Follow Us
From the Editors
Jadaliyya launches its new Syria page . . . Click here.
The Culture Page Returns . . . . click here
Want to find out about new books? Visit our expanding NEWTON page. Click here.
Call for Photos: Become a Contributing Photographer at Jadaliyya
Internship Opportunities at ASI (Jadaliyya, Arab Studies Journal, FAMA). Click here!
The Jadaliyya Egypt Elections Watch page archives! Click here for comprehensive coverage.
Egypt Election Results: Of 427 seats settled, MB got 193, Nour 108, Wafd 38, Bloc 30, RDP 11, Rev. Cont. 10, Wasat 8 (Click Here)
Interested in writing a Review for Jadaliyya? Visit our Call for Reviews here.
The Arabs in Africa
["Suspected African Mercenaries" Image from the AP]
As Libyans rise up against the 41-year-old dictatorship of Muammar al-Qaddafi, one of the most striking claims of state violence has been the hiring of “African mercenaries” to crush the revolt. Like Hosni Mubarak’s “thugs” (or baltagiya in Arabic, terms that gained widespread currency almost instantly), the mercenaries represent the anti-populist face of violence, those who are willing to take to the streets not for reasons of personal conviction or national duty, but for compensation from the embattled regime.
The mercenaries and the thugs provide a contrast to the nonviolent, impassioned politics of the protesters. One point further distinguishes Qaddafi’s mercenaries from both the revolutionaries and Mubarak’s thugs: that they are continuously referred to as “African.” This should be an empty signifier, like saying that European mercenaries were hired to crush a revolt in Spain; after all, Libya is an African country and Libyans are Africans. But those of us who are watching the news know what is “meant” by this, and some reporters have been quick to correct themselves with either “black Africans” or, less frequently, “sub-Saharan Africans.”
Although just one aspect of the current situation in Libya, I suggest that it should give us pause to consider the stakes of this conceptualization of a basic Arab-African or Arab-black antagonism—one that not only formulates these as mutually exclusive categories but also pins them against one another in the context of the Libyan revolution.
This formulation is taking place both “on the ground” in Libya as well as in its representation outside its borders, and the generalized media blackout has severely compromised understanding of the situation. Just a handful of commentators have questioned the veracity of the “African mercenaries” charge while maintaining their support for the uprising.
Evidence of these mercenaries has largely consisted of photographs and video footage of foreign passports and documents, as well as black bodies—both alive and dead, the former inevitably surrounded by angry or even violent protesters. However, there is scant evidence that these people are, first of all, participating in state-sponsored violence against the popular uprising, and, second, were brought into Libya for this explicit purpose. On the contrary, we know that Libya was already home to a significant number of foreign workers—including some two million black African migrant workers. We should also note Libya’s documented history of racial discrimination. Almost one year to the day before the February 17 Day of Anger that jumpstarted the revolution, UN Watch, an independent organization monitoring the UN, issued a statement entitled, “Libya Must End Racism Against Black African Migrants and Others.”
In light of this recent history, the videos and photographs of “African mercenaries” raise disturbing questions. Are the men we see pictured here perpetrators of state-sponsored violence, are they victims of racism, or is it possible that both of these things may be true at the same time? Are they being attacked in retaliation or in the course of a battle, or are they taken for mercenaries simply on the basis of their skin color? Is this just one more instance of non-citizens falling victim to a conflict that is not their own?
Whether or not Qaddafi has recruited foreign mercenaries, it is clear that none of us—in Libya or abroad—are getting the full story. However, the speed with which this charge has been accepted as true should call into question our own assumptions about relations between Arab and black Africans.
