Libya: from the most developed country in Africa to a modern slave market

[antihenry]

Migrants from west Africa being ‘sold in Libyan slave markets’.

UN migration agency says selling of people is rife in African nation that has slid into violent chaos since overthrow of Gaddafi.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/10/libya-public-slave-auctions-un-migration

 

[SwansonsTache]

Yet another astonishing success with intervention. Result is a country in chaos and Europe flooded with migrants.

You truly do have to wonder why we persist. The only successfull intervention in history probably was the South African mercs Executive Outcomes in Sierra Leone.

 

[villain]

Gaddafi was a leader that Libya needed, he knew how to rule his people and the country thrived as a result.

Not every country can, or will benefit from, being run as a democracy.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

I posted this in the general CE chat but yeah Clinton's disastrous rein as Secretary of State and helping oust Gaddafi truly fecked up that entire region.

 

[antihenry]

‘They are not treated like humans’.

Abuse of migrants is becoming systematic in Libya, raising questions about European agreements to pay the North African country to stem the flow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/wo...hriving-migrant-trade/?utm_term=.59f28d2c38fe

 

[Carolina Red]

Gaddafi was a leader that Libya needed, he knew how to rule his people and the country thrived as a result.

Not every country can, or will benefit from, being run as a democracy.

"Better the devil you know.."

 

[Sweet Square]

Not every country can, or will benefit from, being run as a democracy.

Mate, that's a completely stupid opinion to have.

 

[adexkola]

Gaddafi was a leader that Libya needed, he knew how to rule his people and the country thrived as a result.

Not every country can, or will benefit from, being run as a democracy.

"Thrived" is laying it on a bit thick. But yes, they were better off under Gaddafi.

 

[villain]

"Better the devil you know.."

Sounds good in theory, but unfortunately asserting democracy on every country won't work.

Mate, that's a completely stupid opinion to have.

It's absolutely not.
I'm not criticising democracy at all, just that not every country is at the stage of development as the UK or US for example.
Plus in terms of 'freedom' not every country is as 'free' either. Whether rightly or wrongly, ironically, generally the countries which democracy suits best, are former coloniser's which have benefitted from oppressing countries like Libya for hundreds of years in some examples.
For a country like Libya, it was better for the average Libyan to live under dictatorship rather than terrorism in his absence - which is what they are experiencing now.

"Thrived" is laying it on a bit thick. But yes, they were better off under Gaddafi.

Free healthcare, education, low debt, cheap fuel, privitisation of oil etc, it was by no means perfect, but in comparison it was doing pretty well.

 

[Jippy]

Mate, that's a completely stupid opinion to have.

Some countries are only held together by a strong leader. Look at Libya or Iraq now or how Yugoslavia collapsed after Tito died.
No-one's saying it's ideal or forever, but the chaos now is definitely no improvement.

 

[Will Absolute]

I remember thinking at the time how stupid the intervention was.

There was a fat, blond girl on Sky - their Middle East correspondent, I think she was - who behaved like a kind of cheerleader for bombing. Sky have since rewarded her excellent journalism by making her their Washington correspondent.

 

[adexkola]

Free healthcare, education, low debt, cheap fuel, privitisation of oil etc, it was by no means perfect, but in comparison it was doing pretty well.

Bankrolled by high oil prices. The economy sputtered when the price of oil fell below a determined threshold.

 

[11101]

I suppose it comes down to whether you think an evil dictator who murders his own people is better than having them in turmoil murdering themselves.

 

[Adisa]

Should have left Gadaffi alone.

 

[Carolina Red]

Sounds good in theory, but unfortunately asserting democracy on every country won't work.

"Better the devil you know than the one you don't" supports your statement though...

 

[villain]

Bankrolled by high oil prices. The economy sputtered when the price of oil fell below a determined threshold.

You find that with any country that relies on oil as it's main economic boost.
Plus he was working on deals to centralise Libya & other African country's exporting of raw materials for a fairer price, which would have brought in a substantial amount of wealth.
Not to say it would have happened or the other country's would have agreed - but it certainly shows that he was thinking beyond just relying on oil in the long term.

"Better the devil you know than the one you don't" supports your statement though...

