论文部分内容阅读
A mafia-like criminal order inspired by a totalitarian ideology threatens North Africa and the Sahel， with Libya now as its centerpiece.
As this radical， obscurantist and brutal form of Islam spreads and displaces traditional Islam in Libya， the emergence of the Benghazi Defense Brigades （BDB）， formed in June 2016 to oppose the Libyan national army， has plunged the country into further chaos. The BDB is locked in conflict with the Libyan army led by Major General Khalifa Haftar， who controls important parts of eastern Libya and who is still reluctant to accept the UN-backed Libyan National Unity Government led by Fayez Al-Sarraj. Both men， however， are intent on fighting the scourge of radical Islamism in the country， but underestimated the resilience of Islamic militancy.
While Sarraj has started an offensive against the radical militant group ISIS in the city of Sirte， some 450 km east of Tripoli， and tried to get all the Libyan military unified （including the forces of Haftar）， BDB has condemned such a plan and has also not concealed its connection to the former Libyan Mufti Sadek al-Ghariani， who had called on his militia to campaign against the Libyan army. If the military conflict between these four forces continues， the mission of the Libyan National Unity Government would be compromised， and the objective of unifying Libya under one legal power would be impossible to achieve.
The stark realities behind the events in Libya that have led to this volatile state of affairs were exposed by correspondence of former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton， declassified on December 31， 2015. The correspondence revealed that in 2011， Muammar Gaddafi had accumulated 143 tons of gold and 143 tons of silver， which he wanted to use to establish a new single currency for Africa and provide French-speaking African countries with “an alternative to the French franc（CFA）.” “This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar，” reads the email from Clinton. These reserves amounted to nearly $7 billion. This information sheds new light on the reasons behind NATO military intervention in Libya. The West and its Arab allies did not realize they were opening a Pandora’s box by launching a military intervention against the Libyan regime.
Vacuum of power
As soon as it became clear that the Gaddafi regime was about to collapse， Libya was almost immediately taken over by armed groups. At the time of Gaddafi’s death， on October 20， 2011， Islamist rebels were prolific. The country imploded， revealing the full extent of the violence of two linked phenomena： tribalism and Islamic fundamentalism. The handful of more or less liberal and secular politicians， who embarked on a pursuit for an idyllic Western style democratic regime， were quickly overwhelmed by the tsunami of fanatics from another age eager to “rule” the country according to Sharia （Islamic religious law）. Libya quickly became ungovernable， and completely unrecognizable. Not only had countless armed groups taken over the country， they also began to infiltrate the entire continent and probably， at least in terms of individuals and of their network， Europe.
If ISIS and other Islamist fanatics were able to take hold of Libya， it is because two groups were fighting for power： an Islamic fundamentalist government based in Tripoli and the internationally recognized Parliament in Tobruk. Moreover， Libya - like other Arab countries where uprisings occurred since 2011 - has become an open field for rivalries between foreign states， including （but not exclusively） Arab nations. In this fight， each country tries to place its pawns in a way that best serve its interests.
The leadership of ISIS does not hide their intention to use Libya as a base from which they can control North Africa， the Sahel and the Horn of Africa. However， the scale of the problem is much bigger in reality. It covers an area that extends all the way to Mali’s Sahel， which has been under constant threat from the early 2000s by groups of the former Algerian Armed Islamic Group. To the east， Tuareg and Toubou rebels also threaten Chad， not to mention Boko Haram in the southwest. In Niger， extremist groups， expelled from Mali by the French army， have retreated to the Libyan Fezzan， but regularly travel back and forth between Mali and Mauritania through the desert north.
Government of national unity
A Libyan National Unity Government - the result of a political agreement signed in December 2015 under the auspices of the UN - was established in Tripoli early this year， and has received the support of the international community. It is led by Sarraj， who is calling for the merging of all groups in the country into a single national army， without which defeating ISIS would be impossible. Although militias in the west of Libya support him， Sarraj is still unable to extend his authority throughout the country.
