Common Dreams
Media Erase NATO Role in Bringing Slave Markets to Libya
Published on
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Media Erase NATO Role in Bringing Slave Markets to Libya
In the six years since NATO launched a war in Libya, the country has been
roiled by chaos and bloodshed.
by
Ben Norton
But to acknowledge NATOs complicity in empowering these racist extremist
militants, corporate media would have to acknowledge NATOs role in the 2011
regime change war in Libya in the first place
"But to acknowledge NATOs complicity in empowering these racist extremist
militants, corporate media would have to acknowledge NATOs role in the 2011
regime change war in Libya in the first place." (Photo by: Evan Vucci/AP)
Twenty-first century slave markets. Human beings sold for a few hundred
dollars. Massive protests throughout the world.
The American and British media have awakened to the grim reality in Libya,
where African refugees are for sale in open-air slave markets. Yet a crucial
detail in this scandal has been downplayed or even ignored in many corporate
media reports: the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in
bringing slavery to the North African nation.
In March 2011, NATO launched a war in Libya expressly aimed at toppling the
government of longtime leader Muammar Qadhafi. The US and its allies flew
some 26,000 sorties over Libya and launched hundreds of cruise missiles,
destroying the governments ability to resist rebel forces.
US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with
their European counterparts, insisted the military intervention was being
carried out for humanitarian reasons. But political scientist Micah Zenko
(Foreign Policy, 3/22/16) used NATOs own materials to show how the Libyan
intervention was about regime change from the very start.
NATO supported an array of rebel groups fighting on the ground in Libya,
many of which were dominated by Islamist extremists and harbored violently
racist views. Militants in the NATO-backed rebel stronghold of Misrata even
referred to themselves in 2011 as the brigade for purging slaves, black
skinan eerie foreshadowing of the horrors that were to come.
The war ended in October 2011. US and European aircraft attacked Qadhafis
convoy, and he was brutally murdered by extremist rebelssodomized with a
bayonet. Secretary Clinton, who played a decisive role in the war, declared
live on CBS News (10/20/11), We came, we saw, he died! The Libyan
government dissolved soon after.
In the six years since, Libya has been roiled by chaos and bloodshed.
Multiple would-be governments are competing for control of the oil-rich
country, and in some areas there is still no functioning central authority.
Many thousands of people have died, although the true numbers are impossible
to verify. Millions of Libyans have been displaceda staggering number,
nearly one-third of the population, had fled to neighboring Tunisia by 2014.
Corporate media, however, have largely forgotten about the key role NATO
played in destroying Libyas government, destabilizing the country and
empowering human traffickers.
Moreover, even the few news reports that do acknowledge NATOs complicity in
the chaos in Libya do not go a step further and detail the well-documented,
violent racism of the NATO-backed Libyan rebels who ushered in slavery after
ethnically cleansing and committing brutal crimes against black Libyans.
O NATO, Where Art Thou?
CNN: People for Sale
CNN (11/14/17) does not bring up the US role in allowing people to be sold.
CNN (11/14/17) published an explosive story in mid-November that offered a
firsthand look at the slave trade in Libya. The media network obtained
terrifying video that shows young African refugees being auctioned, big
strong boys for farm work, sold for as little as $400.
The flashy CNN multimedia report included bonuses galore: two videos, two
animated gifs, two photos and a chart. But something was missing: The
1,000-word story made no mention of NATO, or the 2011 war that destroyed
Libyas government, or Muammar Qadhafi, or any kind of historical and
political context whatsoever.
Despite these huge flaws, the CNN report was widely celebrated, and made an
impact in a corporate media apparatus that otherwise cares little about
North Africa. A flurry of media reports followed. These stories
overwhelmingly spoke of slavery in Libya as an apolitical and timeless human
rights issue, not as a political problem rooted in very recent history.
In subsequent stories, when Libyan and United Nations officials announced
they would launch an investigation into the slave auctions, CNN (11/17/17,
11/20/17) again failed to mention the 2011 war, let alone NATOs role in it.
One CNN report (11/21/17) on a UN Security Council meeting noted,
Ambassadors from Senegal to Sweden also blamed traffickings root causes:
unstable countries, poverty, profits from slave trading and lack of legal
enforcement. But it failed to explain why Libya is unstable.