My bad, I thought you were calling democracy the devil you know

 

[Carolina Red]

My bad, I thought you were calling democracy the devil you know

No worries.

The idea of removing people from power and nation building is such a razors edge kind of thing. When we look to our successes in the past with that, Germany and Japan, you could see why the US would think they can continue that policy, but it seems forgotten that the occupying forces in those places were very large, they were very well led (MacArthur), and the occupation was done after a conventional military force formally surrendered.

We haven't been willing to commit the resources, and several other factors that existed in Germany and Japan that helped us immensely simply do not exist in the countries we've been trying to build up.

 

[villain]

No worries.

The idea of removing people from power and nation building is such a razors edge kind of thing. When we look to our successes in the past with that, Germany and Japan, you could see why the US would think they can continue that policy, but it seems forgotten that the occupying forces in those places were very large, they were very well led (MacArthur), and the occupation was done after a conventional military force formally surrendered.

We haven't been willing to commit the resources, and several other factors that existed in Germany and Japan that helped us immensely simply do not exist in the countries we've been trying to build up.

I agree, in principle asserting democracy is the most favourable method to bring stability to unstable country. But each country should be treated individually, and especially in regions with complicated history which is especially relevant for the African & Middle Eastern countries.

 

[Will Absolute]

No worries.

The idea of removing people from power and nation building is such a razors edge kind of thing. When we look to our successes in the past with that, Germany and Japan, you could see why the US would think they can continue that policy, but it seems forgotten that the occupying forces in those places were very large, they were very well led (MacArthur), and the occupation was done after a conventional military force formally surrendered.

We haven't been willing to commit the resources, and several other factors that existed in Germany and Japan that helped us immensely simply do not exist in the countries we've been trying to build up.

Germany and Japan were defeated in war, but retained their strong sense of national identity. In those circumstances economic reconstruction, and the replacement of a discredited autocracy by a democratic system of government, is not an impossible task.

Outsiders, with little knowledge, smashing a societies institutions in the hope that a united nation will somehow emerge from the rubble of a disunited people, is a horse of a different colour.

 

[Carolina Red]

Germany and Japan were defeated in war, but retained their strong sense of national identity. In those circumstances economic reconstruction, and the replacement of a discredited autocracy by a democratic system of government, is not an impossible task.

Outsiders, with little knowledge, smashing a societies institutions in the hope that a united nation will somehow emerge from the rubble of a disunited people, is a horse of a different colour.

I agree completely with this.

 

[Jippy]

Germany and Japan were defeated in war, but retained their strong sense of national identity. In those circumstances economic reconstruction, and the replacement of a discredited autocracy by a democratic system of government, is not an impossible task.

Outsiders, with little knowledge, smashing a societies institutions in the hope that a united nation will somehow emerge from the rubble of a disunited people, is a horse of a different colour.

True, but Japan didn't really have the ethnic and religious diversity of some of these more troubled countries though.

 

[utdalltheway]

Mate, that's a completely stupid opinion to have.

Be nice!
He's not wrong in this. Look at what happened Yugoslavia as soon as Tito was gone - total feckin bedlam. Same for Iraq with Saddam. Same for Libya with Gaddaffi.....

 

[Sweet Square]

It's absolutely not.
I'm not criticising democracy at all, just that not every country is at the stage of development as the UK or US for example.
Plus in terms of 'freedom' not every country is as 'free' either. Whether rightly or wrongly, ironically, generally the countries which democracy suits best, are former coloniser's which have benefitted from oppressing countries like Libya for hundreds of years in some examples.
For a country like Libya, it was better for the average Libyan to live under dictatorship rather than terrorism in his absence - which is what they are experiencing now.

The causes of the turmoil in Libya now are not down to the stage of its ''development''(I'm not sure what you mean by this)or that somehow the Libya people and democracy is incompatible(That is what you were implying), it is down to constant intervention by outside forces.

Some countries are only held together by a strong leader. Look at Libya or Iraq now or how Yugoslavia collapsed after Tito died.
No-one's saying it's ideal or forever, but the chaos now is definitely no improvement.

Be nice!
He's not wrong in this. Look at what happened Yugoslavia as soon as Tito was gone - total feckin bedlam. Same for Iraq with Saddam. Same for Libya with Gaddaffi.....