The African Union （AU） made it clear from the very start that it supported the Sarraj government and has reaffirmed its commitment to the unity， independence， territorial integrity， and sovereignty of Libya， stressing that there can be no military solution to the current crisis in the country. In addition， the AU has welcomed the appointment of former President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania as AU High Representative for Libya as well as the initiative led by AU Chairperson President Idriss Deby Itno of Chad， to convene “a meeting of representatives of all Libyan stakeholders to address the issue of national reconciliation.” The AU has rejected any external military interference in the country. In view of the current situation， Itno’s initiative will most surely be well received. Nevertheless， this initiative could be strengthened by securing outside support， especially among Arab countries， some of which have their “favorites” among Libyan stakeholders.
Looking ahead
Libya is facing a complex situation， but some aspects are similar to those found in other countries also affected by terrorism. First， its economic situation is a complete disaster. In 2013， the rate of youth unemployment worldwide was approximately 14 percent， but in North African countries， it ranged from 18.5 percent （in Morocco） to 51 percent （in Libya）. What will all these unemployed youths do in a country torn apart by turmoil？ The answer is obvious： Most ISIS recruits are between age 18 and 29. Among its many disastrous effects， the breaking up of Libya will lead to the destabilization of North Africa， the Sahel and the Middle East， and even beyond.
If poor governance makes it easier for young people to fall into terrorism， foreign interventions and influences are not the lesser evil. In a transition period， such interference may be even more harmful as it hides behind the pretense of “fraternal” or“humanitarian” assistance.
Unfortunately， the two countries that could exert a positive influence in order to curb the scourge of terrorism are notably absent： Egypt， mired in a longterm struggle against the violent Muslim Brotherhood and facing a similar situation in the Sinai， and Algeria， embroiled in infighting over the succession of Abdelaziz Bouteflika and struggling with an economic crisis.
The danger is imminent. Radical Islam， supported by obscurantist sponsors enriched by petrodollars， may throw Libya， and with it Tunisia， Egypt and other African countries in a storm of violence that could last many years.
As this radical， obscurantist and brutal form of Islam spreads and displaces traditional Islam in Libya， the emergence of the Benghazi Defense Brigades （BDB）， formed in June 2016 to oppose the Libyan national army， has plunged the country into further chaos. The BDB is locked in conflict with the Libyan army led by Major General Khalifa Haftar， who controls important parts of eastern Libya and who is still reluctant to accept the UN-backed Libyan National Unity Government led by Fayez Al-Sarraj. Both men， however， are intent on fighting the scourge of radical Islamism in the country， but underestimated the resilience of Islamic militancy.
While Sarraj has started an offensive against the radical militant group ISIS in the city of Sirte， some 450 km east of Tripoli， and tried to get all the Libyan military unified （including the forces of Haftar）， BDB has condemned such a plan and has also not concealed its connection to the former Libyan Mufti Sadek al-Ghariani， who had called on his militia to campaign against the Libyan army. If the military conflict between these four forces continues， the mission of the Libyan National Unity Government would be compromised， and the objective of unifying Libya under one legal power would be impossible to achieve.
The stark realities behind the events in Libya that have led to this volatile state of affairs were exposed by correspondence of former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton， declassified on December 31， 2015. The correspondence revealed that in 2011， Muammar Gaddafi had accumulated 143 tons of gold and 143 tons of silver， which he wanted to use to establish a new single currency for Africa and provide French-speaking African countries with “an alternative to the French franc（CFA）.” “This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar，” reads the email from Clinton. These reserves amounted to nearly $7 billion. This information sheds new light on the reasons behind NATO military intervention in Libya. The West and its Arab allies did not realize they were opening a Pandora’s box by launching a military intervention against the Libyan regime.
