What do you think?
Rate this book
Libya: From Colony to Independence
Libya is a state which, for the majority of its past, has been subjected to foreign rule or influence. Falling prey to empire builders from the ancient Greeks to Mussolini’s Italy, it only became formally independent in 1951. In the past half-century, Libya’s history has been dominated by the figure of Mu’ammar al-Qaddafi, the controversial leader who Nelson Mandela has dubbed one of the revolutionary icons of our time. St John skillfully navigates this lengthy historical period, detailing the struggles the state has had in finding its political and economic position in the world. From the early Greek settlements in the fifth century BC to the infamous Lockerbie bombing, this study is a thoughtful and enlightening introduction to the land which bridges Africa and the Middle East, and which though reviled by the West for decades as a repressive and hostile regime, is starting to seek a political détente. Ronald Bruce St John is an affiliate professor of Middle East Studies at the Institute of International Studies, Bradley University. An analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus, he is the author of Qaddafi's World Design: Libyan Foreign Policy, 1969-87.
320 pages, Paperback
First published July 25, 2008
14 people are currently reading
161 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
March 29, 2018
A very interesting book ruined by the last 15 pages.
Let's start with the bulk of it:
The author offers a fairly colorful recap of the Libyan history, from ancient (Greek) times via Arab and Ottoman rule, covering the Italian colonial rule in more detail, and finally, giving most focus to the last 50 years, under the rule of Colonel Qaddafi.
There are some rather interesting facts in the book, the likes of Italian oppression, the feeble rule of the Al-Sanusi family after the independence, all of which led to the military uprising that became Qaddafi's reign.
From the early start, Qaddafi tried to balance his sense of African identity and tribe with the riches of oil, and how he could use that to manipulate and influence the Western powers, most notably the US and the UK, and to some extent Italy. He also wooed the Soviet Union, but he never liked the areligious aspect of socialism.
I also liked reading and learning more on the inter-African affairs. Libya tried to play its part in de-colonizing Africa by becoming a colonial influence of its own, supporting and toppling regimes across the continent. Most notably, there was an almost neverending rivalry and conflict with other countries in the Maghreb region, Sahara and Sahel, and central Africa. This is probably the best part of the book, especially since it covers a topic that is largely overshadowed in modern politics.
Along side all that, we learn about the Green Book, the domestic quasi-socialist "direct democracy" policies that Qaddafi tried to implement, his flamboyance and liking of the public stage, his role in sponsoring and then fighting terrorist groups, and the finally, the warming of his relations with the West in mid-2000s. So far so good.
And now, the ending:
On P.282, the author writes that "Qaddafi tried to perpetuate the myth that there would be civil war if he was toppled".
What? Well, it did happen. Qaddafi predicted this very accurately.
The last part is written hastily, skipping many details and veiling it all in a rosy, happy-go-lucky here's the future, full of democracy and freedom. Which is nonsense, because none of that happened.
He tells us nothing of the way Qaddafi was captured and killed without trial. He tells nothing of the actual war that led to Qaddafi's end, and he portrays this optimistic note that everything would be good now that Libya has democracy! ZOMG.
What actually happened is:
The US embassy attack in 2012.
Ongoing civil and tribal war with some 6-7 factions now fighting over Libya, including the transitional government that was supposed to have stepped down. More in line with the chaos and anarchy that Qaddafi predicted.
Libya has become a ruined country without a functioning government.
And this is what annoys me the most about this book.
For someone writing history about the Middle East, northern Africa and related topics, the author seems to have ZERO understanding of non-Western cultures and mentalities. He assumes that people in that region are just WAITING for the West to give them democracy so they can be enlightened, as if it's a matter of flipping a switch on.
Democracy only works in Europe (and its direct descendants), after 500 years of cultural, religion, industrial, and social revolutions, including several brutal mega-wars that killed 60 million people in Europe alone in the last century.
Democracy is the LAST step of this process, not the first.
