When it comes to where the Libyan infighting between ethnicities and
ideologies would lead the country I would venture to say that they would undoubtedly
lead to chaos and fragmentation. The conflict between Libyans of Arab descents
and those of African descent such as the Tebu and Tawariq or the struggle for
power between ideologies such as secularism versus Islamism would only ignite
civil wars only Allah (God) knows where they would lead. Such looming dangers
due to the existence of rival groups whether in terms of ethnicity, regionalism
or ideology are not peculiar to Libya but exist in almost all of the African
and Middle Eastern countries from Morocco to Bahrain. Having said that I would
like to show you the realities of such dangers by looking at countries in
Africa and the Middle East just to show you how such situations could be
exploited by internal and external forces to sow the seeds of divisions which
would most likely lead to the fragmentations of such countries into hapless and
helpless enclaves that would crowed the United Nations as independent states or
to borrow the term “Tribes with flags” which was coined by the American author
and journalist Charles Glass who used it to describe the Arab princedoms and
sheikhdoms in the Gulf region .
A case in point is the ongoing conflict between
Arab and Tebu tribes in southern Libya that resulted in an appeal by the Tebu
leadership to the UN Security Council asking for help against what they
described as a systematic genocide being perpetrated against them by Arab
tribes. Another example is the recent declaration by the Tawariq leadership,
located in the vicinity of northern Mali, of creating a homeland for the
Tawariq people named Azawad. If you think that such a move would be contained
in the areas that are currently under the Tawariq control right now I would
say, think again and real hard this time.
To begin with it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that
most of these countries whether in Africa or the Middle East are homes to
different groups some of whom belong or subscribe to different cultures,
religions, ethnicities, languages not to mention political and economic
ambitions. Do you know that in Nigeria alone there are 521 languages? Even
though English is the official language there are other major languages spoken
by different segments of the population including Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba,
Fulfulde, Kanuri and Ibibio. Along with languages, Nigeria is the home to about
250 ethnic groups with of course different customs and traditions. Ethnic
groups such as the Fulani, Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo make up 68% of the population
while groups including the Kanuri, Ijaw, Edo, Ibibio, Ebira, Tiv and Nupe make
up about 27% of the population. The other ethnic groups are smaller and make up
about 7% of the population. I bet this piece of information adds a whole new
dimension to the mix regarding the current clandestine assaults being waged by
militants belonging to the radical Islamic group known as Boko Haram meaning
“Western education is sacrilege” against the Christians in the south and the
Nigerian secular government.
When it comes to Africa the situation involving cramming people of
different ethnicities and cultures in demarcated territories is the product of
the scramble for African colonies that began in earnest in the year 1880,
spearheaded by countries such England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Belgium
and the Netherlands. Since the main objectives for colonizing Africa was to
siphon the continent’s riches only scant attention was paid to the diverse
populations when the boarders were drawn at the Berlin Conference (1884-1885).
As a matter of fact almost all of the boarders that nowadays separate countries
in Africa and the Middle East date back to the colonial period. Having
colonized Egypt and the Sudan England, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, drew the boarders of the latter regardless of the makeup of
the population particularly in terms of ethnicity, religion and cultural
traditions thus leaving behind a ticking time bomb that detonated first in 1955
in a civil war between the North and the South that lasted till 1972 and second
in 1983 and that lasted till 2005. Both civil wars cost thousands of lives not
to mention widespread devastation and displacement of people on both sides.
Along with the Sudan the effect of such demographic disparities was
mainly responsible for conflicts and devastations in a number of African
states. Let us take Rwanda for example the British and before them the Belgians
not only established boarders encircling two groups who harbor traditional
hostilities towards each other namely the Hutus and the Tutsis but also pursued
a policy of “divide and conquer” by favoring the Tutsis over the Hutus thus
exasperating the situation that eventually erupted in the bloody genocide of
1994 after the plane carrying the Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana and his
host Burundi President Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down while approaching
Kigali airport and which culminated in the death of about 800.000 Rwandans most
of them Tutsis not mention widespread destruction and displacements on a very
large scale. Thus far the roots of many other civil wars in Africa including in
Sierra Leon, Ethiopia and Eretria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(formerly Zaire) stretch all the way back to the unbridled scramble for
Africa’s riches and the creation of fragile societies that were originally
lacking in cohesion and consequently could come unglued at the first serious
threat to life and lively hood. Along with sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa
also is not immune to the resurfacing of national or ethnic frictions not to
mention simmering disenchantments and animosities towards existing social or
political orders or the statuesque as a whole. Examples of that are the
agitations by the Berber (Amazigh or Shluh) in countries such as Morocco and
Algeria to secure autonomy if not outright separation and independence.
