The brutal killing of the US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other American officials during Tuesday’s armed attack by protesters on the US consulate in Benghazi has highlighted a dangerous security vacuum in post-Gaddafi Libya which needs to be addressed by the country’s authorities.
How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?- Hillary Clinton
It also shows a number of other things that are equally worrying: Despite the Arab Spring, there remains a level of hostility towards the US in parts of the Muslim world; the threat of al-Qaeda inspired terrorism has not been eliminated; and Salafist jihadism, an extreme form of Sunni Islam, poses a danger to secular democratic values in a number of Muslim countries undergoing a transformation.
The Benghazi attack followed protests outside the US Embassy in Cairo over a low-budget obscure film which insulted the Prophet Mohammed, produced in the United States, and it initially looked as if the assault was another ‘spontaneous’ response. However, many senior American officials, including Republican Senator John McCain, believe this was a planned terrorist attack against the US; it did, after all, involve the use of rocket-propelled grenades against the US compound.
Furthermore, the attack was carried out on the 11th anniversary of September 11 and followed a call by al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to avenge the death of his second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi, a Libyan who was killed in a drone attack in Pakistan in June. It is possible that the attackers in Benghazi took advantage of the protest over the film to launch their assault on the consulate.
Foreign Minister Tonio Borg described the attack in Benghazi as an attempt to destabilise Libya, and called the killing of the US Ambassador an “assassination”, while Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi, who was speaking at a joint press conference with Dr Borg, referred to it as an act of “terrorism”.
The killing of Ambassador Stevens is not only very tragic, it is also ironic as few Americans did more to support the emergence of a new democratic Libya than this diplomat. Stevens was very fond of Libya and the Libyan people, he was fluent in Arabic, he had served as a liaison to the Libyan National Transitional Council based in Benghazi and to the interim government, and had been Ambassador to Libya since January. He was said to have been passionate about helping Libya embark along a path to democracy.
Indeed, considering America’s help in overthrowing the Gaddafi regime, it is very sad that such an attack could take place. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton perhaps summed it up best when she said: “Today, many Americans are asking – indeed I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?”
Unfortunately, Libya is awash with weapons in the aftermath of its revolution, law and order has not yet been fully established, its borders are porous and some armed militias still have not been disarmed. Such a situation makes it ideal for acts of terrorism to be carried out; it is therefore essential for the Libyan government to re-establish security control of the country as soon as possible.
In Libya’s somewhat fluid situation, where various militias or extremists co-exist it is difficult to pinpoint exactly who was responsible for the attack on the US Benghazi compound, but Libyan officials have pointed at Ansar al-Shria, an extremist Islamic group active in Eastern Libya. The group is believed to have links with al-Qaeda’s North African wing and was not known in the country before the revolution. Co-existing with al-Shria are the ultra-conservative Salafists, who over the past few months have been challenging the Libyan government by demolishing ancient Sufi shrines, which they consider to be un-Islamic. The Salafists are believed to have been involved in the protests outside the US consulate in Benghazi.
The protests in Benghazi against the American film, as well as similar protests which erupted in a number of Muslim countries such as Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Pakistan and Tunisia, has once again highlighted the question of whether there should be a limit to free speech, especially when certain publications or productions are clearly offensive, and provocative, when it comes to Islam.
There is no doubt at all that this particular film was highly provocative and should never have been made, however the US government cannot be blamed for its production, nor could it have prevented it from being produced in the first place. Violence can never be justified as a response to such a film, and leaders in the Arab world should make this abundantly clear.
In fact, after days of relative silence, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi condemned the attacks on the US embassy in Cairo and vowed to defend the security of US diplomatic buildings. Furthermore, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood cancelled its call for a nationwide protest against the film.
This latest eruption in the Arab world is also a potential foreign policy crisis for US President Barack Obama seeking re-election in November. His Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, has been criticised for calling a statement by the US Embassy in Cairo that criticised the film “disgraceful” and for accusing Obama of failing to provide leadership in the Middle East. Many observers, including some Republicans, felt Romney should not have tried to make political capital out of such a situation, especially after a US Ambassador had just been killed.
However, nobody can predict how this situation will evolve, and if there are more attacks on US missions in the Middle East or the anti-American protests continue, it could shift part of the focus of the US presidential campaign to foreign policy. Furthermore, should it emerge that the US ignored intelligence warnings about a possible attack on its Benghazi consulate, this could negatively influence Obama’s re-election hopes.