The notion that the West intervened to "help human rights" in Libya is silly. The same happened in Iraq, and golly, the formula is the same - intervention, old regime gone, chaos, endless civil war. The same is happening in Syria. Also the democracy and enlightened socities in Europe had no problem with two fascist regimes (Salazar and Franco) on its own soil well into the 70s. So the concept of helping the poor and oppressed is absolute nonsense.
Reading the book gives interesting insights into long-standing diplomatic resentments. Qaddafi refused to give the Americans a strategic regional base (at the Wheeler field), and this is probably the turning point where he lost it. The French and the British never forgave him for his anti-colonial meddling. And the Russians stepped in too late (they learned their lesson and implemented it in Syria).
Looking across the wider region, the idea of imported democracy - to say nothing of the fact it completely ignores deep cultural and hierarchical orders in non-Western societies - becomes even more absurd when you take Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Egypt into account. For instance, Saddam Hussein was the darling of the West during the Iran-Iraq war, but he fatally miscalculated twice when he invaded Kuwait and then when he called the US desire to respond to the invasion with force a bluff. In Egypt, again, there was the attempt to promote "democracy" but once the Western powers (much more strategically invested in Egypt unlike Libya) understood the dangers of impending chaos, they helped restore the military rule quickly enough.
If I wanted a daily dose of feel-good brainwash, I could just watch the primetime TV. I don't need books to teach me an ideological lesson into how the world order should be done, especially not when it blantantly ignores the complex constraints of the world and different cultures.
So, to sum it up:
The first 270-odd pages are pretty good, and they do shed a lot of interesting info on Libya - its oil policies in particular. But the last part is a farce, and it portrays civil wars with foreign intervention as something good and desired, because of course, the ultimate goal is democracy, right! For the time being, instead of having one dictator, I'm sure the people of Libya are grateful for the democratic plurality of warring factions and the massive drop of their living standards since 2011.
As William Wallace once said:
They can take away our reviews, but they can't take our FREEDOM!
Igor
Let's start with the bulk of it:
The author offers a fairly colorful recap of the Libyan history, from ancient (Greek) times via Arab and Ottoman rule, covering the Italian colonial rule in more detail, and finally, giving most focus to the last 50 years, under the rule of Colonel Qaddafi.
There are some rather interesting facts in the book, the likes of Italian oppression, the feeble rule of the Al-Sanusi family after the independence, all of which led to the military uprising that became Qaddafi's reign.
From the early start, Qaddafi tried to balance his sense of African identity and tribe with the riches of oil, and how he could use that to manipulate and influence the Western powers, most notably the US and the UK, and to some extent Italy. He also wooed the Soviet Union, but he never liked the areligious aspect of socialism.
I also liked reading and learning more on the inter-African affairs. Libya tried to play its part in de-colonizing Africa by becoming a colonial influence of its own, supporting and toppling regimes across the continent. Most notably, there was an almost neverending rivalry and conflict with other countries in the Maghreb region, Sahara and Sahel, and central Africa. This is probably the best part of the book, especially since it covers a topic that is largely overshadowed in modern politics.
Along side all that, we learn about the Green Book, the domestic quasi-socialist "direct democracy" policies that Qaddafi tried to implement, his flamboyance and liking of the public stage, his role in sponsoring and then fighting terrorist groups, and the finally, the warming of his relations with the West in mid-2000s. So far so good.
And now, the ending:
On P.282, the author writes that "Qaddafi tried to perpetuate the myth that there would be civil war if he was toppled".
What? Well, it did happen. Qaddafi predicted this very accurately.
The last part is written hastily, skipping many details and veiling it all in a rosy, happy-go-lucky here's the future, full of democracy and freedom. Which is nonsense, because none of that happened.
He tells us nothing of the way Qaddafi was captured and killed without trial. He tells nothing of the actual war that led to Qaddafi's end, and he portrays this optimistic note that everything would be good now that Libya has democracy! ZOMG.
What actually happened is:
The US embassy attack in 2012.
Ongoing civil and tribal war with some 6-7 factions now fighting over Libya, including the transitional government that was supposed to have stepped down. More in line with the chaos and anarchy that Qaddafi predicted.
Libya has become a ruined country without a functioning government.
And this is what annoys me the most about this book.