Another 1,200-word CNN follow-up article (11/23/17) was just as obfuscatory.
It was only in the 35th paragraph of this 36-graf story that a Human Rights
Watch researcher noted, Libyan interim authorities have been dragging their
feet on virtually all investigations they supposedly started, yet never
concluded, since the 2011 uprising. NATOs leadership in this 2011 uprising
was, however, ignored.
An Agence France-Presse news wire that was published by Voice of America
(11/17/17) and other websites similarly failed to provide any historical
context for the political situation in Libya. Testimony collected by AFP in
recent years has revealed a litany of rights abuses at the hands of gang
leaders, human traffickers and the Libyan security forces, the article
said, but it did not recount anything that happened before 2017.
NYT: Sale of Migrants as Slaves in Libya Causes Outrage in Africa and Paris
A New York Times story (11/19/17) was exceptional in connecting the rise in
Libyan slavery to Muammar Qadhafis overthrowyet it failed to mention the
USs leading role in that overthrow.
Reports by the BBC (11/18/17), the New York Times (11/20/17), Deutsche Welle
(reprinted by USA Today, 11/23/17) and the Associated Press (reprinted by
the Washington Post, 11/23/17) also failed to mention the 2011 war, let
alone NATOs role in it.
Another New York Times story (11/19/17) did provide a bit of context:
Since the Arab Spring uprising of 2011 ended the brutal rule of Col. Muammar
el-Qaddafi, Libyas coast has became a hub for human trafficking and
smuggling. That has fueled the illegal migration crisis that Europe has been
scrambling to contain since 2014. Libya, which slid into chaos and civil war
after the revolt, is now divided among three main factions.
Yet the Times still erased NATOs key place in this uprising of 2011.
In an account of the large protests that erupted outside Libyan embassies in
Europe and Africa in response to reports of slave auctions, Reuters
(11/20/17) indicated, Six years after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya is
still a lawless state where armed groups compete for land and resources and
people-smuggling networks operate with impunity. But it did not provide any
more information about how Qadhafi was toppled.
A report in the Huffington Post (11/22/17), later republished by AOL
(11/27/17), did concede that Libya is one of the worlds most unstable
[sic], mired in conflict since dictator Muammar Gaddafi was ousted and
killed in 2011. It made no mention of NATOs leadership in that ousting and
killing.
Part of the problem has been the unwillingness of international
organizations to point out the responsibility of powerful Western
governments. In his statement on the reports of slavery in Libya, United
Nations Secretary-General António Guterres (11/20/17) did not mention
anything about what has happened politically inside the North African nation
in the past six years. The UN News Centre report (11/20/17) on Guterres
comments was just as contextless and uninformative, as was the press release
(11/21/17) on the issue from the International Organization for Migration.
Al Jazeera (11/26/17) did cite an IOM official who suggested, in Al
Jazeeras words, that the international community should pay more attention
to post-Gaddafi Libya. But the media outlet provided no context as to how
Libya became post-Qadhafi in the first place. In fact, Al Jazeeras source
went out of his way to make the issue apolitical: Modern-day slavery is
widespread around the world and Libya is by no means unique.
While it is true that slavery and human trafficking happen in other
countries, this widespread media narrative depoliticizes the problem in
Libya, which has its roots in explicit political decisions made by
governments and their leaders: namely, the choice to overthrow Libyas
stable government, turning the oil-rich North African nation into a failed
state ruled by competing warlords and militias, some of which are involved
in and profit from slavery and trafficking.
Selective Attention to NATOs Aftermath in Libya
Corporate media reporting on Libya largely mirrors reporting on Yemen
(FAIR.org, 11/20/17, 8/31/17, 2/27/17), Syria (FAIR.org, 4/7/17, 9/5/15) and
beyond: The role of the US government and its allies in creating chaos
abroad is minimized, if not outright ignored.
Strikingly, one of the only exceptions to this overwhelming media trend came
back in April from, of all places, the New York Times editorial board. The
Times editorial (4/14/17) did not mince words, directly linking the
US-backed military operation to the ongoing catastrophe:
None of this would be possible if not for the political chaos in Libya since
the civil war in 2011, when with the involvement of a NATO coalition that
included the United States Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was toppled. Migrants
have become the gold that finances Libyas warring factions.
