* The use of black African mercenaries in Libya is an unfortunate, Arabic than 1000 years of tradition Autocrats continued By Marco Schöller I
Since Friday, it first few and uncertain, then more and more confirmed news suggesting that the Gaddafi regime in Libya begins mercenaries from sub-Saharan countries on against the Libyan people proceed. Meanwhile, it is undeniable, not least thanks to the photos and videos from Libya that are circulating on the Internet and international TV channels. Several videos show overpowered soldiers, dead or alive.
also the origin of these mercenaries, we now know more, because it seems especially to soldiers from Guinea and Chad, to act may also from Niger and Nigeria, with these documents, for example, a link to confirm Guinea, were found overwhelmed mercenaries. The question of origin was uncertain for several days: At first it was said that they were from Mali, and on the Internet is also reported that "Korean" mercenaries and those involved were from Bangladesh. The latter message could not be confirmed. On Saturday it was reported according to France, the mercenaries were separatists from the Sudan and Chad, which had training camps in Libya and actually meant to fight in Darfur are. At the same time has been reported several times, mercenaries were to fight in Libya first flown. On the recruitment and transportation of the soldiers then were circulating on Monday and yesterday many rumors, the truth of which can not be checked. It was said that the Libyan regime is planning to commandeer civilian aircraft to airlines on Libyan airports to fly in mercenaries, a messenger is to Gaddafi in Cairo have (for free) sought to "buy" air space for this purpose. to circulate leaflets which have a daily pay of $ 2000 or more promising, if men reported a fight in Libya - was finally alleged that in several sub-Saharan African countries - Nigeria and Guinea were explicit. All these reports are not confirmed. to show
 |
| videos, the black African mercenaries |
But probably the "mercenaries" and long in the country: Christoph Ehrhardt and Thomas Gutschker point in the FAZ (
Loyal to the tribe, not the regime / 02.23.2011) suggested that it might be, for the mercenary to the remains of the "Islamic Legion" Gaddafi:
1972 Gaddafi also presented on an Islamic Legion, with his dream of a large Islamic state was achieved in the Sahel. You consisted of mercenaries, the Gaddafi in Sudan, Mali, Chad, Tunisia and Egypt recruited. ... The legionnaires were mainly used in Chad, where she met the Aouzou strip in the occupied north. After being expelled from there in 1987, Gaddafi should have dissolved the Legion. Certainly it's not do that. The Research Institute CSIS in Washington speculates in a study published in July 2010 that the Legion would continue to exist with 2,500 men. ... Perhaps these are the "African mercenaries," which currently is always the question.
For more news, rumors, hypotheses, see here:
Gaddafi bloodhounds from Africa (Die Presse / 22.02.2011) Is Zimbabwe Sending Commandos to Kill Libyan Protesters? (The Atlantic Wire / Elspeth Reeve / 23.02.2011) A History of Middle East Mercenaries (TIME / Ishaan Tharoor / 23.02.2011) How Much Does It Cost To Hire an African Mercenary? Maybe a thousand bucks, but don't forget the king's shilling (slate.com / Stayton Bonner / 23.02.2011) Der Terror der schwarzafrikanischen Söldner-Truppe (kurier.at / 23.02.2011) (Addendum 02/03/2011:
more information, see the end of the article )
It is, however, as I said, sure that black African mercenaries in Libya were in use and still are. Obviously trust the Gaddafi regime of their own army, not because they feared that soldiers would not fire at Libyan compatriots. In fact, so simple yet high-ranking soldiers and officers deserted. Today circulated videos, show the bodies of captive soldiers who were apparently executed. According to Aljazeera, it should be of a Libyan soldiers who were killed when they refused to carry out orders. And the last two days there have been increasing (now also by television images confirmed) reports that are whole units of the Libyan army and its leaders in different places at the rebel overflowed. Not your own "popular army" to trust is, therefore, from the perspective of the Gaddafi regime, obvious - and is in a centuries-old tradition of Arab autocrats, who fear the power and the proximity of their subordinates.