For someone writing history about the Middle East, northern Africa and related topics, the author seems to have ZERO understanding of non-Western cultures and mentalities. He assumes that people in that region are just WAITING for the West to give them democracy so they can be enlightened, as if it's a matter of flipping a switch on.
Democracy only works in Europe (and its direct descendants), after 500 years of cultural, religion, industrial, and social revolutions, including several brutal mega-wars that killed 60 million people in Europe alone in the last century.
Democracy is the LAST step of this process, not the first.
The notion that the West intervened to "help human rights" in Libya is silly. The same happened in Iraq, and golly, the formula is the same - intervention, old regime gone, chaos, endless civil war. The same is happening in Syria. Also the democracy and enlightened socities in Europe had no problem with two fascist regimes (Salazar and Franco) on its own soil well into the 70s. So the concept of helping the poor and oppressed is absolute nonsense.
Reading the book gives interesting insights into long-standing diplomatic resentments. Qaddafi refused to give the Americans a strategic regional base (at the Wheeler field), and this is probably the turning point where he lost it. The French and the British never forgave him for his anti-colonial meddling. And the Russians stepped in too late (they learned their lesson and implemented it in Syria).
Looking across the wider region, the idea of imported democracy - to say nothing of the fact it completely ignores deep cultural and hierarchical orders in non-Western societies - becomes even more absurd when you take Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Egypt into account. For instance, Saddam Hussein was the darling of the West during the Iran-Iraq war, but he fatally miscalculated twice when he invaded Kuwait and then when he called the US desire to respond to the invasion with force a bluff. In Egypt, again, there was the attempt to promote "democracy" but once the Western powers (much more strategically invested in Egypt unlike Libya) understood the dangers of impending chaos, they helped restore the military rule quickly enough.
If I wanted a daily dose of feel-good brainwash, I could just watch the primetime TV. I don't need books to teach me an ideological lesson into how the world order should be done, especially not when it blantantly ignores the complex constraints of the world and different cultures.
So, to sum it up:
The first 270-odd pages are pretty good, and they do shed a lot of interesting info on Libya - its oil policies in particular. But the last part is a farce, and it portrays civil wars with foreign intervention as something good and desired, because of course, the ultimate goal is democracy, right! For the time being, instead of having one dictator, I'm sure the people of Libya are grateful for the democratic plurality of warring factions and the massive drop of their living standards since 2011.
As William Wallace once said:
They can take away our reviews, but they can't take our FREEDOM!
Igor
August 13, 2022
Sort of a random read of a book I came across. It started out fairly interesting, covering the long history of what became Libya in large chunks early on with increasing detail as time progresses. The entire history up to 1551 (the start of the Ottoman occupation) is chapter one. That includes the 'original' Libyans, the Berbers, then the Phoenicians (Carthaginian empire), Greeks, Romans, and of course the Islamic conquest by the Arabs (reaching Cyrenaica in 644 AD) and subsequent Muslim dynasties--Umayyad, Fatimid, Almoravid, Almohad, Hafsid). These are fascinating times but necessarily broad-brushed, though I would have preferred more. The Ottoman Empire period covers 1551-1911 and is chapter two and then already the Italian adventure from 1911 to 1943 for chapter 3. The Sanusi uprising against the Italians merits a brief discussion including the role of Anthony Quinn, er, I mean Sidi Umar al-Mukhtar in 'Lion of the Desert' the 1981 movie (which I did see years ago!). The struggle for independence (1943-1951) and the factoid that Libya was the first African country to declare independence, 1951. Then there was the short-lived monarchy (1951-1969) and boom!