continue and mutual solidarity be shown to have their civil, political, economic, social and social rights safeguarded. This is what all mature Senegalese and Gambians should advocate for and propagate to ensure lasting peace in our sub-region and beyond.


Source:thepoint.gm

U.K halts aid to Russia, China,Gambia,Niger UN agencies

AFP — London on Tuesday slashed 16 countries including Russia and China from the list of nations it gives financial aid to and said it would no longer fund four "irrelevant" UN aid organisations.

Angola and Vietnam are also among countries that will see their aid budgets phased out between now and 2016.

International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell said the government was halting contributions to the four United Nations aid organisations because they "performed poorly or failed to demonstrate relevance".

He told parliament it was "no longer acceptable" for Britain to fund the UN Industrial Development Organisation, UN-Habitat, the International Labour Organisation, and the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

The cut in funding to the UN bodies is expected to save more than £50 million.

Under the new aid policy, Britain will spend more in war-torn countries like Afghanistan and Somalia to provide greater security for British interests.

"Aid can perform miracles but it must be well spent and properly targeted," Mitchell said.

He was forced to fend off claims from some aid groups that the government was putting Britain's security concerns ahead of aid priorities.

World Development Movement head of policy Julian Oram said: "What we are concerned about is the focus on a smaller number of countries, which actually takes money away from some of the world's poorest countries, like Niger, Angola and Cambodia and channels it into countries where there is deemed to be a higher security risk to the UK.

"The securitisation of aid is a real concern under the outcomes of this review."

But Mitchell responded: "In terms of the suggestion that we are securitising aid, we are dealing with parts of the world where people are doubly cursed -- not only because they live in extreme poverty but also because they live in very conflicted societies."

He added: "This is about value for money. It is about ensuring that, for every pound we take off hard-pressed taxpayers, we really do deliver 100 pence (one pound) of value.

"We have got to be able to explain and articulate to the people who are paying for this why we are spending the money."

Mitchell confirmed that Britain's bilateral programmes in Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Cameroon, Cambodia, China, Gambia, Indonesia, Iraq, Kosovo, Lesotho, Moldova, Niger, Russia, Serbia and Vietnam would come to an end.