30 Aug 2011 | News and features
The world has been watching with bated breath as a third Arab authoritarian regime collapses. Crowds of jubilant Libyans continue to throng the capital’s Green Square to celebrate the end of Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year reign of tyranny and oppression.
But unlike the international euphoria triggered by the ousting of the Egyptian and Tunisian dictators, Gaddafi’s downfall is being met with cautious optimism — perhaps, even, anxiety. Rather than being hailed as heroes, Libya’s young revolutionaries are being eyed with scepticism. The wariness, say analysts, is largely caused by a fear of the unknown, as many wonder who the rebels are and what the future holds for the North African country.
In the early stages of the uprising in Libya, Gaddafi had pointed the finger at Al Qaeda, accusing the rebels of having close ties with the terrorist organisation. He had hoped that the accusations would win him Western backing that would enable him to stay in power. But the rebels leading the public protests are not “terrorists”: they are ordinary Libyans demanding change, freedom and an end to authoritarian rule — as I found out on a recent trip to Benghazi, Libya’s second city. The rebel city has been free from dictatorship since February this year.
The rebels I met during my trip in May asserted that their demands were similar to those of the opposition activists in Egypt and Tunisia.
“We simply want to see an end to the era of brutality and oppression. The Libyan people have suffered for long…we now want our freedom and dignity,” Khalad Khashab, a senior Gaddafi aide who defected to Egypt in February told me.
And like pro-democracy activists who led the Egyptian and Tunisian mass uprisings, the young Libyan revolutionaries also take pride in their revolution. There’s rarely any mention of the support they’ve been getting from NATO forces, which for months now have carried out aerial attacks against Gaddafi defence positions. Chants of “Libya hurra, Libya is free” echo through the streets of Benghazi and youths are often seen flashing the victory sign as they climb on top of charred cars and raise the rebels’ red, black and green flag.
And now that they are free from repression, the young activists in Benghazi are using every means possible to express themselves. The graffifi on the walls, the launch of new radio stations and internet TV channels the public debates about their future, the increased volunteerism and political activism are all manifestations of their newfound freedom. In Benghazi’s “Revolution Square”, citizens gather nightly to recite poetry, make public speeches, sing revolutionary songs or simply exchange anecdotes. The square has been transformed into a Hyde Park-style Speakers’ Corner, where young men and women can vent their hatred of an autocratic leader who for decades, stifled all forms of free expression and creativity.
Many young Libyans, feeling they now have a stake in their own country, volunteer to direct traffic, patrol the streets or collect donations to help casualties of the uprising or the martyrs’ families. Meanwhile, civil society organisations devoted to causes ranging from the promotion of women’s rights to environmental protection are rapidly mushrooming in the new Libya.
The desire to end years of isolation is also evident with the flags of friendly nations flying high over key bridges and in front of government buildings. It’s a small gesture of appreciation for the support afforded the rebels but also a signal of the Libyan people’s keenness to join the international fold.
Much of the graffiti on the streets pokes fun at Gaddafi but some of the messages also offer warnings against tribalism and religious extremism, likely challenges that Gaddafi threatened would confront any future government in Libya. And while the “One Libya” slogan is highly popular among the rebels, sceptics point out that it remains just that: a mere slogan. Analysts are concerned that the divide between regime loyalists and rebel forces may continue long after the country is free from Gaddafi’s authoritarian grip. They point to the rights violations often committed by one group against the other.
In a worst-case scenario, there’s the possibility of civil war breaking out.
“Tribal differences are deep-rooted in Libya,” cautions Ambassador Mohamed Rifaa, an Egyptian diplomat and former Ambassador to Libya. “Tribal leaders may fail to bridge existing divisions. Tensions may boil over if there’s a continued security vacuum.”
And with religion playing a significant role in conservative Libyan society, analysts also worry about a possible spread of religious extremism. This may take place despite the creation of a special commission by the National Transitional Council (NTC, the interim government leading Libya in the transitional period) to counter the influence of fundamentalists and to promote liberal ideas.
Tackling the humanitarian challenges, however, is currently the priority goal for the NTC. Tripoli’s two million residents face shortages in water , fuel and medicine, which, combined with regular power cuts and lack of proper sanitation, are creating dire conditions. If such problems are left unresolved, they could become life threatening, warn humanitarian agencies.
Providing security in the newly liberated areas is another huge challenge. Despite the challenges, many Libyans are hopeful that their country can transcend the difficulties and successfully make the democratic transition. But this can only happen, they say, if Libya gets the support it badly needs from the international community; support that has been forthcoming from some Western countries with a vested interest in supporting oil-rich Libya.
Government structures — which were non-existent under Gaddafi — are being formed, new political parties and civil society organisations are emerging, and there’s already talk of elections being organised.
“The Libyan people have suffered huge losses and paid a high price to achieve their democratic aspirations. Now it is only a matter of time before Gaddafi’s brutal regime collapses and we can forge ahead with the task of building a new, democratic Libya,” says a hopeful Khashab.
