Liberation in Libya?

After a climatic six months, the final usurping of Colonel Gaddafi is hailed as the liberation of Libya. 

However, such a statement need be reserved for a time when the country has resumed a state of normality and stability. Whilst the shift of control is something to most certainly be celebrated, the country remains terribly fragile, with continued reports of fighting, gunfire and protests.

With a stint in charge that now spans six decades, Col Gaddafi has seen his leadership through a great many tumultuous situations. Resurgent and dwindling support extremities often characterised his period as head of state. Continued change in political support has ensured that there has never been adequate reflection of public sentiment over this period.

Now, with the rebel forces taking over administration of the African territory that has dominated news in 2011, there is a fear that this pent up frustration will out.

Key concerns include supply chains for medicines and foodstocks, power facilities, communications and, inevitably, law and order.

For example, with hotspots of violence being persistent across the country, there are more walking wounded than is normally anticipated for Libya. Add to this that the fighting targets and damages public places like hospitals and consequently there is little support. Moreover, with increasing power problems, hospitals would be unable to sustain proper standards of support.

A damaged hospital in Zawiyah.

This is but one example of how this conglomerate of issues corresponds to a growing concern for the area.

As Geoff Loane, the head of mission for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) pointed out: "The absolute priority is that security is provided, as required for a big urban sprawl. As we saw in England, it's very easy to destabilise urban environments."

When looking over Gaddafi’s legacy, it need be remembered that for many of the population, he has been their only leader. Now there is free reign for fresh ideas and control.

Scenes of celebration - Too early?

Almost instantly, Libyan interim leaders have rejected UN military aid to keep control. At first glance, this appears the founding steps toward a new era of forced control. Where there is army control, it is often synonymous that there is no free government. That this should be a considered option is to cause great fear for many who have strived for freedom.

Yet, the force would be independently led. Elsewhere in the African domain, recent coups have seen armed forces successful manage to maintain peace in Egypt as it continues through its own revolution.

Moreover, when in desperate need for stability, a military force is indeed a ‘strong’ option. There has been no clear cut succession regime, particularly considering the fact that Gaddafi has not publically surrendered. In fact at time of writing, representatives for the dictator have rejected the proposed ultimatum to surrender, saying: “No dignified honourable nation would accept an ultimatum from armed gangs.” 

However, since this was never declared a war, civil or otherwise, there is a great desire to avoid such a position; and perhaps being seen to accept such a form of aid would be understood as many living within Libya as an admission of combat. Yet with restricted supplies and a resilient (if not absent) leadership, it is predicted that the problems could yet escalate further. 

Therefore, with no new figurehead or group claiming control, there is a vacuum that could potentially be filled by extremists or those inadequate to lead. With power remaining vulnerable across the state, there is chance for history to repeat itself.

Checkpoints are controlled by rebels, without a central law enforcement.

It is hoped that the release of 1.86 billion dinars in aid will ease the transition and form bridges between Europe and the African nation. But with port authorities and oil firms still blocked and various European countries remaining dubious until there is proof of development, it could be some time before Libya’s problems are resolved.

Hopefully, they will not span another 42 years. But who knows where absolution will come from?...

To Punish or Not to Punish.

Certain incredulity is surely abound amongst the British population tonight as MPs argue back and forth over the level of punishment suitable for the rioters that ruled several important cities across the country last week.

Coming to terms with the extent of last week’s devastating loots, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, last week publically pledged that all those found to have been involved in the illicit actions would be met with the full force of the law: a sentiment that was supported by the vast majority of the nation. Mr Cameron added “If these people are old enough to commit the crime, they are old enough to face the punishment.”

However, as it emerged that some of the participants were as young as eight years old, there begs the question of the age of criminal responsibility. Moreover, this issue is one clearly within the public spotlight and mind frame. Unlike the daily sessions in court, specific interest has caused a commotion and tense atmosphere under which jurors are expected to pass harsher sentences than normal.

Of course, these are no normal conditions. Law should be considered as a measurable tool for each individual and not haphazardly applied in blanket fashion across all those who are not law abiding citizens.