This is not the first time that Arab and black Africans have been tragically opposed; rather, this has been integral to policymaking in the United States and beyond, as well as to numerous think tanks and international organizations, humanitarian and otherwise. For a far more extreme example, we can look to Sudan. In his work on that topic, Mahmood Mamdani (2009) has argued that the perceived dichotomy between Arab and black Africans is a false one, relying on colonial-era tropes of settler and native which additionally sought to retribalize and reify Sudanese social (and ethnic) divisions. Mamdani holds that anti-genocide campaigns focusing on Darfur such as Save Darfur depoliticize the insurgency/counterinsurgency by shifting the discourse into the moral realm in order to: 1) link the conflict to the War on Terror; and 2) instigate a military response on behalf of the United States and other Western powers. This move also includes Sudan in the political geography of the Middle East.
But the same narrative techniques of depoliticization play on existing conceptions of Africa and the kinds of problems that Africans, as a generalized populace, encounter. The depoliticization of a counterinsurgency/insurgency in Darfur not only places it in the rank of terrorism; it also situates it among other (supposedly) nonpolitical evils that have besieged the African continent, such as HIV/AIDS, poverty, and innumerable other instances of seemingly interminable, incomprehensible violence.
This is crucial to our understanding of Libya and the question of “African mercenaries” in particular. What we can learn from the framing of violence in Darfur is that Arabs are not considered “Africans” by policymakers, journalists, and organizations, and that Arabs and Africans may be seen by these same groups as fundamentally different, and consequently face fundamentally different kinds of problems—suffering differently, inflicting harm differently, and handling politics differently—in a manner that hinders “our” own consideration of them together.
The story in Libya diverges considerably from that of Sudan, with black Africans and Arabs playing very different kinds of roles. Nonetheless, there is a recurring theme of the antagonism between (black) Africans and Arabs, one that reflects an inability of popular or even scholarly analysis to assimilate Arabs to the African continent. This is the continuation of a Cold War area studies paradigm, as well as a colonial politics of race.
The ongoing revolution in Libya has been rightly interpreted in light of what is now a succession of regional revolutions moving from Tunisia to Egypt and now Libya, with continuing unrest in Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain and elsewhere. The area that is considered vulnerable to this regional unrest stretches at least from Algeria to Iran and has been called the Arab world or the Middle East, despite the fact that Iranians are not Arab and most of Algeria lies west of France. This geography does not, however, appear to reach far south of the Mediterranean, at least where Africa is concerned. Although the two successful revolutions thus far lay on the African continent, there has been an overall failure to consider their effect in terms of sub-Saharan African politics and places such as Gabon, Mauritania, Djibouti, and Uganda.
This is not for lack of substantial historical involvement of these countries in African politics. Libya has long played a critical role with regard to its neighbors, and Qaddafi himself has been heavily involved in African politics. In his February 22 speech, he further reinforced his ties to Africa, calling into question the consonance of something called the Middle East when he claimed that without him, Libya would undergo US occupation or incorporation by the UAE. Additionally, while the Arab League has suspended Libya for its brutal treatment of civilians, the African Union (of which Qaddafi used to be the chairman) has remained silent on the matter.
The use of the term “African mercenaries” points to African-ness as a site of difference. But Qaddafi’s career has been characterized by a loud and memorable involvement in African politics—even taking on the title “the King of Kings” of Africa or in Arabic "malik al-muluk". This would suggest that if he has deployed non-citizen mercenaries, it would highlight his and Libya’s regional embeddedness rather than its absolute difference.
Given this embeddedness, we may account for the use of the word “African” to suggest “foreign” in a number of ways. One answer would be the radical break this uprising has produced in our conceptions of “Libya” and “Libyans” versus Qaddafi himself, who has until recently been regarded as almost selfsame with his state and people. In contrast with Qaddafi’s African ties, one could argue, Libyans have determined that they will stand in concert with other Arab revolutions.
Although this view might have some truth to it, I want to suggest something else about what I may clumsily call the politics of geopolitics. First, what we should recognize is that terms such as “Africa” and “the Middle East” function not only on the basis of geography or actual political ties, but as stand-ins for racial signifiers. Despite a shared history of European colonialism in its different manifestations, Africa and the Middle East nonetheless bear extremely different histories of representation or historical imaginaries within the European continent (which is, I would point out, also not a continent, but something like a subcontinent).