Stronger leaders that at one stage where backed by Western power. But anyway I'm not arguing in favour of Western intervention. Just saying that the problems in Libya are nothing to do with a rejection of democracy(The intervention in 2011 had nothing to do with democracy).

 

[Brwned]

Yet another astonishing success with intervention. Result is a country in chaos and Europe flooded with migrants.

You truly do have to wonder why we persist. The only successfull intervention in history probably was the South African mercs Executive Outcomes in Sierra Leone.

The potential economic benefits for the people leading the intervention outweigh the potential human cost, to the point where even a small possibility of small economic benefits are more important than a large possibility of large human costs. That's been proven over and over again. Everything else is...well, you know.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Not familiar with geopolitics there....but why were people migrating into Libya? Were the surrounding nations far worse than Gadaffi's Libya?

 

[VidaRed]

Not familiar with geopolitics there....but why were people migrating into Libya? Were the surrounding nations far worse than Gadaffi's Libya?

Yes.

 

[Brwned]

Not familiar with geopolitics there....but why were people migrating into Libya? Were the surrounding nations far worse than Gadaffi's Libya?

You didn't read the article did you...

The north African nation is a major exit point for refugees from Africa trying to take boats to Europe. But since the overthrow of autocratic leader Muammar Gaddafi, the vast, sparsely populated country has slid into violent chaos and migrants with little cash and usually no papers are particularly vulnerable.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

I suppose it comes down to whether you think an evil dictator who murders 100s of his own people is better than having them in turmoil murdered in the 100,000s by evil local dictators

Fixed for accuracy

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

You didn't read the article did you...

I did read the article. Based on comments on Gadaffi before, was wondering if Libya under Gadaffi was attractive to rest of regions, which surprises me. Can beleive if it's just waypoint into Europe.

Read more articles and it just seems so casually cruel. Killing them off if nobody pays...human life has no value there.

 

[Silva]

Gaddafi was a real shit, he abused the Libyan people and funded international terrorism so let's not rewrite history and pretend his was a good reign. But it's abundantly clear that violently overthrowing dictatorial regimes usually leads to a even worse state, especially when the violent actor/liberators (depending on how you want to look at it) come from out the outside. If we're going to play an active part in overthrowing regimes like his we need to be willing to spend more money on building the country than bombing it.

 

[sammsky1]

Gaddafi was a real shit, he abused the Libyan people and funded international terrorism so let's not rewrite history and pretend his was a good reign. But it's abundantly clear that violently overthrowing dictatorial regimes usually leads to a even worse state, especially when the violent actor/liberators (depending on how you want to look at it) come from out the outside. If we're going to play an active part in overthrowing regimes like his we need to be willing to spend more money on building the country than bombing it.

Simply removing the figurehead of a functioning dictatorship and expecting better things is a most naive and irresponsible strategy. Dictators like Gadaffi will have built a loyal and committed organisation which were 1000s of people strong, through which he implemented his authoritarian dictatorship. Each sycophant had their own slice of power, riches, goons, resources and contacts.

Simply removing Gadaffi and a few others (or Sadaam and his sons) still leaves that entire infrastructure behind and a hence a huge power vacuum. It's that remaining infrastructure that subsequently splinters into many factions which causes the situation on the ground to become even worse.

This was how ISIS was able to form, why the Arab Spring ultimately failed and why we see these issues in Libya today.

 

[Carolina Red]

Simply removing the figurehead of a functioning dictatorship and expecting better things is a most naive and irresponsible strategy. People like Gadaffi will have built a loyal and committed organisation which were 1000s of people strong, through which he implemented his authoritarian dictatorship. Each of these people had their own slice of power, riches, resources and contacts.

Simply removing Gadaffi and a few others (or Sadaam and his sons) still leaves that entire infrastructure behind and a hence a huge power vacuum. It's that remaining infrastructure that subsequently splinters into many factions and causes the situation on the ground to become even worse.

This was why ISIS was allowed to form, why the Arab Spring ultimately failed and why we see these issues in Libya today.

Well said.