It’s a task that requires determination, the unifying of ranks inside Libya, a concerted international effort and a clear vision, he adds.
Journalist and television anchor Shahira Amin resigned her post as deputy head of state-run Nile TV on February. Read why she resigned from the “propaganda machine” here.
30 Aug 2011 | Egypt, Middle East and North Africa
The world has been watching with bated breath as a third Arab authoritarian regime collapses. Crowds of jubilant Libyans continue to throng the capital’s Green Square to celebrate the end of Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year reign of tyranny and oppression.
But unlike the international euphoria triggered by the ousting of the Egyptian and Tunisian dictators, Gaddafi’s downfall is being met with cautious optimism — perhaps, even, anxiety. Rather than being hailed as heroes, Libya’s young revolutionaries are being eyed with scepticism. The wariness, say analysts, is largely caused by a fear of the unknown, as many wonder who the rebels are and what the future holds for the North African country.
In the early stages of the uprising in Libya, Gaddafi had pointed the finger at Al Qaeda, accusing the rebels of having close ties with the terrorist organisation. He had hoped that the accusations would win him Western backing that would enable him to stay in power. But the rebels leading the public protests are not “terrorists”: they are ordinary Libyans demanding change, freedom and an end to authoritarian rule — as I found out on a recent trip to Benghazi, Libya’s second city. The rebel city has been free from dictatorship since February this year.
The rebels I met during my trip in May asserted that their demands were similar to those of the opposition activists in Egypt and Tunisia.
“We simply want to see an end to the era of brutality and oppression. The Libyan people have suffered for long…we now want our freedom and dignity,” Khalad Khashab, a senior Gaddafi aide who defected to Egypt in February told me.
And like pro-democracy activists who led the Egyptian and Tunisian mass uprisings, the young Libyan revolutionaries also take pride in their revolution. There’s rarely any mention of the support they’ve been getting from NATO forces, which for months now have carried out aerial attacks against Gaddafi defence positions. Chants of “Libya hurra, Libya is free” echo through the streets of Benghazi and youths are often seen flashing the victory sign as they climb on top of charred cars and raise the rebels’ red, black and green flag.
And now that they are free from repression, the young activists in Benghazi are using every means possible to express themselves. The graffifi on the walls, the launch of new radio stations and internet TV channels the public debates about their future, the increased volunteerism and political activism are all manifestations of their newfound freedom. In Benghazi’s “Revolution Square”, citizens gather nightly to recite poetry, make public speeches, sing revolutionary songs or simply exchange anecdotes. The square has been transformed into a Hyde Park-style Speakers’ Corner, where young men and women can vent their hatred of an autocratic leader who for decades, stifled all forms of free expression and creativity.
Many young Libyans, feeling they now have a stake in their own country, volunteer to direct traffic, patrol the streets or collect donations to help casualties of the uprising or the martyrs’ families. Meanwhile, civil society organisations devoted to causes ranging from the promotion of women’s rights to environmental protection are rapidly mushrooming in the new Libya.
The desire to end years of isolation is also evident with the flags of friendly nations flying high over key bridges and in front of government buildings. It’s a small gesture of appreciation for the support afforded the rebels but also a signal of the Libyan people’s keenness to join the international fold.
Much of the graffiti on the streets pokes fun at Gaddafi but some of the messages also offer warnings against tribalism and religious extremism, likely challenges that Gaddafi threatened would confront any future government in Libya. And while the “One Libya” slogan is highly popular among the rebels, sceptics point out that it remains just that: a mere slogan. Analysts are concerned that the divide between regime loyalists and rebel forces may continue long after the country is free from Gaddafi’s authoritarian grip. They point to the rights violations often committed by one group against the other.
In a worst-case scenario, there’s the possibility of civil war breaking out.
“Tribal differences are deep-rooted in Libya,” cautions Ambassador Mohamed Rifaa, an Egyptian diplomat and former Ambassador to Libya. “Tribal leaders may fail to bridge existing divisions. Tensions may boil over if there’s a continued security vacuum.”
And with religion playing a significant role in conservative Libyan society, analysts also worry about a possible spread of religious extremism. This may take place despite the creation of a special commission by the National Transitional Council (NTC, the interim government leading Libya in the transitional period) to counter the influence of fundamentalists and to promote liberal ideas.
Tackling the humanitarian challenges, however, is currently the priority goal for the NTC. Tripoli’s two million residents face shortages in water , fuel and medicine, which, combined with regular power cuts and lack of proper sanitation, are creating dire conditions. If such problems are left unresolved, they could become life threatening, warn humanitarian agencies.
Providing security in the newly liberated areas is another huge challenge. Despite the challenges, many Libyans are hopeful that their country can transcend the difficulties and successfully make the democratic transition. But this can only happen, they say, if Libya gets the support it badly needs from the international community; support that has been forthcoming from some Western countries with a vested interest in supporting oil-rich Libya.
Government structures — which were non-existent under Gaddafi — are being formed, new political parties and civil society organisations are emerging, and there’s already talk of elections being organised.