Vacuum of power
As soon as it became clear that the Gaddafi regime was about to collapse， Libya was almost immediately taken over by armed groups. At the time of Gaddafi’s death， on October 20， 2011， Islamist rebels were prolific. The country imploded， revealing the full extent of the violence of two linked phenomena： tribalism and Islamic fundamentalism. The handful of more or less liberal and secular politicians， who embarked on a pursuit for an idyllic Western style democratic regime， were quickly overwhelmed by the tsunami of fanatics from another age eager to “rule” the country according to Sharia （Islamic religious law）. Libya quickly became ungovernable， and completely unrecognizable. Not only had countless armed groups taken over the country， they also began to infiltrate the entire continent and probably， at least in terms of individuals and of their network， Europe.
If ISIS and other Islamist fanatics were able to take hold of Libya， it is because two groups were fighting for power： an Islamic fundamentalist government based in Tripoli and the internationally recognized Parliament in Tobruk. Moreover， Libya - like other Arab countries where uprisings occurred since 2011 - has become an open field for rivalries between foreign states， including （but not exclusively） Arab nations. In this fight， each country tries to place its pawns in a way that best serve its interests.
The leadership of ISIS does not hide their intention to use Libya as a base from which they can control North Africa， the Sahel and the Horn of Africa. However， the scale of the problem is much bigger in reality. It covers an area that extends all the way to Mali’s Sahel， which has been under constant threat from the early 2000s by groups of the former Algerian Armed Islamic Group. To the east， Tuareg and Toubou rebels also threaten Chad， not to mention Boko Haram in the southwest. In Niger， extremist groups， expelled from Mali by the French army， have retreated to the Libyan Fezzan， but regularly travel back and forth between Mali and Mauritania through the desert north.
Government of national unity
A Libyan National Unity Government - the result of a political agreement signed in December 2015 under the auspices of the UN - was established in Tripoli early this year， and has received the support of the international community. It is led by Sarraj， who is calling for the merging of all groups in the country into a single national army， without which defeating ISIS would be impossible. Although militias in the west of Libya support him， Sarraj is still unable to extend his authority throughout the country.
The African Union （AU） made it clear from the very start that it supported the Sarraj government and has reaffirmed its commitment to the unity， independence， territorial integrity， and sovereignty of Libya， stressing that there can be no military solution to the current crisis in the country. In addition， the AU has welcomed the appointment of former President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania as AU High Representative for Libya as well as the initiative led by AU Chairperson President Idriss Deby Itno of Chad， to convene “a meeting of representatives of all Libyan stakeholders to address the issue of national reconciliation.” The AU has rejected any external military interference in the country. In view of the current situation， Itno’s initiative will most surely be well received. Nevertheless， this initiative could be strengthened by securing outside support， especially among Arab countries， some of which have their “favorites” among Libyan stakeholders.
Looking ahead
Libya is facing a complex situation， but some aspects are similar to those found in other countries also affected by terrorism. First， its economic situation is a complete disaster. In 2013， the rate of youth unemployment worldwide was approximately 14 percent， but in North African countries， it ranged from 18.5 percent （in Morocco） to 51 percent （in Libya）. What will all these unemployed youths do in a country torn apart by turmoil？ The answer is obvious： Most ISIS recruits are between age 18 and 29. Among its many disastrous effects， the breaking up of Libya will lead to the destabilization of North Africa， the Sahel and the Middle East， and even beyond.
If poor governance makes it easier for young people to fall into terrorism， foreign interventions and influences are not the lesser evil. In a transition period， such interference may be even more harmful as it hides behind the pretense of “fraternal” or“humanitarian” assistance.
Unfortunately， the two countries that could exert a positive influence in order to curb the scourge of terrorism are notably absent： Egypt， mired in a longterm struggle against the violent Muslim Brotherhood and facing a similar situation in the Sinai， and Algeria， embroiled in infighting over the succession of Abdelaziz Bouteflika and struggling with an economic crisis.
The danger is imminent. Radical Islam， supported by obscurantist sponsors enriched by petrodollars， may throw Libya， and with it Tunisia， Egypt and other African countries in a storm of violence that could last many years.