-enter Qaddafi in 1969 with the September Revolution. His 'reign' was one of the longest in the modern world at 42 years and comprises the bulk of the book. Ronald Bruce St. John obviously knows his material and has marshalled an impressive set of references for anyone interested in further reading. The later chapters however become somewhat buried in a morass of detail and dry recitation of facts. The influence of the one-sided hydrocarbon-based economy on the development of Libya is recognized but not really developed. Nor does St. John ever resort to hyperbole or personality analysis which adds to what becomes a fairly dull account. Of course the only personality is Qaddafi himself and while there is some basic biographical information very few details or even humanizing anecdotes about him. Perhaps he is just not that interesting but you never learn in this book. He does go into some detail on the so-called 'Green Book' which was short encapsulation of Qaddafi's ideology released in the mid-70s. There are actually some interesting insights in it, one of them being his recognition of the weaknesses of democracy whereby a candidate getting 51 percent of the vote leads "to a dictatorial governing body disguised as a false democracy". That phenomenon is so clearly on display in the the USA in 2022 that I had to laugh (or cry). Several of the socialist tenets of the Green Book even mirror those of Klaus Schwab! Qaddafi was not a stupid man or he would not have survived 42 years in what was in many ways still a tribal society. St. John probably knows a lot more about him but in his desire for a scrupulously 'objective' ('just the facts Mam') account he misses an opportunity for a deeper explanation of the man. The books end just after the 2011 'February Revolution' and at long last the demise of the Qaddafi regime and his death, about which no details are provided which I found bizarre and had to look up on Wikipedia. The fault lines of future Libyan instability are not really identified which is little disappointing but perhaps they just not evident and St. John as I said sticks to the facts. Several useful small maps and the superb references make this book still a very valuable little resource for anyone interested in this part of the world.
August 21, 2017
This is a useful account of Libya's history from ancient times to the 2011 revolution. However, it is written without passion and without really confronting the contentious issues, as though there is just the one way to see history and that way fits the conformist narrative of the western media.
It is not immediately obvious why there should be such lasting anger over the behaviour of Italian colonists in Libya, or how the Qaddafi regime could switch so rapidly from being demonised in Europe and the US to being celebrated and back again. It covers in some detail Qaddafi's contributions to the complex economic and political affiliations between Arab states, and between African states, without seriously locating these processes in the context of imperialism and post-colonialism, which at one point it suggests are not actually that important. It lists plenty of events connecting Libya with terrorism without really finding space to examine the reasoning for that nor the Western responses, other than to mention many times and yet not seriously explain and discuss the importance of economic sanctions. It talks about people smuggling through Libya towards Europe without properly describing the infrastructure of that modern slave trade.
It closes with a bland assumption that Qaddafi will continue in power indefinitely, then adds as a postscript an additional chapter on the unexpected revolution that toppled him, which is again a very decent and civilised process undoubtedly leading to something better for everyone involved. Except we know that is not what has happened since 2011. Although many strands of internal and exiled opposition are again listed, I never felt that I was hearing enough about their motivation or objectives. I just don't really accept that the Libyan revolution represented a mass appeal among the people for a return to the benign and uncontroversial values of Western liberal democracy. There is enough information in the book to provide a context in which to locate the deeper issues but it would be preferable to have a history that examined them, not in order to agree with or endorse a radical perspective of any kind, but in order to acknowledge their real significance. We have no real idea how the future will work out for Libya and it would be better to accept that by looking at the complexity and trying to understand the complexity, rather than conclude, as this book does (twice) that all will turn out for the best.
It is not immediately obvious why there should be such lasting anger over the behaviour of Italian colonists in Libya, or how the Qaddafi regime could switch so rapidly from being demonised in Europe and the US to being celebrated and back again. It covers in some detail Qaddafi's contributions to the complex economic and political affiliations between Arab states, and between African states, without seriously locating these processes in the context of imperialism and post-colonialism, which at one point it suggests are not actually that important. It lists plenty of events connecting Libya with terrorism without really finding space to examine the reasoning for that nor the Western responses, other than to mention many times and yet not seriously explain and discuss the importance of economic sanctions. It talks about people smuggling through Libya towards Europe without properly describing the infrastructure of that modern slave trade.
It closes with a bland assumption that Qaddafi will continue in power indefinitely, then adds as a postscript an additional chapter on the unexpected revolution that toppled him, which is again a very decent and civilised process undoubtedly leading to something better for everyone involved. Except we know that is not what has happened since 2011. Although many strands of internal and exiled opposition are again listed, I never felt that I was hearing enough about their motivation or objectives. I just don't really accept that the Libyan revolution represented a mass appeal among the people for a return to the benign and uncontroversial values of Western liberal democracy. There is enough information in the book to provide a context in which to locate the deeper issues but it would be preferable to have a history that examined them, not in order to agree with or endorse a radical perspective of any kind, but in order to acknowledge their real significance. We have no real idea how the future will work out for Libya and it would be better to accept that by looking at the complexity and trying to understand the complexity, rather than conclude, as this book does (twice) that all will turn out for the best.
September 17, 2016
Great read.
The writer didn't fall into the sensationalist trap of psychoanalyzing Gaddafi and kept focus on the evolution of Libya as a state in terms of history, foreign policy and socio-economic policies, even when the writer briefly mentioned the revolution at the end of the book, it was in the same spirit and theme of previous periods; Can Libya become an inclusive state for its citizens? will it finally uphold the rule of law?...etc. I disagree with whoever said that this book was simply narrating events or historical footnotes, as the author analyzes the foreign policy of Libya during its inception as a state (monarchy), then goes on to navigates the changes in foreign policy during the long-held 42 year old Gaddafi rule, the reader will find some valuable insight here. The economic policy of the hydrocarbon sector was also explained in-depth in the book.
The writer didn't fall into the sensationalist trap of psychoanalyzing Gaddafi and kept focus on the evolution of Libya as a state in terms of history, foreign policy and socio-economic policies, even when the writer briefly mentioned the revolution at the end of the book, it was in the same spirit and theme of previous periods; Can Libya become an inclusive state for its citizens? will it finally uphold the rule of law?...etc. I disagree with whoever said that this book was simply narrating events or historical footnotes, as the author analyzes the foreign policy of Libya during its inception as a state (monarchy), then goes on to navigates the changes in foreign policy during the long-held 42 year old Gaddafi rule, the reader will find some valuable insight here. The economic policy of the hydrocarbon sector was also explained in-depth in the book.
January 19, 2019
It is a nicely written book that tells in short the entire history of Libya from the ancient times to the 2011 revolution. As someone who had little knowledge of Libya this book helped me a lot to learn about Libya. Although the last chapter of the was, unlike the rest of the book, biased and seemed out of place I still think it is a great book if you want to learn about Libya.
January 7, 2016
Very disappointed...gives you a chronological history from 2700 CBE till date.....seems like a history book in school....the reviews were good that's why I bought it and read it...I had a sneaky respect for Qadhaffi ( there are multiple spellings for the poor sod )..I still think that he was far better than a lot of the West Asian monarchies.... and thought the book will give me insight into the man and his mind.....which it did not....seems like events were happening faster than what the author could capture ( especially in the last 5-6 years) ....avoid it.
Having said this...can someone recommend a good book on Qadhaffi / Libya / and the events of the last 2 decades.....it would be interesting to read more on a country which was caught in the cusp of two identities....a Sunni nation trying to play an influential role in the Arab World ( unfortunately their money could not influence much because of big brother Saudi Arabia ) and also into the African world which was poor and they could throw their money around and push/shove...
Having said this...can someone recommend a good book on Qadhaffi / Libya / and the events of the last 2 decades.....it would be interesting to read more on a country which was caught in the cusp of two identities....a Sunni nation trying to play an influential role in the Arab World ( unfortunately their money could not influence much because of big brother Saudi Arabia ) and also into the African world which was poor and they could throw their money around and push/shove...
March 15, 2013
As a quick and dirty overview of Libya's history from antiquity through the February revolution, this did the trick. However, the enormous scope in comparison to the compressed text meant there was minimal insight one could extract here. Most events are narrated, 'Then X event happened on X date for [reasons] that are too complicated to get into here.'
A good first text to get the timeline fixed in my head but not much help beyond that.
A good first text to get the timeline fixed in my head but not much help beyond that.
June 13, 2009
Excellent well rounded book covering ancient Libya to the modern times.
March 6, 2011
It was great to read this history at the same time we are all reading so much about Libya in current news.
January 1, 2012
Somewhat informative, not very well-written. Timeline difficult to follow, no apparent structure to the narrative.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews