The above Arabic text shows the answer of Mahmoud al-NakouaIn, NTC's representative to London, to the question of "separatism" in Libya.
In an interview with Magazine magazine, as quoted by the website of the Libyan embassy in London (http://ntclibya.org.uk), the honourable writer says the percentage of ethnic or "racial" movements in Libya is "small", and all of which had declared their loyalty to the "nation"; but "they" do need to enjoy some kind of freedom, use "their language" (meaning Berber), and name their children as they wish.
He also said that Gaddafi came in conflict "with them" [meaning with the Berbers] and banned "them" from using "their language" [meaning Tamazight] and "suppressed their culture"; but now "they" are looking forward to "bring out" this aspect of "their" culture which is their "right", and there is no problem regarding this, he says. We do not fear any danger from this side, as Libya has now passed the danger zone, he affirmed.
That was more-or-less the translation of the text in the above image. At first reading, these appear good words, but a closer look at the "terminology" used one cannot escape the old same "story".
The first thing one notices is that most of these Arab writers and speakers never specifically mention "Berber" or "Berbers" by name, and most often they use terms like "them", "they" and "ethnic components" to refer to the native Berbers of Libya [as bracketed above]. The terms Berber and Imazighen are taboos as well as "sensitive issues Libyans rarely talk about". Why?
Secondly, most Libyans already know that the Berbers of Libya have no intention nor have made any demands regarding "separatism" as such. Where did these "accusations" come from? Even if they were made somewhere, they must be "very small", and do not represent the Berbers' demands, at all. The Berbers have always stood united with all Libyans and they have no intention of dividing Libya or any other country for that matter.
All this talk of "separatism" and "foreign agendas" is old, very old indeed, and was used before by despots to suppress the true demands of the "persecuted natives" of so many countries from around the world, European ones included.
Not to say, "self determination" does not mean "separatism" but unity on equal basis. But that may be too-daring "truth" many see dangerous to uphold. Ask any critic to present evidence for these "foreign agendas" and "separatism" and they will give you none. Why?
All this talk of "separatism" and "foreign agendas" is old, very old indeed, and was used before by despots to suppress the true demands of the "persecuted natives" of so many countries from around the world, European ones included.
Not to say, "self determination" does not mean "separatism" but unity on equal basis. But that may be too-daring "truth" many see dangerous to uphold. Ask any critic to present evidence for these "foreign agendas" and "separatism" and they will give you none. Why?
Honourable leaders and writers ought to refrain from using "unfair" and "untrue" labels, particularly at this critical stage; and one can only agree with the Honourable writer when he called for the need to use "positive" and "good" words to aid solving the issues troubling the Libyan society, and the need for people to read more than write.
But there it seems the usual attempt to "mask" the true demands of the Berbers, simply "official recognition of identity" and "greater freedom to express their unique culture", by labeling them with "separatism" and even "terrorism" (in the case of the Tuareg Berbers), does allure time. Why?
Why not represent the Berbers' demands as they are without taking them out of con-text?