Furthered by an area studies paradigm that is a remnant of the Cold War, these deeply rooted histories have frankly hindered our understanding of the recent revolutions—especially that of Libya—and even more so of their effect on politics on the African continent. While we stand in solidarity with the uprisings in Libya and beyond, we must nonetheless be more vigilant than ever in critiquing the role that race has played in shaping this revolutionary moment.
15 comments for "The Arabs in Africa"
Thank you for this. The increasingly dangerous representation of mercenaries in racial designated terms obfuscates the universal character and use of 'mercenaries' in fact are in real political terms. The fear is that these designations become increasingly reified on the ground with disastrous ramifications. The history of so called Arabs in Africa and Africans in the Arab world is far more complex and fluid.
I would like to be clear that in no way was it my intention to disregard the testimony of those who have been witness or fallen victim to state violence in the course of this uprising. Rather, I intended to engage critically with these testimonies as well as the response that they have generated. I certainly took the testimony at face value when I first heard it; however, when I started to look for actual videos showing this, I simply couldn't find any other than the ones that I described. For example, I came across a video (that I can no longer find) titled something like, “8-year-old Girl Shot by African Mercenaries”, in which the girl says she was shot, and where, but not by whom. She just says "they." The actual video doesn't have a single mention of black Africans or mercenaries, but it's nonetheless used to substantiate the charge.
I am also not sure what more compelling footage would look like. My point is that even faced with footage of dark-skinned fighters for Qaddafi, we should not immediately make the assumption that they are not Libyan, or that they were brought to Libya as mercenaries. Rather, we must recall the fact that there are black Libyans, in addition to a large number of black migrant workers from other parts of the African continent. If Qaddafi has brought in foreign mercenaries--and I'm not saying he hasn't--this doesn't change the way the discourse around these mercenaries is tied up in broader race relations.
I found this Daily Telegraph article informative:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8349414/African-mercenaries-in-Libya-nervously-await-their-fate.html
Many of these "mercenaries" seem more like child soldiers.
I doubt the mercenaries are black they are probably Qaddafi's Arab friends from the Chadian wars and imported janjaweed, chickens coming home to roost. What this broad brush will do is cement hate between southern and northern Africa a Sudan magnified
Thanks for the Article. You are true thinker.
One unfortunate situation I observed this week was the former Libyan diplomat who disassociated himself from Gaddafi admonish black africans about sending their children to Libya. I failed to see the goal of his message. There are thousands of African refugees in Libya. Most of them are hiding in their room today with not much to eat afraid of being lynched were they to step their feet outside.
Protesters have genuine concerns, but mobs mentality is dangerous in the brief absence of authorized legal system.
A man of such position should have used his air time to bring out a little bit of common sense from then protestors rather than justifying the already precarious situation. 99% of black africans in Libya are not Gadaffi's soldiers. They should have the right to go out and shop like any one of them.
Libyans treat captured 'African' mercenaries very well almost all of the time. Any antagonism that exists is because of Gaddafi's politics, but the Libyan people use the term African has a short & sweet adjective. You should all know that a good chunk of Libyans are black, perhaps one fifth or more and they too use the same terms. Try saying sub-Saharan African in Arabic and you get a clearer understanding why nobody uses that term.
I'm sorry but this article is very irrelevant.
A very welcomed contribution, given that Reuters is reporting many of those alleged to be mercenaries are Sub Saharan foreign workers whose lives have since come under attack.
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE71R0EK20110228
Sorry for the pun, but call a spade a spade.
Gaddafi is a white fella. The mercenaries are black people. The population of Libya is mixed. Gaddafi has oppressed the blacks harder than the whites, and coverage of what's happening is reflected in the European media through white eyes, as though the black folks are somehow foreign to North Africa.
There. And I didn't have to spend 4,000 long words on it.