II
yourself mercenaries is to be served is not a new phenomenon in the political history of the Arab world. Already, the Abbasid Caliph sat in the 9th Century AD on Turkish troops, and the Turks should be the next Centuries the fortunes of much of the Arab world to determine. And while most were quickly made himself ruler of the mercenaries, known as such in the 250-year rule of the Mamluks in Egypt (1250-1517). But especially in North Africa had been playing since 9 century black African mercenaries would a major role, which I illustrate below with some examples.
to a better understanding of the historical context I must premise that the term "mercenary" is usually not in regard to conditions in the Arab world until the 19th Century is used, although the phenomenon as well could be "mercenaries" call, because it is such a principle: struggle experienced men, who are recruited from out of town for payment or (in earlier times) and forcibly recruited to perform specific tasks - usually to protect or defend a ruler. (Because even the forced conscription pay was paid, the term "mercenaries" even with conscription is not inappropriate.) In the case of North Africa, there were men from the sub-Saharan zone, which - speaking in modern state borders - from Mauritania and Senegal through Mali, northern Nigeria, Niger and Chad extends into the Sudan. Until the 19th Century was this wide strip of land just as "Sudan" is known, not least because
as-Sudan Arabic for "the blacks" means.
The Warriors, which are recruited from this region to North Africa had, usually slave status, and this is one of the main reasons why they are in today's history is not usually referred to as "mercenaries", but rather as a "slave soldiers". But "slaves" in the literal sense, they were primarily to their status before the law, in many ways but not
de facto : You had the right to property, lived with families who lived together in their own villages or barracks and also received a salary . Both the standard of living and distinguished from the living conditions they are not from the majority of the population. That they had a limited legal protection, was also theoretically particularly important, as well as the "free", which were in principle better legal footing, were often not able to gain this relief also. On the contrary, it was the slave-soldiers because of their real power is often more likely to gain in spite of its theoretical slave state law, which other, even if free people could not, even though they state. In principle, it was therefore in almost all practical matters to a professional army, which no ethnic or emotional, and often no linguistic ties with the region had, in which they were used: classical just mercenaries. And they were due to the lack of loyalty to their surroundings, as expected reliable as long as it was not so far that they become a "state within a state" and thus were a threat.
III
The first black African mercenaries, of which we hear in the Arab history of North Africa were the start of the 9th Century. of the dynasty of the Aghlabids in Ifriqiya (the area of present-day Tunisia) recruited. Even the governor of the caliphs, who ruled from 800 in Ifrîqiyah had brought foreign troops into the country, however, no mercenaries, but Arabs from the north-east of the Caliphate, namely, from Khurasan (present-day northeastern Iran). They came in large numbers with the Abbasid governors to North Africa, since these were even ordered from Khurasan there. It represented nothing more than ethnic Arabs, although they are from out of town which met who were already in Ifriqiya, and they were used not only to secure the Abbasid rule, but also the colonization of the new province.
