[Black Star News Editorial]Yesterday,
The New York Times,
still smarting from the fact that it ignored the massacre of Black
Libyans in Misurata and migrants workers from elsewhere in Africa,
published an editorial
"A New Start in Libya," where in again the newspaper diminished the scale of the crimes committed by the NATO-backed "rebels."
In the eight-paragraph editorial, the
Times mentioned
Libya's oil in the second paragraph --"Technicians are assessing damage
to the oil wells and pipelines that account for 98 percent of the
country's annual revenues, though full production may not be restored
for months or even longer"-- before it finally made mention of the
crimes committed by the "rebels."
"Considering the situation six
months ago, there is reason to be encouraged," the editorial opined, and
then, in a callous understatement, continued: "Nonetheless, the new
regime faces many challenges. Among the most troubling developments is
the brutal treatment of dark-skinned Africans rounded up by vigilantes
and the regime's security forces."
Talk about "burying" the lead.
Troubling development? How disingenuous. What a shameful spin by
The New York Times.
Throughout the Libyan civil war, the
Times
acted as the "rebels" P.R.-firm, ignoring their atrocities, including
lynchings, beheadings, and the ethnic cleansing of Black Libyans in
Misurata, which was reported by
The Wall Street Journal on June 21, 2011. Meanwhile, the Times editorial page was calling for the escalation of NATO's bombings in Libya.
In a shameful newspeak that would have alarmed even George Owell, the
Times
in the editorial yesterday, characterized NATO's six-months massive
bombings that caused untold destruction and killed an estimated 1,600 to
2,000 civilians by Libyan and other media accounts, as "NATO's
protective airstrikes against Colonel Qaddafi's forces."
What's more, it's not accidental that the
Times
keeps referring to "dark-skinned" Africans; the editorial writers know
full well that many Black people also don't have empathy for
"dark-skinned" Africans, to borrow the
Times' wording.
Notwithstanding what the
Times
refers to as "troubling developments," atrocities targeting Black
Libyans and migrant workers from elsewhere in were actually consistent
and featured warfare policy and strategy by the Benghazi "rebels" from
as early as February when the conflict started.
Even the
Times,
in its editorial yesterday belatedly, though in a devious manner
intended to justify or rationalize the killings, acknowledges: "Some
Africans accused of being mercenaries were lynched after the rebels
captured Benghazi in February."
How about "some Africans who may
have been WRONGFULLY accused of being mercenaries" were lynched after
the "rebels" captured Benghazi, and throughout the war, and even after
Tripoli fell?
It's sad to see a newspaper which is read
throughout the world, and which has a level of credibility and
reputation often above and beyond the quality of the journalism it
practises, try to absolve itself of culpability for the crimes committed
by the NATO-backed "rebels" in Libya.
Would
The New York Times
promote the "rebels" who committed atrocities during the civil wars in
Sierra Leone and in Liberia where also innocent people were massacred,
beheaded, and mutiliated? In the Sierra Leone war,
The New York Times promoted
the intervention of an international force, including the British
military, to defeat the "rebels" and capture the leadership that
condoned war crimes. In fact, many were prosecuted by a special court
and punished.
In Libya, because the victims of the atrocities were Black and the
Times was politically opposed to Maummar al-Quathafi, the newspaper ignored or downplayed the atrocities by the NATO-backed "rebels."
Most
African countries have so far refused to recognize the "rebels" as
legitimate rulers of Libya due to outrage over the massacres. The
African Union (AU) should also not have stood by and watched the
extermination of Black people in Libya.
In yesterday's editorial, the
Times
belatedly laments over the mistreatment of "dark-skinned Africans" --to
borrow the exact words from the editorial. Yet it still makes no
mention about the ethnic cleansing of Black Libyans in the city of
Misurata by what was referred to in
The Wall Street Journal article as "The Brigade for the Purging of Slaves, Black Skin." The statements attributed to "rebel" commanders by the
Journal makes it clear the killings were targeted and deliberate.
Even after discussing the targeted killings of "dark skinned" Africans yesterday, does
The New York Times call for an investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and for punishment of the perpetrators?
Hardly.
This is the best the "newspaper of record" can muster on behalf of its
beloved "dark-skinned" Africans: "To maintain its international
credibility, the transitional government must release innocent Africans
and make sure that those who fought for Colonel Qaddafi are treated
fairly."
The Libya war proved to the world that the lives of
Black people have no value for NATO, Western leaders, and editorial
writers.
"Speaking Truth To Empower."
No comments:
Post a Comment