The real reason why AU is not backing the NTC

*Unlike most Western governments, the AU is reluctant to recognize the NTC

*On the surface, the reason behind the move is AU's allegiance to Gaddafi, but the real reason is the misconception of the Libyan revolution as a foreign intervention

*Despite the hesitance, most African states will recognize the NTC soon

On August 26, the African Union (AU) decided to not recognize the National Transitional Council (NTC).  Given the general African reluctance to support the NTC from the beginning, the move is not a surprise.  Yet, observers beg for answers to the question why?  The future course of events seems irreversible, and the NTC will be the interim government, and its major leaders will later contest for elections and key posts.  Why then, is Africa being hesitant?  Why is it blinding itself from the so predictable future?

Geography, common colonialists, nor ethnic proximity explains why.  The 11 or so states (some reports claim 20) that have recognized the NTC are Botswana, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tunisia, Senegal, Gabon, Burkina Faso, Benin, Kenya, and Djibouti.  The opposing 43 rest are equally randomly distributed. 

 States that recognize NTC, sparse and random

The most visible reason is the Gaddafi alliance. Gaddafi was, just like any other African head of state, a staunch supporter of Pan-Africanism.  Ideologically, he was on a planet of his own, calling for a Pan-African state, entitling himself the King of Kings of Africa, and urging “Libyan men to marry only black women, and Libyan women to marry only black men.”  Practically, however, he was a man of his words, generously funding the AU.  Naturally, he won friends and alliances with several African Presidents, whose political campaign rhetoric always included African unity, a concept cheap enough to talk about without taking any substantial action.

           This, however, is only a partial understanding.  Professor Mahmood Mamdani, best known for his book Good Muslim Bad Muslim, elucidates the African reason in his own words.  The fall of Gaddafi was different from that of Ben Ali and Mubarak because “external intervention” was heavily involved.  Without the meddlesome outsiders, Tripoli would have been intact, he argues.  Mamdani goes further, claiming that the recent boom of Chinese and Indian business influence in the continent is just like the decades old Western intervention in the form of financial and military aid.  Most importantly, the Libyan case sends a poor signal, where domestic political oppositions will look towards the West for their political ascension.  He claims that “dark days are ahead,” as the West involves the Security Council and the ICC to legitimize its involvement in the destruction of sovereignty and the rule of law.  As another example, he cites Ggabo of Cote d’Ivoire.  For Mamdani and the African leaders, the Libyan revolution is an illegal rebellion that happened with the help of the West.

           It is not surprising that Mamdani’s supremacy of national sovereignty over democratic values is widely accepted in Africa, where the democratic deficit is as heartbreaking as its economic catastrophes.  The Continent is rife with pseudo-democracies, with Presidents acting like softer versions of their authoritarian predecessors.  Two states outside of Africa that endorses the national-sovereignty-above-all philosophy are Russia and China, who have frustrated global cosmopolitans in blocking Security Council action in Cote d’Ivoire, Sudan, and Iran during times of state instigated violence against its people.  Indeed, much like African leaders, Russia and China are insecure over certain pockets of population, and more importantly, insecure about opening up.  This insecurity leads to most obviously violence, but finger pointing the West as well.

           Mamdani and the African leaders view the Libyan revolution as a battle between national sovereignty and foreign intervention.  The more proper conception, however, is the dichotomy of authoritarianism versus democracy.  The key actor in the revolution was not NATO nor the Security Council, but the public as a collective unit.  Mamdani and co are under-calculating the significance of the NTC, the rebel fighters, and the citizen demonstrators who triggered the civil war.  They should properly note who wanted regime change in the first place and who decided to risk their lives to achieve it.

 This is democracy triumphing national sovereignty. Smiling now Gaddafi?

           The anti-West also fails to acknowledge is that democratic movement is triumphing national sovereignty, a new norm in international relations.  In times of mass democratic movement, a solidarity of public demonstrators, facebook and twitter users, international media, and foreign governing bodies forms.  The UN Security Council and the ICC, with their process of deliberation, intense debate, and global membership, add legitimacy to the cause.  Mamdani has pointed out these two institutions as another arm of the Western intervention, yet the ICC lacks the membership of the prime African villain, the United States, while encompassing a large number of African states.  The ICC may be bad for national sovereignty, but good for people of Sudan, Kenya, and now Libya.

Now, all this talk aside, what does the future hold?  No matter how much pro-Gaddafi sentiment lingers or how dubious the NTC seem to be, these nay-saying African states will eventually support the NTC, albeit in the form of a new Libyan government.  Embassies have to reopen, diplomats must serve government and business interests, and national leaders will have to face each other in Addis Ababa again.  Such is the nature of diplomacy, something that the current crop of African presidents, prime ministers, and (not necessarily mutually exclusive) dictators seems to have forgotten.  Expect the number of NTC embracers to rise.