This is a significant reversal. Immediately after NATO launched its war in
Libya in March 2011, the Times editorial board (3/21/11) cheered on the
bombing, effusing, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has long been a thug and a
murderer who has never paid for his many crimes. It waxed poetic on the
extraordinary, astonishing military intervention, and hoped for
Qadhafis imminent downfall.
The April 2017 Times editorial stopped far short of a being a mea culpa, yet
it was still a rare admission of truth.
Guardian: Migrants from west Africa being sold in Libyan slave markets
This Guardian piece (4/10/17) cites the overthrow of autocratic leader
Muammar Qadhafi, but does not say that the US (or Britain) was instrumental
in overthrowing him.
At the time this surprisingly honest editorial was written, there had
briefly been a bit of media attention to Libya. The International
Organization for Migration had just conducted an investigation into slavery
in postregime change Libya, leading to a string of news reports in the
Guardian (4/10/17) and elsewhere. Practically as soon as this appalling
story got the interest of corporate media, however, it quickly died out.
Attention shifted back to Russia, North Korea and the bogeymen of the day.
When Western governments were hoping to militarily intervene in the country
in the lead-up to March 19, 2011, there was a constant torrent of media
reports on the evils of Qadhafi and his governmentincluding a healthy dose
of fake news (Salon, 9/16/16). Major newspapers staunchly supported the NATO
intervention, and made no secret of their pro-war editorial lines.
When the US government and its allies were preparing for war, the corporate
media apparatus did what it does best, and helped sell yet another military
intervention to the public.
In the years since, on the other hand, there has been exponentially less
interest in the disastrous aftermath of that NATO war. There will be short
spikes of interest, as there was in early 2017. The most recent spurt of
press coverage was inspired by the publication of CNNs shocking video
footage. But the coverage invariably rapidly peaks and goes away.
The Extreme Racism of Libyan Rebels
The catastrophe Libya might endure after the collapse of its state had been
predictable at the time. Qadhafi himself had warned NATO member states,
while they were waging war against him, that they were going to unleash
chaos throughout the region. Yet Western leadersBarack Obama and Hillary
Clinton in the US, David Cameron in the UK, Nicolas Sarkozy in France,
Stephen Harper in Canadaignored Qadhafis admonition and violently toppled
his government.
Even from the small number of media reports on slavery in Libya that do
manage to acknowledge NATOs responsibility for destabilizing the country,
nevertheless, something is still missing.
Looking back at Libyas anti-Qadhafi rebels, both during and after the 2011
war, it is very clear that hardline anti-black racism was widespread in the
NATO-backed opposition. A 2016 investigation by the British House of
Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (Salon, 9/16/16) acknowledged that
militant Islamist militias played a critical role in the rebellion from
February 2011 onwards. But many rebels were not just fundamentalist; they
were also violently racist.
It is unfortunately no surprise that these extremist Libyan militants later
enslaved African refugees and migrants: They were hinting at it from the
very beginning.
Most American and European media coverage at the time of NATOs military
intervention was decidedly pro-rebel. When reporters got on the ground,
however, they began publishing a few more nuanced pieces that hinted at the
reality of the opposition. These were insignificant in number, but they are
enlightening and worth revisiting.
Three months into the NATO war, in June 2011, the Wall Street Journals Sam
Dagher (6/21/11) reported from Misrata, Libyas third-largest city and a
major hub for the opposition, where he noted he saw rebel slogans like the
brigade for purging slaves, black skin.
Dahger indicated that the rebel stronghold of Misrata was dominated by
tightly knit white merchant families, whereas the south of the country,
which is predominantly black, mainly backs Col. Gadhafi.
Other graffiti in Misrata read Traitors keep out. By traitors, rebels
were referring to Libyans from the town of Tawergha, which the Journal
explained is inhabited mostly by black Libyans, a legacy of its
19th-century origins as a transit town in the slave trade.