I found this Daily Telegraph article informative:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8349414/African-mercenaries-in-Libya-nervously-await-their-fate.html
Many of these "mercenaries" seem more like child soldiers.
I am disturbed by the tangential mood that this article conveys. I read it as a soft-on-Gaddafi piece.
To the contrary, I found it to be a thoughtful piece and unless one is on or close to the barricades, analysis trumps cheer leading. Moreover, this is not so much about Qaddafi, whose money has blinded many of his supporters in the West from seeing his contradictions, but about a very real problem that exists in all societies that have large immigrant populations that the powers that be exploit for their benefit.
The situation in Libya has been further exploited, as in Sudan, by the elements in the international Zionist community who wish to portray themselves (and Israel by inference) as supporters of Sub-Saharan Africans against their Arab oppressors, such as we have seen with the phony Save Darfur campaign which has totally distorted the reality of the struggle in Sudan.
In the case of Libya, we see the report referred to in Maidhof's text, "Libya Must End Racism Against Black African Migrants and Others," as having been issued by UN Watch, which is described as an "independent organization" which it pretends to be, but in truth it is anything but.
UN Watch was created by the American Jewish Committee which may be called the foreign policy arm of the US Zionist establishment and its role is to promote Israel's agenda throughout the world and it has been doing so for decades, not secretly, but generally under the radar.
Consequently, anything this so-called "UN Watch" publishes needs to be taken with several carloads of salt.
Before I, too, be accused of going soft on Qaddafi, I would not that it should be the obligation of anyone who believes in justice to stand with those who are fighting against a dictatorship, any dictatorship. There should be no room for double standards.
Unbelievable that the writer who began this storm notes the designation my Libyans of 'Sudani" without examining the origins and deployment of this word in the region. There is no evidence that Sudanese are employed as mercenaries, and it does Libyans a disservice to assume that this is in fact representative. Why then do we have evidence of Libyans physically protecting so-called Africans from angry mobs. The author is simply warning against the introduction of particular racial divisions that have not hitherto been part of the Libyan social and cultural landscapes. It is also suprising that despite the valiant struggle of Libyans today, we are not asked to forget the astronomically destructive interventions of Qhaddafi and his military in Chad, Sudan and West Africa itself. I am sure that part of this revolution is in part driven by a sincere opposition to Qaddafi's destructive role as against bilad al-sudan more generally. Thanks for this article..no one is letting anyone off the hook here.
Why the complaint about "mercenaries". The US uses them all the time in Iraq and AfPak. They are called private contractors. Or "Coalition of the Willing" ie Nations that have been strong armed by the US to send soldiers to do the US bidding. They are used by the UK that used to recruit Sikhs, Nepalese or Indians to do their bidding and they are used by the French, it is called the French Foreign Legion (in the US as in France we give them citizenship too), not to mention the Senegalese Tiralleur used th terrorize the Algerians during the French Occupation.
legion
I am extremely disturbed by the fact that this article seems to lay the responsibility for this false dichotomy on foreign policymakers, organizations, or journalists, even stooping to the usage of a blatant strawman attack (Iran is never referred to as part of the "Arab world" by policymakers.)
It is not "Western" imagination or "Cold War paradigms" that brought this false dichotomy into play, but rather it was the Libyans who do not consider themselves to be "black Africans" who brought about this racist dichotomy and terminology.
Note this very telling quote by Mr. Salem Essalem from The National: "The detained men were among some 200 sent on Wednesday from the old city to prisons for investigation by teams including lawyers and judges, said Salem Essalem, the NTC official directing the transfer.
Mr Essalem and others associate sub-Saharan Africans with Col Qaddafi, who opened Libya to foreign workers. Reports of mercenaries have hardened suspicion.