So far the governments of Morocco and Algeria due to internal lobbying
and pressures and external prodding particularly by Western States including
the United States, France, England and Spain as well as the collective
pressures exerted by the EU (European Union) have been making concessions to
their Berber populations including acceding to their demands to celebrate their
unique cultural traditions and teach their own language (Tamazight) along with
Arabic. In the Libyan case our Berber populations have regained their rights on
the battle field against the forces of the tyrant Gathafi. If the Berber
populations have so far secured concessions from their Arab-dominated
governments, other ethnic groups particularly of African descent such as the
Tawariq who inhabit southern parts of Morocco, Algeria and Libya may not be
that far behind .Who would have thought that Egypt itself is nowadays dealing
with a similar situation and I don’t mean with the Coptic Christians. Lately
particular groups of Nubians who inhabit a southern part of Egypt have also
been calling for autonomy if not outright separation that would in their view
lead to independence.
Now let’s head east to the Middle East and see if there are identical
situations with the potential to escalate into the level of the North/South
divide in the Sudan with irreconcilable differences that are now causing
further bloodshed. Along with the local populations who have been anxious for
the opportunities to mobilize and fulfill their long cherished ambitions for
autonomy or better yet independence, the other major players who are working
behind the scenes are the old colonial states including Britain and France as
well as the United States of America. The US and Western Europe have been
through their leaders or high officials expressing willingness to countenance
future reshuffling of populations and boarders to create what they call a “New
Middle East” that is more amiable and docile. The former US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice once described the destructive war between Israel and
Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006 as simply the prelude or as she put it “the birth
pangs of a new Middle East” (The New York Times, August 10, 2006). Her comments
simply reflected a strategy that has been on the table at the Pentagon in
Washington, DC and NATO headquarters in Brussels for some time now.
Maps of the Middle East now and
afterwards which were designed by the American general Ralph Peters of the
Pentagon
As a matter of fact the plans to reshuffle the geopolitical map of the
Middle East will include almost all of the Arab countries and their populations
whether they are Arabs, Kurds, Druze, Maronite or Coptic Christians as well as
Shi’a and Sunna Muslims among others in accordance with their distributions or
their status hence being majorities or minorities. The two attached maps of the
Middle which were drawn by General Ralph Peters of the Pentagon show the
boarders that were setup by England and France following their occupation of
the area at the end of World War I (1914-1918) and the new map and boarders
proposed by the general as the new and improved Middle East. As in the case of
Africa, countries of the Middle East still include diverse populations some
with distinctly different cultures, ethnicities and even religious traditions.
Not that long ago the then US vice presidential candidate and now Vice
President Joseph Biden responding to the escalating insurgency in Iraq
suggested dividing the country into autonomous and possibly federated regions
controlled by Shi’a in the south, Sunna in the Middle and Kurds in the North as
well as setting aside areas at the center possibly in the Baghdad region for
the other minorities including Iraqi Christians be they Chaldeans, Assyrians or
Syriacs. According to these maps even Saudi Arabia that outwardly looks
entirely homogenous will not be spared having its present territory divided in
two sovereign states.
Now you can clearly see that the fear of scenarios similar to that in
the Sudan unfolding in many African and Middle Eastern countries is real and
not imaginary. Even players, be they internal or external, have obviously been
mulling over such possible transitions for some time now. Mark my word it won’t
be long before the people of Darfur and I don’t mean the Northerners who
identify themselves as Arabs but the Southern Darfurians, who regard themselves
as Africans, would seek the United Nations’ support for independence akin to
their brethrens in Southern Sudan. Here It becomes clear that countries of
Africa and the Middle East are now facing two options, either remain passive
and eventually find themselves facing similar situations such as the one in the
Sudan or proactively engage their societies so as to mend any fissures between
their diverse social groups, actively seek solutions to their grievances
particularly concerning economic opportunities, and create unified and
democratic communities that transcend internal divisions be they ethnic,
national, religious or even linguistic. There is a lesson here that Libyans
should learn so as to prevent our country from descending into chaos thereby
rendering futile all the sacrifices by our revolutionaries to rid the country
of a nightmare that stifled our hopes and dreams for too long. If federalism is
the solution so be it. Creating a federation consisting of autonomous regions
in Barqa (Cyrenaica), Tripoli (Tripolitania) and Fezzan (Fazzan) should be on
the table when deciding the future of Libya. Moreover Libyans should all be
regarded equal regardless of their ethnicity, culture, language or color of
skin so as to avoid and type of discrimination similar to what happened to our
Berber population during the reign of the dictator. The way to turn our dreams into
reality is to abide by the motto that was raised in the face of the tyrant “All
Libyans are one tribe”.
Dr. Fathi El-Shihibi
Emmanuel College
Boston, Massachusetts
USA
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق