Libyan militias are “out of control,” committing widespread human rights abuses and fueling insecurity as Libyans attempt to rebuild state institutions, says a new report by Amnesty International. The report, released a year after the start of the February 2011 uprising, documents the increasingly widespread and serious abuses, including war crimes, committed by Libyan militias.

The report highlights the abuses committed by militias against suspected Qaddafi loyalists. African migrants and refugees have frequently been the target of these revenge attacks. Journalists have reported on the targeting of African migrants by militias over the past year. Yesterday, The Christian Science Monitor’s Dan Murphy, describing a trip to Libya last year, wrote that he saw “African men, wearing rags and without proper shoes, described as ‘mercenaries’ for Qaddafi; that did not seem accurate to me.”

In January and February, Amnesty International visited 11 militia run detention facilities in central and western Libya. Observers found that at 10 of these locations, detainees reported being tortured or ill-treated. In several cases, detainees reported admitting to rape and other crimes they hadn’t committed after undergoing torture.

Amnesty reports that since September, at least 12 detainees held by militias have died after being tortured. Victims of torture reported the use of torture methods once common in Qaddafi’s prison system: electric shocks and beatings with whips, cables, plastic hoses, metal chains, wooden bars and sticks. At a detention center in Misrata, Amnesty observers saw militia members beating and threatening detainees whose release had been ordered. “Thousands” of people remain illegally detained by the militias.

While abuses by Libyan militias have been an ongoing problem since the revolution against Qaddafi’s government began in February 2011, the current government have taken little to no action against the militias even as the country attempts to rebuild its legal and political institutions.

“Militias in Libya are largely out of control and the blanket impunity they enjoy only encourages further abuses and perpetuates instability and insecurity,” said Donatella Rovera, Senior Crisis Response Adviser at Amnesty International. “A year ago Libyans risked their lives to demand justice. Today their hopes are being jeopardized by lawless armed militias who trample human rights with impunity.”

But while the new Libyan government struggles to rebuild institutions and has set a June 23 deadline for the election of a new 200-member national congress, a poll released yesterday found that only 15 percent of Libyans think Libya should have a democratic government in 12 months time while 29 percent said they would prefer a “(single) strong Libyan leader.”

A new national survey released today by Oxford Research International finds that while 75 percent of Libyans polled said that their lives are much or somewhat better compared to before the revolution that ousted Col. Muammar Qaddafi, just 15 percent said Libya should have a democratic government in 12 months time. Twenty-nine percent said they would prefer a “(single) strong Libyan leader.” But in 5 years, more Libyans said they’d rather see a democracy:

When asked “which country could serve as a model for Libya in the coming years,” nearly 38 percent said Libya does not need a model. But of the countries mentioned, more pointed to the non-democratic United Arab Emirates (21.8 percent) than democratic countries such as the United States (4.6 percent), Britain (3.3 percent) and France (3.2 percent).

The BBC reports that Oxford University’s Dr. Christoph Sahm said the survey suggested Libyans lacked the knowledge of how democracy works. “This survey also reveals there is potential for future instability as a significant minority have indicated that they would be prepared to take up arms,” he said.

Our guest bloggers are Sarah Margon, associate director for Sustainable Security at the Center for American Progress and Alex Rothman, special assistant with the national security team at CAP.

In recent weeks, the security situation in Libya has become increasingly precarious, with Ian Martin, the U.N. special envoy to Libya, warning the Security Council earlier this week that the continued presence of armed “revolutionary brigades” and loose weapons presents a significant threat. But as the situation on the ground takes a turn for the worse, the Security Council remains divided and distracted by political infighting about civilian casualties from the NATO bombing campaign.

Critics of the intervention, most significantly South Africa and Russia, have prominently called for an investigation into civilian harm caused by the NATO airstrikes. But a closer analysis suggests that this posturing may be more motivated by a desire for political gain than concern for the rights of noncombatants.

In March, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1973, authorizing the creation of a no-fly zone over Libya as well as “all necessary measures…to protect civilians.” At the time, neither South Africa nor Russia outright opposed the intervention. In fact, South Africa voted in favor while Russia abstained. As the intervention in Libya progressed, however, both countries became more explicitly critical of NATO’s extensive involvement, arguing that the NATO airstrikes overstepped their mandate. In the words of South African U.N. Ambassador Baso Sangqu, Resolution 1973 approved a no-fly zone but not “regime change or anything else.”