Dagher reported that some Libyan rebel leaders were calling for the
expulsion of Tawerghans from the area and banning Tawergha natives from
ever working, living or sending their children to schools in Misrata. He
added that predominately Tawergha neighborhoods in Misrata had already been
emptied. Black Libyans were gone or in hiding, fearing revenge attacks by
Misratans, amid reports of bounties for their capture.
The rebel commander Ibrahim al-Halbous told the Journal, Tawergha no longer
exists, only Misrata.
Al-Halbous would later reappear in a report by the Sunday Telegraph
(9/11/11), reiterating to the British newspaper, Tawarga no longer exists.
(When Halbous was injured in September, the New York Times9/20/11portrayed
him sympathetically as a martyr in the heroic fight against Qadhafi. The
Halbous brigade has in the years since become an influential militia in
Libya.)
Like Dagher, the Telegraphs Andrew Gilligan drew attention to the slogan
painted on the road between Misrata and Tawergha: the brigade for purging
slaves [and] black skin.
Gilligan reported from Tawergha, or rather from the remnants of the
majority-black town, which he noted had been emptied of its people,
vandalized and partly burned by rebel forces. A rebel leader said of the
dark-skinned residents, We said if they didnt go, they would be conquered
and imprisoned. Every single one of them has left, and we will never allow
them to come back.
Gilligan noted a racist undercurrent. Many Tawargas, though neither
immigrants nor Gaddafis much-ballyhooed African mercenaries, are descended
from slaves, and are darker than most Libyans.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization assisted these virulently racist
rebels in Misrata. NATO forces frequently launched air attacks on the city.
French fighter jets shot down Libyan planes over Misrata. The US and UK
fired cruise missiles at Libyan government targets, and the US launched
Predator drone strikes. The Canadian air force also attacked Libyan forces,
pushing them out of Misrata.
In a public relations video NATO published in May 2011, early in the Libya
war, the Western military alliance openly admitted that it intentionally
allowed Libyan rebels to transport arms from Benghazi to Misrata.
Political scientist Micah Zenko (Foreign Policy, 3/22/16) pointed out the
implications of this video: A NATO surface vessel stationed in the
Mediterranean to enforce an arms embargo did exactly the opposite, and NATO
was comfortable posting a video demonstrating its hypocrisy.
HRW: Libya: Stop Arbitrary Arrests of Black Africans
Human Rights Watch (9/4/11) documented racist persecution in post-Qadhafi
Libya.
Throughout the war and after, Libyan rebels continued carrying out racist
sectarian attacks against their black compatriots. These attacks have been
well documented by mainstream human rights organizations.
Human Rights Watchs longtime executive director Kenneth Roth cheered on
NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, calling the UN Security Councils
unanimous endorsement of a no-fly zone a remarkable confirmation of the
so-called responsibility to protect doctrine.
Roths organization, however, could not ignore the crimes anti-Qadhafi
militants committed against dark-skinned Libyans and migrants.
In September 2011, when the war was still ongoing, Human Rights Watch
reported on Libyan rebels arbitrary arrests and abuse of African migrant
workers and black Libyans assumed to be [pro-Qadhafi] mercenaries.
Then in October, the top US human rights organization noted that Libyan
militias were terrorizing the displaced residents of the nearby town of
Tawergha, the majority-black community that had been a stronghold of
support for Qadhafi. The entire town of 30,000 people is abandonedsome of
it ransacked and burnedand Misrata brigade commanders say the residents of
Tawergha should never return, HRW added. Witnesses gave credible accounts
of some Misrata militias shooting unarmed Tawerghans, and of arbitrary
arrests and beatings of Tawerghan detainees, in a few cases leading to
death.
In 2013, HRW reported further on the ethnic cleansing of the black community
of Tawergha. The human rights organization, whose chief had so effusively
supported the military intervention, wrote: The forced displacement of
roughly 40,000 people, arbitrary detentions, torture and killings are
widespread, systematic and sufficiently organized to be crimes against
humanity.
These atrocities are undeniable, and they lead a path straight to the
enslavement of African refugees and migrants. But to acknowledge NATOs
complicity in empowering these racist extremist militants, corporate media
would have to acknowledge NATOs role in the 2011 regime change war in Libya
in the first place.