 

[RedTiger]

Not familiar with geopolitics there....but why were people migrating into Libya? Were the surrounding nations far worse than Gadaffi's Libya?

As the OP said, Libya was probably the most developed country in Africa.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

Simply removing the figurehead of a functioning dictatorship and expecting better things is a most naive and irresponsible strategy. People like Gadaffi will have built a loyal and committed organisation which were 1000s of people strong, through which he implemented his authoritarian dictatorship. Each of these people had their own slice of power, riches, resources and contacts.

Simply removing Gadaffi and a few others (or Sadaam and his sons) still leaves that entire infrastructure behind and a hence a huge power vacuum. It's that remaining infrastructure that subsequently splinters into many factions and causes the situation on the ground to become even worse.

This was why ISIS was allowed to form, why the Arab Spring ultimately failed and why we see these issues in Libya today.

This is what people missed in the debate about Assad. It's not a matter of simply removing the head of state; it's replacing an entire bureaucracy.

 

[2cents]

This is what people missed in the debate about Assad. It's not a matter of simply removing the head of state; it's replacing an entire bureaucracy.

The Americans tried it in Iraq with so-called de-Bathification. What a feck up that was. There's no way of doing it I think except committing the kind of resources that no modern Western state will bear - i.e. overwhelming power with troops on every urban street corner, martial law for an indefinite period of time, and basically convince the local population that you're there to stay for as long as it takes. Only when that's done is it in any way realistic to start talking about a transfer of power or elections and whatever. Seems easier just to not get involved in the first place.

Some countries are only held together by a strong leader.

Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but that is exactly the way the dictators want, and design, it to be.

Though having said that, you could argue that the dictators are products of these states' political culture.

No easy answers, or any answers at all really.

 

[Stanley Road]

Dunno what to think about african countries and middle east anymore. Dont intervene loads of people die, do intervene and loads of people die

 

[Carolina Red]

Some countries are only held together by a strong leader. Look at Libya or Iraq now or how Yugoslavia collapsed after Tito died.
No-one's saying it's ideal or forever, but the chaos now is definitely no improvement.

Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but that is exactly the way the dictators want, and design, it to be.

Though having said that, you could argue that the dictators are products of these states' political culture.

No easy answers, or any answers at all really.

The effect of physical geography on a nation or region's political/governmental structures has been fascinating to me since I started studying political science. There are some physical geographies that are simply more inclined toward one system of government over another.

 

[Stanley Road]

How was the conflict in Rwanda solved?

 

[2cents]

The effect of physical geography on a nation or region's political/governmental structures has been fascinating to me since I started studying political science. There are some physical geographies that are simply more inclined toward one system of government over another.

That's absolutely true, the best example I can think of is Egypt - basically a single river valley along which 98% of the population live. Which is why Egypt has a millennia old distinct national identity and has a relatively (compared to its neighbours) placid political culture - the geography is made for a strong, centralised state.

 

[Jippy]

The Americans tried it in Iraq with so-called de-Bathification. What a feck up that was. There's no way of doing it I think except committing the kind of resources that no modern Western state will bear - i.e. overwhelming power with troops on every urban street corner, martial law for an indefinite period of time, and basically convince the local population that you're there to stay for as long as it takes. Only when that's done is it in any way realistic to start talking about a transfer of power or elections and whatever. Seems easier just to not get involved in the first place.



Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but that is exactly the way the dictators want, and design, it to be.

Though having said that, you could argue that the dictators are products of these states' political culture.

No easy answers, or any answers at all really.

I know, it's clearly not perfect accepting a Saddam cos the alternative is worse.
We can take it back to the interregnum in England when it fell apart when Cromwell died- he was the only guy that could hold the parliament and army together. That was nearly 400 years ago and we haven't got much better at it since.

The effect of physical geography on a nation or region's political/governmental structures has been fascinating to me since I started studying political science. There are some physical geographies that are simply more inclined toward one system of government over another.

Me too. I did an IR masters, with a major SE Asia focus and LKY in Singapore and Mahathir in Malaysia were fascinating. Some countries are better served by a strong leader.

How was the conflict in Rwanda solved?

From memory it was a Brlgian mess, but in a rare exhibition of backbone, the French sacked off the dithering UN etc and intervened to sort it.