The Aghlabids but who did whatever to 799/800 in Ifrîqiyah
de facto (and recognized only on paper, the suzerainty of the Abbasid Caliph), began to set up a fighting force of 'blacks'. These mercenaries was confined to barracks in Kairouan (Arabic Qairawân) in the immediate vicinity of the new palace of the Aghlabids and should ensure there personal protection Aghlabids-ruler. The black troops, unlike the Arabs who came from Khurasan in front of them, officially slave status, in the sense described above. The black soldiers served the Aghlabids less as a fighting force, but rather as a bodyguard. They were even present when the ruler summoning scholars or judges, which is reported several times in the sources. The personal loyalty to the person of the ruler was of the utmost importance and thus the real raison d'être
this Guard. Nor the Governor of the Abbasid caliphs had tried to build a bodyguard of Berbers, but as these were from the region, they proved to be unreliable ... and although they claim the name of each governor's got a tattoo to be protected on the arm, they brought more than one of its wards were killed. maintain
The tradition, a body guard of black 'slave soldiers, "we find in the history of North Africa, and partly in other regions of the Arab world over the centuries several times. The image of the black "bodyguard" or the "black guard", the fluid passes into the topos of the "black harem guard" finally found its way into the canon of images of European Orientalism, so that it is in the (kitschy) orientalist paintings of the late 19th Century. repeatedly refers. The following are two typical figures, each titled "Nubian Guard" - left a painting by Rudolf Weiss, German right, Louis (1855-1935):
IV
The most famous case in which a North African ruler of a standing army - and not just a bodyguard - has operated from black African soldiers, is known from the history of Morocco. Even before the start of the 18th Century. began Moulay Ismail (ruled 1672-1727), the first great ruler of the still existing "Alawi" or "Sheriff" Dynasty, large-scale build up an army of black African slaves, soldiers, which was then simply called
'Abid - Arab. "Slaves." As early as 1700, there were 'Abid barracks in almost all cities and regions of Morocco. At that time, the Moroccan Sultan controlled large areas of West Africa down to present-day Senegal and Mali. The motivation of the Sultan to add itself such an army, was the same one that was already in previous centuries and today and for the Gaddafi regime are still valid: He wanted to have a force by the local solidarities and commitments free and therefore would be more loyal. In the specific case of Morocco Moulay Ismail hoped in this way, the conflict between Arabs and Berbers - spoiled the sultan and it is the one when he got involved with the other, and vice versa! - Not to go out of the way by building up a force that neither the Arabs nor the Berbers had to bonds, but had yielded to him and his dynasty.
The Sunni scholar in Fez were the way, as far as the legality of the slave army, certainly not of one mind, and the discussions that were led at that time regarding this issue on the status of slaves and slave soldiers belong to the present the most interesting documents relating to intra-Muslim dispute over the legality and the legal scope of slavery. And, although it is the "slave soldiers" yes to more theoretical slaves acted, this is no "slave life led in ancient or otherwise up today generally accepted sense. Although they were forcibly recruited at a young age, making her the overall fate of the "imported" Circassians from the Caucasus under the Mamluks in Egypt or in which the Janissaries in the Ottoman Empire was similar. They were thus forced into the military profession. But later, after training, they could - in the framework and under the conditions of their soldier's environment - more or less free to act, possibly even high-rise and reach a considerable influence. Some of the black officers managed it until the entourage of the Sultan ... and some of their daughters in the family of the ruler. The Sultan himself was from the doubts of legal scholars remaining unchallenged and his black mercenary loyalty was to the book by al-Bukhaari swear - the most prestigious and most important collection of traditions of the Prophet and one of the most important books of the Islamic religion.
After the death of Moulay Ismail, and during the subsequent disputes over the succession but was soon discovered that this black army hurt the Sultanate of more than availed. Not least, because after the first generation not the new soldiers from sub-Saharan areas got, but among the descendants of the blacks in Morocco itself recruited ... in this way, they not only build a certain "power house" on, but also developed an internal solidarity. Both were now, after the death of the sultan, which these forces alone felt obliged to risk: the black army plundered and pillaged, the general anarchy took advantage and got into bloody conflict with Arabs and Berber tribes. The Arabs and Berbers in turn looked after the death of the sultan that the time to settle with the black troops of the former ruler. The civil war-like conditions that are triggered by subject, place over several decades and can be considered as one of the darkest periods of Moroccan history.