Anti-Americanism as Inception

           The movie Inception is a 2010 blockbuster that made a ton of money.  It was a box office success and a great entertainment.  What no critic has said, however, is that it is perfectly suitable for a TED lecture about ideas.  Inception teaches us that the simplest idea, one that fits a concise sentence with only one subject and one verb, is formidable enough to disintegrate a multi-billion dollar conglomerate.  After penetrating through the layers of dreams that can only be properly explained through a three dimensional diagram, the idea at the core is a mere phrase no more than ten words.  Indeed, the main theme of the movie is not “we have to go deeper.”  It is “I have to break down my father’s empire.”

Cillian is the Star of the Show, not Leo

           Soon after watching Inception, I experienced this great teaching materialize in my own life.  As I read The Man who Owns the News, a journalist’s observation of Rupert Murdoch, I realized that I was a victim of inception.  I first heard of Murdoch when I was in Macalester College, a place so liberal that even international students canvassed for Obama.  Thus, Murdoch, the monopolistic owner of Fox News, was vilified at the same level as Bush, Cheney, and Bachman.  What I learned from The Man who Owns the News is that Murdoch is in fact a lot more complex.  His company owns a lot more media outlets, including trade magazines, local newspapers, and my personal favorite, Fox Entertainment.  He is politically conservative, but he is also a traditional newspaperman, turning several papers from money losers to money makers.  As I read this exciting biography, I found the possible trace of my inception.  The NY Times and Murdoch have always been at odds against each other, and when Murdoch was trying to acquire the WSJ, the NY Times took advantage to vilify Murdoch.  Surely by reading the NY Times is not the only way that my colleagues at Macalester acquired his or her anti-Murdochism, but what is rather regrettably sure is that my personal disdain of Murdoch at first stemmed from a simple idea, and it was a resilient impression that did not change until I read a 500 page book about him.

Wow it has terrible customer reviews.  I endorse it though.

            I have taken the liberties to assume that anti-Americanism can be a result of inception as well.  It stems from a very simple idea, yet it is so resolute.  Back in March, I had a heated hour long debate with my dear colleague, Mr. Seiph, over the NATO bombings in Libya.  Seiph’s anger towards America started with its association with violence.  He was angry that America was “killing people.”  I then persuaded him that violence is an unfortunate but inevitable result of this very important campaign to remove Gaddafi.  From here on, we went back and forth.  He remarked that Libya has been a model example for African countries, providing free health care.  I rebutted that the large number of protestors alone is a sign that Gaddafi has been a poor leader.  He said that America is equally wrong to use missiles to cause civilian casualties, rather than containing the damage to military facilities.  I then said that the deaths are an unfortunate consequence, but America is not acting unilaterally.  It is acting under NATO guidance and UN Security Council agreement.  At this moment, Seiph seemed to be persuaded that Gaddafi is in fact a proper target, but he was still angry at America.  You know Kim, he said, I have heard that America has sophisticated assassination technologies, like a remote controlled mechanical bee that can kill with toxins.  Why not resort to these measures?  I then explained that this would not be a legitimate move as NATO wants to see regime change come from inside Libya, so that another snafu like Iraq is not repeated.  I was surprised at this moment, because he was supporting regime change.  It was a layer deeper than the most vocal African opinion on the matter – American air strikes are bad – championed by South African President Zuma.

           Towards the end, the discussion has obviously sidetracked from Libya, but the center of discussion was still America.  Seiph mentioned the Jewish 9/11 conspiracy theory: that all Jewish people were notified and evacuated before the twin tower attacks.  After debunking the theory, I thought to myself: Seiph is the most religious Muslim I have met in school, so perhaps his religious inclination is the source of his anti-Americanism.  Of course, this was just one of many hypotheses on how the inception was performed, but what I saw was that Seiph’s anti-Americanism was neither complex nor specific.  My impression was that to him, America = bad. What appeared to be his anger towards the NATO air strikes was in fact his personal dislike of America.  His opinions towards Libya, Gaddafi, and the legitimacy of violence went back and forth throughout the debate, but his anti-Americanism was consistent.  Just like in Inception, Seiph’s anti-Americanism was intransigent and firm, but a mere simple idea at its core.

Good or bad?  Doesn't matter, I hate America

           Here is another related story.  A couple of months later, Osama Bin Laden was captured and promptly executed at sea.  This caused some discontent from Muslims, as it is against Muslim custom to be buried at sea.  Amidst the murmurs of the news, a student wearing a hijab asked me about this matter, and why a Muslim was buried against his customs.  She seemed to be discontent with the American desecration of a Muslim body.  To which I remarked the American government’s desire to negate Bin Laden’s burial ground as a sanctified place for current and soon-to-be terrorists.  During the short discussion afterwards, it was shocking that nobody seemed to know or remember that Al Qaeda was responsible for 1998 US Embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, which claimed 11 lives and 85 injuries in Dar es Salaam alone.  Indeed, anti-Americanism was both resilient and prevalent to the extent that it made people forget that Bin Laden killed Tanzanians. 

You forgot THIS?

Mild anti-Americanism is prevalent in Tanzania.  Each individual must have picked up his or her anti-Americanism differently, and I believe the process was a lot like inception, subtle and deep.  Anti-Americanism is a simple idea concise enough to fit in a sentence, but it is solid.  Although one may change his mind about a country, a leader, and the legitimacy of violence, and forget that Osama Bin Laden killed her compatriots, one will still hate America.