While the numbers of civilians inadvertently killed or wounded by NATO is likely on the lower end, a NATO investigation would nonetheless be beneficial for two reasons. First, while NATO maintains it took care to minimize the effects of its air campaign on civilians, an examination of instances in which these precautions failed would provide lessons as to how the alliance can take more effective protection measures in the future. For example, the NATO tactic of “double tapping” targets (in which two sequential air strikes were carried out on the same target) appears to have unnecessarily imperiled those who rushed to aid victims of the first attack. Second, investigating civilian victims of the bombing campaign would present a first step towards allowing NATO and/or the Libyan National Transition Council to make amends.

Such steps are tremendously important as political reform in Libya continues. Early efforts to build a government that is accountable to and responsible for its citizens can help build trust in national institutions — something that has been absent in Libya for more than four decades.

But while a NATO inquiry may be warranted, it is disingenuous for countries like Russia and South Africa to use the issue of civilian deaths to score points at the U.N. Security Council. As the victims advocacy organization CIVIC points out in a recent press release and op-ed, “Libyan civilians are not pawns to be used in a political game between those who did and did not support the NATO operation.”

Instead, Russia and South Africa should support the work of the U.N.’s International Commission of Inquiry for Libya, which is undertaking an independent review of civilian harm in the Libyan conflict, and focus their efforts at the Security Council on addressing the threats that continue to harm civilians in Libya.

Our guest blogger is Ken Sofer, special assistant with the National Security and International Policy team at the Center for American Progress.

President Obama’s State of the Union speech tonight will reportedly focus on the economy, jobs and what he calls a “return to American values.” But as the Council on Foreign Relations’ James Lindsay notes in a CNN column today, “What the president says about foreign policy, however, will be equally important.”

Indeed, the last year saw the end to two very different wars and two competing visions of American power. One war, in Iraq, finally came to end in December after a series of poor policy choices and overzealous neoconservative thinking cost the U.S. nearly a trillion dollars and 4,500 American lives over the course of eight and a half years.

The other war, in Libya, accomplished nearly the exact same objectives as the war in Iraq, but the selective application of American power and the diplomatic efforts to gain the support of both NATO and the U.N. Security Council allowed the U.S. to accomplish its goals for just over $1 billion and not one lost American life.

A new infographic from the Center for American Progress compares the costs of the two wars:

Libya may not be a model for every future American conflict, just as the lessons of Iraq do not preclude the use of American force in every scenario. But as the country looks back on 2011 and looks forward to the international challenges we face in 2012 and beyond, Iraq and Libya present us with two different visions of American power. As CAP’s Peter Juul writes, President Obama’s actions over the past three years have reaffirmed the credibility of American military power; credibility that President Bush put into question.

Looking at the comparative costs of war in Iraq and Libya, what do you want American power to look like in 2012 and beyond?

Our guest blogger is Elizabeth Marcus, an intern with the National Security team at the Center for American Progress.

The Middle East is undergoing dramatic political transformation. Despite the prominent role women have played in organizing these popular movements, the treatment of women in Egypt, Yemen, and Libya, raises serious concern about the future of democracy and human rights in the region. A central issue is the use of rape by both government and non-state forces as an attempt to silence opposition forces. In the context of patriarchal religious societies, rape and sexual violence holds unique potential as a horrific tool of political repression, and its use has been widespread as an attempt to stunt the growth of the Arab Spring.

Women agitating for political change in these countries face the ever-present threat of sexual abuse and the societal stigma that results from sexual violence in highly patriarchal societies. Unlike physical violence, rape and other forms of sexual violence can permanently damage a woman’s reputation and status within her community. Not only is she considered unfit for marriage but rape causes profound humiliation to the male members of her family and, potentially, her community.

Rape was used excessively during Moammar Qaddafi’s attempt to remain in power in Libya. Towards the end of his struggle, his regime ordered soldiers to go into villages and rape the female adults and children, some as young as 8 years old, in front of family members. Condoms and Viagra were found in pockets of dead Qaddafi soldiers. Benghazi journalists reported seeing the ground littered with Viagra after troops had been through.

Rhetoric related to women and sexual violence always comes back to ideas of honor, which is held in the highest regard within Islamic societies. Raping a woman strips the woman, her family, and her community of “honor.” Qaddafi understood this dynamic and used it as a tool to prevent women from organizing opposition to his regime.

Despite Egypt’s notorious reputation for sexual harassment and violence against women, female activists have been at the forefront of efforts to change Egypt’s political system from the very beginning. Perhaps predictably, Egyptian women have also faced sexual violence as they seek to effect political change.