'This, this is Libya,' Mr Essalem said, pointing to his arm. "These people are Africans. They attack us and defend the Qaddafi regime.'"
http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/middle-east/ntc-mass-arrests-target-people-from-sub-saharan-africa?pageCount=0
It is not the first time someone has pointed to the skin on their arms and used it to identify not only race, but nationality. I have seen this numerous times in another country that has struggled with its identity, Egypt. And it is not the first time that a national movement has turned into an opening for horrendous acts of racism, rape, torture, and even lynchings.
While I stand with the Libyan people for democracy and against the dictator Gaddafi, I cannot sit idly by and have you divert the blame for this racism on the "West" or "Europeans." This is a reaction of the Libyan people's frustrations with Gaddafi and an attempt to negate everything Gaddafi has ever stood for, in this case Pan-Africanism as opposed to Pan-Arabism. This mobilized all of the Libyans who do not self-identify as black or even African (some that is clearly, factually true) to lash out and vent their anger and frustration on those they choose to identify as "black" or "African" - even though the NTC itself has members among its ranks who we could also call "black Africans."
The bottom line is that this issue of racism and conflicted identity is a problem that comes from within Libya, and North African nations in general, and not from the "imagination" of "Western" or "European" politicians, journalists, and organizations. This is something the local populace themselves have been telling these "Western" and "European" journalists, a paradigm and false dichotomy that they themselves have imposed on the way that the West views them. Note that many self-identifying "white Arab" Libyans would easily be considered black in the "West."
Jadaliyya Launches Syria Page
.jpg){kind=small}
Jadaliyya Launches O.M.A.R.
Egypt Page
.jpg){kind=small}
Hot on Facebook
.أمامي رواية، لم اقرأ مثلها منذ سنوات، لا على الصعيد العربي، ولا على الصعيد العالمclick me | أنقرني email quote to a friend
From Jadaliyya Reports
Top Jadaliyya Tags
Jadalicious / جدلشس
Noteworthy
Twitter Updates
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Latest Entries
View All Entries »- It Is What It Is
- New Texts Out Now: Betty S. Anderson, The American University of Beirut: Arab Nationalism and Liberal Education
- Plundering the Past: Scholarly Treasures
- A Year After: The February 20 Protest Movement in Morocco
- حين يكون الكوكب بأسره ضد الثورة
- The Real Me and the Hypothetical Syrian Revolution - Part 1
- Searching for the Arab Spring in Ramallah
- Remembering Anthony Shadid
- Saving Khader Adnan's Life Saves Our Own Soul
- نداء الأسير خضـر عدنـان إلى العالم
- الإخوان في البرلمان؛ محاولة للفهم
- "Violating Sacred Values" in Morocco: Free Speech with an Exception
- Our Friend Anthony Shadid's Stories
- Statement on Hunger Strike of Khader Adnan by Palestinian Human Rights Organizations
- Struggles That Fueled a Revolution
- Immunity, Accountability, and the Arab Uprisings: Jadaliyya Co-Editor Noura Erakat Discusses the Role of the Human Rights Community
- Anthony Shadid Is No Longer with Us
- Patent for an Invented People
- The Insha'at Exodus
- New Texts Out Now: Lila Abu-Lughod and Anupama Rao, Women's Rights, Muslim Family Law, and the Politics of Consent
Archive
©2010-2012 by the Arab Studies Institute. All Rights Reserved. info@jadaliyya.com
site by concepcion design
I am disturbed by all the meta here, which seems, on theoretical grounds, to dismiss the testimony of those actually in the streets fighting dictatorship, and risking their lives. it is they who testify that Qadhafi is using "sudanī" mercenaries. While all that you say here may be true about the history of race relations, signifiers, and all that, the fact remains that trustworthy reports, visual and verbal, suggest that Qadhafi is hiring sub-Saharan soldiers-for-hire to kill Libyans. This fact may, in the long run exacerbate Libyan-SSAfrican relations; Libyan racism may lead Libyans to exaggerate the role the Africans are playing, and downplay the role of vicious Libyans. But I am put-off by what seems to be a disparagement of Libyan testimony on "theoretical" grounds.