Yet it is somewhat disparaging and deeply concerning when people are faced with this comparison: 18 year old, David Atto, pleaded guilty to the theft of two Burberry T-shirts. With no previous convictions against his name and an honest plea, he was sentenced to a day in custody. Meanwhile, Nicolas Robinson, 23, of Borough, south-east London, was jailed for six months for burglary. Of course, whilst the nature of the offense is similar to that above, Robinson took a £3.50 bottle of water from a Lidl Supermarket. The difference is astounding to say the least.

Some judges cite the difference of the level of crime as meriting the change in sentence strength. The natural response is an onslaught of appeals to what many feel constitute a miscarriage of justice. 

However, if the perpetrators were so moved to action in a frenzy trusting that they would only receive trivial punishment, then the system need not cave on the level of severity introduced thus far.

Now that more than 1,000 people have been sentenced in association with the disturbances, the murmurs of discontent on both sides are spreading. As changeable and extreme as the punishments first appear, ex-Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell has urged MPs not to pass comment. Any attempt by MPs to influence judges' decisions was "not consistent with the rule of law", he told the BBC. In a radio interview, he elaborated by explaining, “What I don't think is right is that politicians should have a league table in which they approve of some sentences and disapprove of others. It's none of our business.”

Unprecedented opinions however are sure to spill over and whilst Sir Campbell’s comments make sense so as not undermine any law system, these, the most powerful men and women in the country, are looked toward first and foremost from a populous so dumbfounded.

Technological twists only further tangle the trials and thought on relevant sentence. With many now being brought to court for Facebook and Twitter comments as inciting violence, there is a difficulty with how to justify any extended action if the person was not directly involved or foolishly made a passing jibe. In almost a sci-fi fashion, we could be advocating courts to follow through on pre-crime solutions. 

Level of justice and level of crime. Scales that constantly need be measured to ensure a smoothly running country have here seemed to see-saw back and forth. But as a public we must remember, we are no more qualified to say what is suitable punishment than the MPs. Politicians make law; police and courts enforce and implement law.

Division or Unity? Germany's Unique Position.

Whilst this past week has seen many social divisions arise within our own country, their importance and depth is relatively dwarfed by those of some of our European counterparts on the mainland. Rioting and violence nationwide has triggered a plethora of responses in an attempt to comprehend any reasons which could support such actions. Although there are many lessons to be learnt of the divisions plaguing English society, the fragile illusion of unity that undermines other nations is all too striking. 

Today, Germany, a country of total unity in the modern world for only some brief 20 years, commemorates – or rather commiserates – the construction of the Berlin Wall half a century ago; a move marking one of the most consistently hostile environments of propaganda and restriction upheld in a supposedly sophisticated and developed 21^st century world.

Between 1961 and 1989, the Berlin Wall stood to separate the West from the East of Europe: to separate ideologies; to separate economies; to separate neighbours and countrymen amidst a political climate of rivalry.

Capitalism and Communism countered each other throughout the period that became known as the Cold War, but the harsher realities of this were for those behind what has become referred to as the ‘Iron Curtain’.

East Germany in particular suffered more than a number of other countries in the region due to the sudden and definite manner in which the land was ripped apart without thought for consequence of lifestyle, recovery from the war or global wellbeing. The wall became an icon of what was to many an inexplicable act of social warfare. 

However, despite the passing of more than two decades since the fall of the wall, Europe is still haunted by its spectre. Whilst the reintegration and orientation of East and West has seemingly gone forward smoothly, it is much more a small scale reflection of the somewhat slower integration of Eastern and Western domains in a globalised world.

For many, the wall was a restriction similar to that suffered by livestock. A violation of freedom not seen amongst humans for centuries.

Reaching into the twenty first century then, such primitive restriction now holds the key to psychological and economical divisions. Questions as to abandonment, sacrifice and how far a country cans be expected to support its citizens: particularly following one of the most turbulent periods in continental history. The scale of the issue effects life in many different ways.

First of all, there are those for whom life behind the curtain ensured that life without it is ironically too difficult. There a large minorities in the East that do not associate with those Germans from the West of their own country. “I cannot name a single West German with whom I socialise now - really, I can't” admitted Brigitta Heinrich to a Russian news agency. For many, the repeated ideological mentality that was enforced in daily life means that the ideas of generations raised either side of the wall are simply not compatible and so relations are strained.