“The Libyan people have suffered huge losses and paid a high price to achieve their democratic aspirations. Now it is only a matter of time before Gaddafi’s brutal regime collapses and we can forge ahead with the task of building a new, democratic Libya,” says a hopeful Khashab.
It’s a task that requires determination, the unifying of ranks inside Libya, a concerted international effort and a clear vision, he adds.
Journalist and television anchor Shahira Amin resigned her post as deputy head of state-run Nile TV on February. Read why she resigned from the “propaganda machine” here.
22 Aug 2011 | Uncategorized
In many parts of the world, the BBC is a voice of reason, providing real information to even out the state propaganda elsewhere on the radio dial. Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi recently said the BBC World Service gave her a lifeline while she was under house arrest.
Read Index’s Jo Glanville’s brilliant essay about the service’s future in London Review of Books “Auntie Mabel doesn’t give a toss about Serbia”
If it is considered an important part of the World Service’s mission to impart information to audiences in countries where the media are restricted, then shortwave surely wins out as the more reliable means of communication. It can be jammed, but it cannot be wholly disabled – as the internet and mobile phone networks were in Egypt earlier this year. Shortwave’s adherents are concerned that the World Service is turning away from the people who need it in favour of an audience of ‘opinion-formers’. Its managers claim the contrary, pointing to the maintenance of shortwave in Burma as an example, but a poorer, rural audience is being left behind, and when a country’s dictator takes control of radio broadcasts, the World Service will no longer be available there in any form.
If the BBC decides that it can no longer afford to maintain the infrastructure for shortwave, and begins to close down its transmitter sites around the world as other international broadcasters have done, there will be consequences for its participation in a new form of digital radio called Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM). It is the digital version of shortwave and medium wave, providing high-quality radio with the advantage that it can be transmitted, free from political interference, over great distances. DRM is still in its early stages and receivers are not yet widely available, but India and Russia have both committed to it, and Brazil is thinking about it. The World Service is involved – one of its executives chairs the DRM consortium – but its role might be jeopardised if it pulls out of shortwave since DRM uses the same facilities and frequencies.
16 Aug 2011 | News and features
Last Thursday evening, the Bay Area Rapid Transit authority in San Francisco — better known as BART — was worried about the consequences (and likely public relations mess) of a protest planned inside its subway system to denounce a fatal police shooting earlier this summer by BART police officers. As a preventive measure, BART deployed a tactic many commentators have since likened to Hosni Mubarak’s playbook: It shut down cell signal in four stations for several hours to prevent protesters from organising.
As it turns out, inviting comparisons to deposed Egyptian dictators — and at the historic epicenter of the US free-speech movement — posed a much bigger PR disaster than anything that would have come from a nonviolent police protest. More protests were then planned. Anonymous hacked BART’s website. The Federal Communications Commission is now looking into the incident. Several California politicians have expressed shock. And free speech advocates across the country are furious about a US precedent for exactly the type of social-media policy officials in the UK have been weighing since last week’s riots.
Making matters worse, BART officials have dug in to defend the decision rather than distance themselves from it, arguing that riders’ constitutional right to safety trumps protesters’ constitutional right to free speech. The agency has not promised it won’t deploy the same tactic again in the future.
“Inside the fare gates,” a BART spokesperson told a local TV channel, “is a non-public forum, and by law, by the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court, there is no right to free speech there.”
Eva Galperin with the Electronic Frontier Foundation was having none of this logic on EFF’s blog:
“Cell phone service has not always been available in BART stations. The advent of reliable service inside of stations is relatively recent. But once BART made the service available, cutting it off in order to prevent the organisation of a protest constitutes prior restrain on the free speech rights of every person in the station, whether they’re a protestor or a commuter. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. Censorship is not okay in Tahrir Square or Trafalgar Square, and it’s still not okay in Powell Street Station.”
The ACLU on Monday sent a letter to both BART and the Federal Communications Commission saying:
“BART’s actions must be seen in the context of today’s events. All over the world, people are using mobile devices to protest oppressive regimes, and governments are shutting down cell phone towers and the Internet to silence them. BART has never disrupted wireless service before, and chose to take this unprecendented measure for the first time last week in response to a protest of BART police. BART’s decision was in effect an effort by a government entity to silence its critics.”
Rex Huppke, a commentator with the Chicago Tribune, downplayed all the drama, underscoring that many people view electronic communication — and the right to freely text, email, or associate online — as some less legitimate version of free expression.
“We have more than enough ways to communicate in this day and age. Briefly losing access to a score update or a Facebook note about sushi or a message from work isn’t an assault on freedom.”
A year ago, BART might have gotten away with the move with less public outcry. But in the wake of the Arab Spring, any police action in the West that conjures up images of censorship in the Middle East will inevitably alarm Americans. Along with reaction to the riots in the UK, the BART incident has awoken many people to the reality that technology creates complex new means of censorship anywhere in the world.
Emily Badger is Index on Censorship’s US editor