Sidi Muhammad III first. (Reigned 1757-1790) succeeded in bringing peace to Morocco again and regain control over the army of 'Abid, a majority of black troops was disbanded in the 1780s at all. But the Moroccan ruler had continued until the 20th C. both a few "regular" troops, which consisted of black Africans, black and a bodyguard. A recording of a rode round the Sultan Yusuf I (1912-1927), which was made after the invasion of the French in Morocco, this shows Garde:
* Author's note dated 02/03/2011:
Thank me for the comment by Anonymous from 01.03., that can handle racist connotations of the term indicates "black African". Such connotative intentions are, of course me away. In this paper, the term was more in the geographical, not used in the ethnic sense, that "black African" as opposed to "North African", therefore, approximately in the sense of "sub-Saharan". However, like I also note that the term "black African" not alone "Euro-centric" nor is the product of European colonialism. The division of Africa into a "black" and a "non-black" part is centuries old and is already done in the pre-modern Arab culture, the "black" (= sub-Saharan) of Africa summarily as described (Bilâd as-Sudan) " yes just what "(Region) of the black" means. Fanon, the kritisert this ethnic "regionalization" sees only the European perspective, and therefore only the negative connotations. In the Arab culture in which nevertheless circulated prejudices against blacks, there are altogether But do not say that the designation of a part of Africa as "(region) of the Blacks" was always meant pejoratively. It was as important Islamic cultural regions, which were marked on the Islamic religion and learning Arabic, in this very "black" Africa (Timbuktu, Sokoto, etc.), so that the Arab use of the term can not generally assume that "Black Africa" an uncultured, uncivilized region said. On the other hand, there was extensive, run by Arab slave trade, in its environment, then find all the negative opinions about blacks that are known in the colonial discourses of Europe.
I admit that we also Orientalists because of our preoccupation with the Arab world by the spring is easy to speak of "Black Africa" - if only because it is a convenient demarcation of North Africa (Maghreb =) allows. The usual sources in the Arab use of "as-Sudan" seduced to accept this use of the term. But I am aware that in European discourse, the term can not be used without regard to the colonial discourse. Of course I'm still looking for a term that can refer to the part of Africa beneath North Africa (Maghreb) in summary form. So far mW only "sub-Saharan" in common use.
Moreover, the contribution do not give the impression that "black Africans" is especially good as mercenary soldiers or slaves, for example because we blacks - have to keep as uncivilized or brutal - the negative connotations of "black African" below. were mercenary soldiers and slaves in the Islamic world everywhere: in the east mainly Tatars and Circassians from the Caucasus, Central Asia and Turkey - in the Ottoman Empire - Slavic ethnic groups from the Balkans. were in al-Andalus in the 12th Century northern Europeans (Normans, Slavs) as a mercenary act. Especially in the North African region in this case the connections to the sub-Saharan Africa have been relevant.
any existing racial connotations of the term "black African" are not discussed explicitly, but it's about the relationship of the Arabs to sub-Saharan Africans. The article states, inter alia:
One point further distinguisher Qaddafi's mercenaries from both the revolutionaries and Mubarak's thugs ". African" that they are continuously referred to as 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.
In light of this recent history, the videos and photographs of “Africanmercenaries” raise disturbing questions. Are the men we see picturedhere perpetrators of state-sponsored violence, are they victims ofracism, or is it possible that both of these things may be true at thesame time? Are they being attacked in retaliation or in the course of abattle, or are they taken for mercenaries simply on the basis of theirskin color? Is this just one more instance of non-citizens fallingvictim to a conflict that is not their own? Whether or not Qaddafi has recruited foreign mercenaries, it is clearthat none of us ... are getting the full story. However,the speed with which this charge has been accepted as true should callinto question our own assumptions about relations between Arab andblack Africans.
The story in Libya Diverge 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 on inability of popular or even scholarly analysis Arabs to assimilate to the African continent.
find it interesting to me that the author points out that in the case of the State of Sudan (which indeed goes to meet a two-state future) the connotations of the terms "Arab" and "Black / Black Africans" means that contrary to that by now appear in the case of Libya. In the case of Sudan, so the Arabs appear to be brutal, aggressive, etc., not the blacks. I am now but with the Coverage of the Sudan is not so familiar that I could say to what extent there the term "black African" is used, or even customary.
Addendum 03/02/2011 Interesting information about the details still unexplained use of mercenaries in Libya: Libya's
Alleged Foreign Mercenaries: Gaddafi More Victims? (TIME / ABIGAIL HOUSE LOHNER / SHEHAT / 02.24.2011)
original article: Libya's
Among Prisoners: interviews with Mercenaries (TIME / 02.23.2011)