Of course, there are those who suffered indirectly. If one was believed to be related to an escapee, or attempted escapee, then one may be subject to all types of humiliation: eviction, unemployment, rejection from social groups etc. Life had to be dedicated to one idea in the East.

For those who died in their attempts at a life of freedom, a glorified and much fantasied ideal of the West was the prime reason for their final journey. Debates rage as to the total numbers of deaths caused by gunmen who kept constant sentry over this, the most ridiculous of constructions. At least 136 are known to have been killed but victims' groups say the true number is more than 700.The first victim was thought to be Guenter Litfin on 24 August 1961 and the last Chris Gueffroy on 6 February 1989.

To this day, there are continued economic divisions, lifestyle divisions and belief divisions. A continent divided. A country in two.

At ceremonies across the country today, many paid their respects to what has become a defining moment in the recent history of the reforging of a nation. Almost too prophetically, leader claims that Germany was under attack from surrounding countries in Europe turned to be truth, as its assets were split and its citizens left with a grand sense of moral shame.

Mayor Wowereit said the capital was remembering the "saddest day in its recent history". At a ceremony at a former crossing-point, President Wulff said the wall had been "an expression of fear" of those who created it.

Whether an image of fear or power, the wall is a testament to the psychological fancies of leaders worldwide.

Britain Burning: Cause and Consequence

With a certain apprehension, I write from just outside Manchester City Centre as the riots that have spread widely across the country are mounting for a fourth night of action: today, the first in which my city has been involved.

London and the rest of the UK are now under siege from within. Personal vendettas and localised looting is dominating cities nationwide with subsequent apparent anarchy. What began as an isolated incident in a London suburb on Saturday night (6/08/2011), has quickly and ferociously developed into the most diabolical scenes of rioting witnessed in this country in some decades. 

Trouble in Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Liverpool has been labelled ‘copycat’ behaviour, following the unparalleled waves of violence seen in London boroughs. The catalyst for this widespread outpouring of feeling was the shooting of one Mark Duggan. Whether one describes the actions as disaffected or a fuelled release of pent up frustration, there can be no apologies for the violence which has been directed at innocent members of the public, small business owners, and other people doing their daily business who now are incapacitated in some form.

Peaceful protests provide persons with an ample forum in which to highlight and showcase their grief and issues with public administrations. In general, they help in not only quelling dramatic attacks, but reflect nationwide sentiments that can be taken into account. Therefore, the march in Tottenham on Saturday afternoon was an event with justified merit that was later tarnished by mere opportunists and vandals. 

However, we need closer analyse underlying unrest that has plagued both the capital and certain national suburbs over the immediate period prior to these disasters. In Tottenham, the original focus of the violence, residents were becoming increasingly begrudging of police stop and search actions that are reported to have been widely unjustified and yielded few results for public safety. With the mounting power abuse that the police actioned in the surrounding areas, there became a unilateral belief that the scaremongering tactics were introduced to reduce crime and yet had intruded on lives to such an extent that police were subject of ridicule.

Of course, continual mistreatment and suspicion of youths in the past has led to a mounting air of mistrust that has featured predominantly as the violence has spread. In blaming a great deal of social problems as rising solely from those of young adult status, the support of those under-25 is understandable, even if not condonable. 

Moreover, Tottenham is an area that suffers rife unemployment. Together with later targeted Lewisham and Peckham (which were featured in a recent newspaper editorial as amongst the top 25 areas in the country for people out of work), onlookers are able to establish that the dissatisfaction is also fed off both lack of job prospects and the subsequent idle and sedentary lifestyle that comes hand in hand. Sparking of other social injustice only provided a platform for this plethora of misfortunes to manifest in physical outbursts.

In addition, spending and budget cuts amidst global recession, Eurozone crises and worldwide credit down-gradings only adds to the country’s financial woes. The widespread effects are that as well as unemployment, local facilities and amenities shut down so there are further disruptions and lack of distractions in daily life. Ironically, for all the attacks, no one has launched a mounted assault on big businesses at Canary Wharf. 

More to the point, the number of destroyed independent businesses is completely inexcusable: almost as if vengeance for those few in the area who were struggling with small enterprise pressures already. Two teenage girls speaking to a BBC reporter this morning said that “This is to show the rich that we can do what we want.” However, there appears no distinction between the rich and those who have private, small businesses that do not make the mega-buck revenue of which the girls naively spoke. 