On March 9, 2011, just under a month after President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster, protesters returned to Tahrir Square to express frustration with the slow pace of reforms. The Egyptian military broke up the demonstration and arrested demonstrators, including at least 18 women. These women were beaten, charged with prostitution, and forced to submit to “virginity checks.” When confronted, a senior general said, “The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine… these were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters in Tahrir Square.” In a patriarchal religious society in which female sexuality is heavily policed, accusations of promiscuity serve to damage the reputations of female protesters.
Read more

The death of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il over the weekend marked a pretty difficult year for the world’s dictators. State television said Kim Jong-Il died on Saturday, Dec. 17, 2011. As it turns out, exactly one year earlier, a young Tunisian named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire after he was banned from selling fruit to earn a living. Bouazizi’s brave move set off a wave of protests throughout Tunisia and the region, now known as the Arab Spring. Here’s a run-down of deposed dictators and autocrats since January:

January 14: Tunisia’s president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia after weeks of mass protests. On June 20, Ben Ali and his wife were tried and convicted in absentia on theft charges and sentenced to 35 years in prison. Saudi Arabia has refused to extradite. Tunisians went to the polls in October to elect a new government in voting that international observers are calling remarkably free and fair.

February 11: Egyptian pro-democracy demonstrations ousted President Hosni Mubarak after weeks of protests inspired by the events in Tunisia. While Egypt faces new rounds of violent turmoil after recent parliamentary elections, the next session of Mubarak’s trial is set for this month.

April 11: Côte d’Ivoire President Laurent Gbagbo was forced from power after refusing to relinquish the presidency after losing an election in November 2010. Gbagbo has been transferred to the International Criminal court where he faces four charges of crimes against humanity.

October 20: Libyans joined the Arab Spring fervor in mid-February. NATO-assisted rebels took the capital Tripoli in August, and the forces of Libya’s new government captured and killed former leader Muammar Qaddafi in what the ICC recently said could be considered a war crime. Elections are expected to be conducted next year.

November 23: After months of Arab Spring inspired protests, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh signed a deal in which he would step down and “transfer his powers to his deputy ahead of an early election and in return will get immunity from prosecution.”

December 17: Exactly one year after a Tunisian vendor set himself on fire, sparking a wave of fallen autocracies throughout the region, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il dies. However, there are currently no hopes for transfer to a democratic system in the communist country as Kim Jong-Il’s son, Kim Jong Un is expected to take over leadership.

Of course, while not technically considered a “dictator” or the leader of any particular country, it wasn’t a great year for al Qaeda No. 1 Osama bin Laden, who was killed in a Navy SEAL raid on May 1.

So if 2011 wasn’t exactly the year of the despot, will the trend continue in 2012? A near civil war in Syria threatens President Bashar al-Assad’s rule there; mass backlash against rigged elections in Russia is getting larger; and in Iran, the Green Movement hasn’t entirely disappeared.

Embattled Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, after a series of embarrassing gaffes on foreign policy, insisted that “leaders” don’t need to actually know about world affairs, but merely provide “clarity” and have a competent staff. If that’s indeed the case, Cain (if he stays in the presidential race) ought to consider firing whoever put together his foreign policy website — a case where advisers and staff, if not the candidate himself, showed glaring incompetence.

Cain’s campaign website on “foreign policy and national security” leaves a little something to be desired in terms of basic geography: It lists Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom as countries in “the Americas.” Take a look at a screen shot of the campaign website, with those countries highlighted:

While the downloadable version of the document does indeed have a subject heading for “Europe,” where part of Russia and the whole of Germany and the U.K. are located, the website version leaves it out. Cain’s team, it seems, has a problem with editorial oversight on even the most basic subjects.

Other areas of Cain’s plan defy his simplistic foreign policy credo of “peace through strength and clarity” — namely, that he admits having no clarity at all on Libya. The intervention in Libya and its nascent transition to democracy have bedeviled the former pizza company C.E.O. Asked about it earlier this month, Cain gave a bizarre and rambling five-minute answer heavy on long, dramatic pauses. Months before that, though, he did have some clarity on the matter: opposing whatever President Obama was doing. Cain’s answer, which he blamed on a lack of sleep (promising to take a nap upon taking the White House), dovetails nicely with the declaration on his website that he “needs clarity” on Libya. That should come as no surprise from a man who thinks the Afghan Taliban insurgent group took over the North African country. (HT: UN Dispatch)