Khalil Matar

The impact of events in Libya today goes far beyond the issues of democracy and freedom. They hit deep into the complication of the social, political and religious foundations of the region and the world. The results of this uprising could be extremely damaging to the region and to US national security if they are not contained properly and swiftly.

The Islamists are hijacking the legitimate concerns of the Libyans, turning them into extremists’ religious ambitions. Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, Libya has no real army to serve as a protector of the state and political secularism. Thus, a success of Islamists in Libya could very easily spread into the rest of North Africa through their strong alliance with AL Qaeda of the Arab Maghreb, in a way that is much more organized and dangerous than the mother organization, Bin-Laden’s Al-Qaeda. Oil income from Libya would easily become a major financier of terrorism around the world. This could very well turn into an expanded civil war in the region.

Libyan society has always been tribal, with deep-rooted beliefs in its religion. When Colonel Qaddafi took over after his 1969 revolution, the fervor of Arabism and Nasserism was prevalent in Libya and the whole region. Qaddafi succeeded in keeping that fervor alive. But he, just like all of his compatriots and North Africans in general, continued his strict observation of Islam. That is the norm of his society, religion first.

As a result of Afghanistan Jihad, Islam became politicized in the 80s and 90s to a degree not seen since its early inception. The Libyan regime successfully fought this phenomenon, defeating hundreds of LIFG (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) members. LIFG is a direct ally of Al-Qaeda and a major player in the regional “Al-Qaeda in the Arab Maghreb.” Libya, under the constant pressure from and leadership of Qaddafi’s son Saif, turned its attention to trying to solve this issue politically. They negotiated a solution with the leadership of LIFG that rewarded members that gave up enmity to the regime with monetary compensation and reinstatement of their jobs and their standing in society.

While Libya was able to eliminate the military threat of the Islamists, it failed to follow that success with real economic and political reforms that would put this issue, and any discontent within the population, to bed once and for all. Saif, the leader of such plans prepared by experts from the United States and Europe, was always accused of “going too far too soon” and the old guard created obstacles to keep him from executing. He often left the country for long periods in disgust.

The result of these events was growing discontent in the country, mainly among the youth who built a lot of hope around Saif, and in the eastern regions where LIFG had always found safe-heavens. It was striking to see a diplomatic cable from the US embassy in Libya, revealed by Wikileaks, which described the Isalmists’ fervor in Derna. In that cable, dated June 2008, the American diplomat noted the following:

“Elaborating, al-Mansuri attributed adherence to more extreme iterations of Islam to “unnatural foreign influences” on religious practices in Derna. A number of Libyans who had fought and in some cases undergone ‘religious and ideological training’ in Afghanistan, Lebanon and the West Bank in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s had returned to eastern Libya, including Derna, in the mid to late 1980’s. Claiming their return was “not coincidental”, he described a deliberate, coordinated campaign to propagate more conservative iterations of Islam, in part to prepare the ground for the eventual overthrow by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) of Muammar Qadhafi’s regime, which is ‘hated’ by conservative Islamists.

Furthermore, the cable said “ xxxxxxxxxxxx mentioned a small group of Libyans who had reportedly fought in Afghanistan, subsequently undergone religious training in northern Syria and Lebanon, and then returned to Derna in the late 1980’s as having been particularly instrumental in steering the community in a more conservative direction. Stressing their conservatism, he said they had spearheaded campaigns against many aspects of daily life, such as smoking cigarettes, which they deemed ‘un-Islamic’. He pointed out the large number of religiously-themed audio cassettes and DVDs on offer in Derna’s markets. Many featured sermons and speeches by conservative imams in Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and Egypt.”

It was extremely telling that Al Jazeera’s coverage of the events during the past few days in Libya relied mostly on Isalmists’ recollections of what occurred in the eastern towns. Al Jazeera went even further by giving one extremist leader, Sheikh Yussef Alqardawi who is banned from travelling to the United States and UK, ample airtime to call a riot act against the regime in Libya.

Surprisingly, different Islamist websites and videos showed declarations of “Islamic Emirates” in Bayda and in Derna, the same town reported on by the US embassy.

The tribal factor is another threat to this country and the region. Colonel Qaddafi has relied for most of his tenure on his tribe, the Qaddafis, to preserve his rule. He managed a major alliance with another of the largest tribes of Libya along with other smaller tribes. While this would be considered old-fashioned in the West, such a norm has been prevailing in many of the countries in the Middle East from Saudi Arabia where Al Saud are ruling in the same manner, through the rest of the gulf countries ending with Yemen. Hashemites in Jordan are also ruling in the same manner. These tribes will not relinquish power easilyWhen president Obama made his famous address to Muslims in Cairo two years ago; people around the region received a breath of fresh air. They knew they would see democracy and freedom soon. What they failed to anticipate was the administration’s failure to follow through with a logical plan toward that aim.

President Obama was successful in handling Egypt’s and Tunisia’s revolutions. The administration is making sincere efforts to make sure the two countries’ paths toward full democracy are going as peacefully and as smoothly as possible. However, Libya is neither Egypt nor Tunisia. The absence of a strong army and the existence, instead, of strong tribal and Islamist affiliations is an enormous warning signal. The transition toward democracy has to be managed, forcefully and through diplomatic means, not violence.

July 08 2011