Reverse dichotomy: this is certainly not the image of the Big Society that Cameron had in mind.

Although the public are being heard, this is no way to reverse any standing belief of disenfranchisement: but rather provides reason that tighter measures need be in force to govern the public. 

Army drafting, water cannons, tear gas, Tasers. Over the past 72 hours, there has been a great deal of social debate as to how the country’s management should proceed in order to restore order and maintain livelihoods for the majority. Options are many and certainly diverse.

However, it is not so much dealing with the immediate onslaught as the subsequent aftermath. Perhaps one of the poignant comments after pictures from London fires have been circulated was that “it looks as though London has been bombed, in a war”. Irrevocable damage has been incurred and the mounting costs are certainly a serious issue and concern for all involved. 

Already a country dealing with daily money misery, the cost of the cleanup will cause national taxes to be increased. The unprecedented need for extra dependence on the emergency services will rise the amount of money needed to be paid to the state. Stockbrokers will invest less as millions is wiped off those businesses who are unable to deal with the continued clashes, whilst insurance prices will rise in supposedly troubled cities, such as those aforementioned.

In an already struggling economy, the sense of any such riots is lost (if, for that matter, it existed in the first place). Despite this entry having acceded money issues as facilitating events while they were first brought before the public, there is only a continual problem in our nationals thus wasting their own money in the long run: ergo constructing a continuum of debt generation.

Taking a different slant, government officials convening emergency Cobra meetings and recalling parliament will for a long time yet have an image of an unruly mob in their mind when putting forward any changes to country legislation. While some may argue that it is government action which has caused unrest, these scenes have only served to further widen the divide in trust between those in Westminster and their citizens: tougher rule would appear a more democratic action in the interests of the majority.

Information released just today details that the bullet found wedged into a police officer’s radio, at the scene where Duggan was shot on Thursday, was in fact police issue. The most recent statement at this time is that there is no evidence of the victim having shot at the met. Since violence had pre-empted such a finding, there is no sense how this may yet effect the public feel towards the riots. Yet, this is also a crucial piece of information regarding how police will be viewed within their constituencies: little trust being honoured with unjustified action.

But more than these monetary and bureau escapades, the real consequence will be a loss of public sentiment and compassion, especially toward youths (as earlier mentioned, blanket punished). Living with the shells of buildings and lost businesses haunting high streets across the country will always conjur images of a week where citizens, in “a moment of madness” according to lawyers convening in courts today, simply took to wanton destruction to prove a public power without direction or motive. 

What began as a moving and socially meaningful demonstration, now a marred public effigy to anarchy.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-incident-map

The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

"We Lost Our Way": A Media Blame Game

Current climates suggest that it would be a difficult time to join my desired profession. Already being a domain of decline since the advent of internet and the more recent economic recession, the industry has taken a huge blow of late that shows no relent. The continuing saga of the phone hacking scandal, subsequent closure of ‘The News of the World’ (one of Britain’s most widely distributed and read papers) as well as the forced withdrawal of the Murdoch BskyB takeover plans leaves a rather precarious sphere, where press is continually scrutinised for more proof of these events.

“Simply, we lost our way” read the final editorial statement from News of the World, whose last edition circulated on 10 July 2011. The sentiment is deeply interesting: whilst the actions of the paper were undoubtedly grossly misjudged in their event, the conception of such tactics is grounded in a much more logical problem: worldwide newspaper readership is declining in favour of other mediums. Simply, the paper lost its way amongst a conglomerate of internet sites affording more up-to-date stories.

Moreover, there has been established a universal scandal dichotomy. Public interest is skewed so as the vast majority want to read cutting edge stories: scandals, new information, no matter whose privacy is taken away. Originally a specialist niche of the gossip column, tabloid news now has to cater for a population who want to have hidden secrets uncovered; the resultant number of injured parties reads like a dictionary of showbiz. Now add NotW to the collateral damage, for in its mission to bring the public an ever more reliable service, it ventured to extremes that the readership secretly covets, yet was stung by the social etiquette by which we are openly governed.

As such, the public, as well as those involved at News of the World, lost their way and are equally as culpable in the continued and relentless invasion of privacy which papers are expected to carry out.

