Col. Qaddafi went into hiding during the Arab Spring in late August, after six months entrenched in civil war, when rebels ousted his violent clutch on the people of his country. On Thursday morning, loyalist fighters brawled with anti-government forces who captured Qaddafi outside of a house near Sirte, which remained one of the country’s most significant loyalist nerve centers. After he was shot – allegedly in the head and in both of his legs – videos of what appeared as his dead body were published on the Internet. Libyan rebels were close by, cheering and rejoicing over the death of the leader who will be remembered for widespread brutality, erraticism, and a nearly 42-year chokehold – out reining his Arab counterparts – on the North African country.
His body has been moved to an undisclosed location for security reasons, according to the Associated Press, though Libyan people and the rest of the world won’t soon forget his face, reddened against the ground, lifeless – a snapshot of the toppled leader’s final defeat. International news outlets broadcast a series of bloody body pixilated images on the Web, and an unconfirmed photograph taken on a mobile phone showed a bludgeoned corpse.
NATO and the U.S. Department of State have not yet confirmed any reports of Qaddafi’s death, but triumphant voices from the formerly oppressed, followed by celebratory gunshots, sends a message of change; an emotionally and politically charged word that the dictator was diametrically opposed to considering.
He executed those who sought to assassinate him – frequently by public hangings in public locations – and dodged targeted death attempts for decades. So what does the four-decade-ruling leader’s death mean for Libya and its place in the Arab world in the future months?
Although the fall of autocratic leadership by grassroots rebellion has prompted transformation throughout the region, the path to a “new Libya” – the phrase of hope chanted by rebels after Qaddafi was shot - is plagued with political instability and people who must live and learn to govern in a country torn apart.
“My guess is there will be more fighting,” Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said on Thursday afternoon. “The transitional council is now the umbrella group … and it hardly [represents] all of their views. We would be wise to expect for fighting and to plan our policies accordingly.”
The various rebels, for the time that Gaddafi was their common enemy, could unite to plot his demise; but what else do the rebel fighters have in common with each other?
Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor of CFR.org, suggested a three-part framework for Libya, two of which have unfolded rapidly in recent months. The first two phases were: first, to determine if opposition groups could unite to see a successful conclusion; second, to eliminate Qaddafi. Gwertzman noted these are the foundational steps for a new Libya, and could be expected to happen in rapid succession. However, the third, and perhaps most critical phase on the path to democracy, will not unfold as quickly. How will the former rebels – who now form the National Transitional Council and are backed by NATO – govern Libya, and are they prepared to unite on a pro-democratic front when what bonded them was common regicide?
Gelb pointed out very few people are as optimistic now as they were with the democratic revolution in Egypt. The situation in Libya is not yet a beacon of democratic hope in the Arab world, as was the case in Egypt, and it doesn’t have the isolationist effect of recent Tunisia. The U.S. and allied countries might treat humanitarian intervention differently in Libya and take a closer look at the Libyan rebels’ ideals.
“If we wanted to promote democratic change [in the Arab world], that’s something we had to undertake decades ago,” Gelb said. “You need to create the institutions that support democracy.” Although they may have good intentions, Gelb said the rebels aren’t necessarily the “good guys of democracy” but rather possibly the “very well organized bad guys.”
But it’s too early to tell for sure.
“We don’t know very much about these people,” he said. “We need to be careful about creating policy.”
The rebels’ future place in Libya – mainly, if they are qualified to serve as proponents of democracy – is uncertain, and scarce information and chaos could allow terrorism to seep closer into the country.
“I’m worried about terrorists having more of a free reign there,” Gelb said, in reference to Al Qaeda.
Because the U.S. and other international actors were working with Qaddafi for several years since the invasion of Iraq to combat al Qaeda, now that he’s gone, this could mean a stronger terrorist presence in the country.
“This is the beginning of the hardest part of the story,” he said. “Now that we’ve helped destroy the bad guy, we’re going to have to get involved in helping bring in a decent successor.”
To establish a “decent successor,” an institutional change that can sustain democracy in a country filled with victims of the vicious, bizarre practices of their leader, must come first.