Consequently, the media domain is under a watchful eye that is all too reminiscent of a certain George Orwell novel (ironically the aforementioned author was quoted in the final edition of the News of the World). The arrests of several members of the staff team are merely scapegoat routines: in order for a prolonged change, there need be a revolution in our consumption of the news. Whilst it is all too tempting to lay full blame on figures such as former editor in chief Rebekah Brooks, a fully functioning news room works on an independent and free flowing nature: in order to achieve maximum output, not every journalist can (or should be expected to) pitch, write and have each idea checked for concrete backup. The sphere of reported news would slow to a pace not considered acceptable since the railroad revolution. 

Extended ripples have meant the withdrawal of the BskyB bid. Indeed, the event is exemplary of how fragile any industry is to a cynical nation without faith in a product. A takeover that was once considered a fundamental step in the unity of Murdoch’s media empire is now the bane of social contempt. Yet, for all the furore, the planned purchase of the group was quite the separate entity and completely unrelated to the media scandal. Ergo, public demands for scandal comes full circle, so crippling an industry that functions based on their personal whims.

However, there remain serious lessons to be learnt. The hacking and various attacks, slanders and invasions should not have been allowed to continue for such an extended period. Individual journalists should be using legitimate and trustworthy sources and methods. This is both a business of freedom of information and data protection as is conversely necessary. From the ashes of a floundering news system, may a new generation of considerate publications take care as to both print and approach. Integrity of the media and the public interest are both balanced on this sensitive issue. 

An issued statement of apology, signed by Murdoch himself, tells that “a free and open press need be a positive force in society. We need to live up to this.” However, the burden is not one of the press alone. To play a positive role, the demands of the consumer need be socially acceptable on all levels.

“Atrocious but necessary”.

A little more than a week ago, Norway became the latest country of the EU to suffer a terrorist attack. Whilst the world is used to outside agents or people working on behalf of foreign terror groups acting against a particular nation, these events stood out because their perpetrator was in fact a Norwegian as well. 

Anders Behring Breivik bombed the capital city Oslo on the 22^nd July just hours before he started to gun down people at a youth holiday camp many miles away on Utoeya Island. The corresponding attacks across different regions of the country show a precise and vicious will; a will deemed by Breivik as “necessary” for his country’s future. 

As concerning as both the events and the lack of response appear to the outside world, the restrained grieving is much more common in Norway, and today, the country’s PM warned against a ‘witch-hunt’ following the crimes.

Justifying these horrors is indeed hard to accept, however the suspect has laid out his plans in a manifesto style for the past three years and consequently his supposed reasoning behind the attacks is laid out in rather a simple manner. Similarities to Nazi doctrine have been drawn, but more and more, people are describing the events of 22^nd July not as terrorism, but extremism.

Extremism is difficult to quantify in that it may encompass elements of terrorism, exuding fear amongst many, but in addition, there is often a political agenda at work. Geir Lippestad, who is Breivik’s lawyer for the case, said that “He wanted a change in society, and from his perspective, he needed to force through a revolution.”

To understand this further, we need consider that Breivik’s writings talk of the left’s supposed lenience and call for multiculturalism as negative moves for the country and as a general worldwide. He believes that the ‘Islamism’ of Europe need be prevented, not for common reasons that plague many such as job loss or fear of the different but, so as to preserve national identity and remain focussed on the country’s own populous and well-being. The seemingly contradictory killings were merely means to an end: look how easy it would be for someone to attack. After all, Breivik had been politically active and found out himself that he did not succeed with usual political tools and so resorted to violence.

Described as a quiet man locked in his thoughts, there is no doubt in the mind of Anders Behring Breivik that his actions were “atrocious but necessary” and he denies any criminal responsibility. It remains to be seen whether there will be a plea of mental instability, ergo negating mens rea: for without a vicious will there can be no vicious crime. Of course, such a statement would undermine the (for want of a better word) message for which this man stands. If insane, it would go against his claim for a social revolution.

What is now “atrocious but necessary” is a full scale investigation into the extent of extremism within Europe, as a source of continued threat from within. Whilst it may be a subject rather avoided, if we are to understand the concerns which drive many to such views, there needs be a greater public forum than internet chat rooms - lives could be saved. For as Breivik himself quoted: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests." (John Stuart Mill) and for their own safety, this is a belief in which 100,000 should surely have an interest.