“If he were alive or not, I don’t think he’d have much of a trial,” Gelb said. "There will be hundreds and hundreds of Qaddafi supporters who will be tried, but I don't think they will be tried in the courts; I think they will be tried in the streets. From mass bloodshed comes more fighting.”
a global affairs media network
The End of the Mad Colonel, the Beginning of the Future
October 20, 2011
Col. Qaddafi went into hiding during the Arab Spring in late August, after six months entrenched in civil war, when rebels ousted his violent clutch on the people of his country. On Thursday morning, loyalist fighters brawled with anti-government forces who captured Qaddafi outside of a house near Sirte, which remained one of the country’s most significant loyalist nerve centers. After he was shot – allegedly in the head and in both of his legs – videos of what appeared as his dead body were published on the Internet. Libyan rebels were close by, cheering and rejoicing over the death of the leader who will be remembered for widespread brutality, erraticism, and a nearly 42-year chokehold – out reining his Arab counterparts – on the North African country.
His body has been moved to an undisclosed location for security reasons, according to the Associated Press, though Libyan people and the rest of the world won’t soon forget his face, reddened against the ground, lifeless – a snapshot of the toppled leader’s final defeat. International news outlets broadcast a series of bloody body pixilated images on the Web, and an unconfirmed photograph taken on a mobile phone showed a bludgeoned corpse.
NATO and the U.S. Department of State have not yet confirmed any reports of Qaddafi’s death, but triumphant voices from the formerly oppressed, followed by celebratory gunshots, sends a message of change; an emotionally and politically charged word that the dictator was diametrically opposed to considering.
He executed those who sought to assassinate him – frequently by public hangings in public locations – and dodged targeted death attempts for decades. So what does the four-decade-ruling leader’s death mean for Libya and its place in the Arab world in the future months?
Although the fall of autocratic leadership by grassroots rebellion has prompted transformation throughout the region, the path to a “new Libya” – the phrase of hope chanted by rebels after Qaddafi was shot - is plagued with political instability and people who must live and learn to govern in a country torn apart.
“My guess is there will be more fighting,” Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said on Thursday afternoon. “The transitional council is now the umbrella group … and it hardly [represents] all of their views. We would be wise to expect for fighting and to plan our policies accordingly.”
The various rebels, for the time that Gaddafi was their common enemy, could unite to plot his demise; but what else do the rebel fighters have in common with each other?
Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor of CFR.org, suggested a three-part framework for Libya, two of which have unfolded rapidly in recent months. The first two phases were: first, to determine if opposition groups could unite to see a successful conclusion; second, to eliminate Qaddafi. Gwertzman noted these are the foundational steps for a new Libya, and could be expected to happen in rapid succession. However, the third, and perhaps most critical phase on the path to democracy, will not unfold as quickly. How will the former rebels – who now form the National Transitional Council and are backed by NATO – govern Libya, and are they prepared to unite on a pro-democratic front when what bonded them was common regicide?
Gelb pointed out very few people are as optimistic now as they were with the democratic revolution in Egypt. The situation in Libya is not yet a beacon of democratic hope in the Arab world, as was the case in Egypt, and it doesn’t have the isolationist effect of recent Tunisia. The U.S. and allied countries might treat humanitarian intervention differently in Libya and take a closer look at the Libyan rebels’ ideals.
“If we wanted to promote democratic change [in the Arab world], that’s something we had to undertake decades ago,” Gelb said. “You need to create the institutions that support democracy.” Although they may have good intentions, Gelb said the rebels aren’t necessarily the “good guys of democracy” but rather possibly the “very well organized bad guys.”
But it’s too early to tell for sure.
“We don’t know very much about these people,” he said. “We need to be careful about creating policy.”
The rebels’ future place in Libya – mainly, if they are qualified to serve as proponents of democracy – is uncertain, and scarce information and chaos could allow terrorism to seep closer into the country.
“I’m worried about terrorists having more of a free reign there,” Gelb said, in reference to Al Qaeda.
Because the U.S. and other international actors were working with Qaddafi for several years since the invasion of Iraq to combat al Qaeda, now that he’s gone, this could mean a stronger terrorist presence in the country.
“This is the beginning of the hardest part of the story,” he said. “Now that we’ve helped destroy the bad guy, we’re going to have to get involved in helping bring in a decent successor.”
To establish a “decent successor,” an institutional change that can sustain democracy in a country filled with victims of the vicious, bizarre practices of their leader, must come first.
“If he were alive or not, I don’t think he’d have much of a trial,” Gelb said. "There will be hundreds and hundreds of Qaddafi supporters who will be tried, but I don't think they will be tried in the courts; I think they will be tried in the streets. From mass bloodshed comes more fighting.”
