organization:national liberation front

  • 1965-1975 Another Vietnam
    Astonishing, rare images of the Vietnam War from the winning side
    http://mashable.com/2016/02/05/another-vietnam-photography/#n0BH72o.ZkqT

    For much of the world, the visual history of the Vietnam War has been defined by a handful of iconic photographs: Eddie Adams’ image of a Viet Cong fighter being executed, Nick Ut’s picture of nine-year-old Kim Phúc fleeing a #napalm strike, Malcolm Browne’s photo of Thích Quang Duc self-immolating in a #Saigon intersection.

    Many famous images of the war were taken by Western photographers and news agencies, working alongside American or South Vietnamese troops.

    But the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong had hundreds of photographers of their own, who documented every facet of the war under the most dangerous conditions.

    Almost all were self-taught, and worked for the Vietnam News Agency, the National Liberation Front, the North Vietnamese Army or various newspapers. Many sent in their film anonymously or under a nom de guerre, viewing themselves as a humble part of a larger struggle.

    #vietnam #war #guerre #photographie #North_Vietnamese_Army #Viet_cong

    #photojournalisme

  • The Algerian Exception -
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/opinion
    By KAMEL DAOUD

    ORAN, Algeria — Algeria is indeed a country of the Arab world: a de facto dictatorship with Islamists, oil, a vast desert, a few camels and soldiers, and women who suffer. But it also stands apart : It is the only Arab republic untouched by the Arab Spring of 2010-2011. Amid the disasters routinely visited upon the region, Algeria is an exception. Immobile and invisible, it doesn’t change and keeps a low profile.

    This is largely because Algeria already had its Arab Spring in 1988, and it has yet to recover. The experience left Algerians with a deep fear of instability, which the regime of President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, in power since 1999, has exploited, along with the country’s oil wealth, to control its people — all the while deploying impressive ruses to hide Algeria from the world’s view.

    October 1988: Thousands of young Algerians hit the streets to protest the National Liberation Front (F.L.N.), the dominant party born of the war for independence; the absence of presidential term limits; a mismanaged socialist economy; and a tyrannical secret service. The uprising is suppressed with bloodshed and torture. The single-party system nonetheless has to take a step back: Pluralism is introduced; reforms are announced.

    The Islamists came out ahead in the first free elections in 1990, and again in the 1991 legislative elections — only to be foiled by the military in January 1992. Long before Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt, Algeria had invented the concept of therapeutic coup d’état, of coup as cure for Islamism. At the time, the military’s intervention did not go over well, at least not with the West: This was before 9/11, and the world did not yet understand the Islamist threat. In Algeria, however, Islamism was already perceived as an unprecedented danger. After the coup followed a decade of civil war, which left as many as 200,000 people dead and a million displaced, not to mention all those who disappeared.

    When in 2010-2011 the Arab Spring came to Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, Algerians hoped for change, too. But their fear that war or the Islamists would return was greater still. “We have already paid,” the vox populi said, and the government joined in, intent on checking any revolutionary urge.

    At the time I wrote: “Yes, we have already paid, but the goods have not been delivered.” The regime had slowly been gnawing away at the democratic gains made in October 1988: freedom of speech, a true multiparty system, free elections. Dictatorship had returned in the form of controlled democracy. And the government, though in the hands of a sickly and invisible president, was brilliant at playing on people’s fears. “Vote against change” was the gist of the prime minister’s campaign for the 2012 legislative elections.

    The government also exploited the trauma left by France’s 132-year presence, casting the Arab Spring as a form of neocolonialism. To this day, the specter of colonialism remains the regime’s ideological foundation and the basis of its propaganda, and it allows the country’s so-called liberators — now well into their 70s — to still present themselves as its only possible leaders. France’s direct intervention to oust Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya only played into their hands; it looked like the sinister workings of their phantasmagorical triptych of enemies: France, the C.I.A. and Israel. Enough to quiet any populist ardor and charge the opposition’s leaders with being traitors and collaborators.

    And so it was that as soon as January 2011 the early stirrings of protest were promptly quashed. The massive police apparatus played a part, as did state television, with stations taking turns reminding the people of a few chilling equations: democracy = chaos and stability = immobility.

    Money also helped. Oil dollars may make the world go round, but they have kept Algeria still. In the contemporary mythology of the Arab Spring, Bouazizi the Tunisian is the unemployed man who topples a dictator by setting himself on fire in public. This hero could not have been Algerian: In this country, Mohamed Bouazizi would have been bought off, corrupted.

    The Algerian regime is rich in oil and natural gas. And at the outset of the Arab revolts, it reached into its pockets, and gave out free housing, low-interest loans and huge bribes. Oil money was distributed not to revive the economy or create real jobs, but to quell anger and turn citizens into clients. Wilier than others, the government of Algeria did not kill people; it killed time.

    While distributing handouts thwarted a revolution, it did trigger thousands of small local riots — 10,000 to 12,000 a year, by some estimates. But these protesters were not demanding democracy, just housing and roads, water and electricity. In 2011 a man set himself on fire in a town west of Algiers. Reporters flocked to him, thinking they had found a revolutionary. “I am no Bouazizi,” said the Algerian, from the hospital bed in which he would not die. “I just want decent housing.”

    Meanwhile Mr. Bouteflika, ailing and absent, managed to get himself re-elected in 2014 without ever appearing in public, campaigning mostly by way of a Photoshopped portrait plastered across the country. The best dictatorship knows to stay invisible. Local journalists are under strict surveillance; the foreign media’s access is restricted; tourism is limited; few images of Algeria are broadcast internationally.

    The only spectacle to come out of Algeria these last few years was of some Islamists taking hostages in the Tiguentourine gas field in January 2013. But the government, by responding firmly, was able to project the image of a regime that, though no ideological ally of the West, could nonetheless be counted on as a dependable partner in the global war against terrorism. To a Morsi, an Assad or a Sisi, Western governments prefer a Bouteflika, even aging and ailing and barely able to speak. Between antiterrorism and immobility, Algeria has succeeded in selling itself as a model even without being a democracy. No small feat.

    But the situation is untenable. Politically, the Algerian regime has become the Pakistan of North Africa, with both money and power in the hands of a caste that the West thinks of as a difficult partner. Algeria is too vast a country to be run by a centralist government, and no new leaders have emerged who could ensure a guided transition. The Islamists are on the rise. Oil prices are dropping. The Algerian exception cannot last much longer.

    Kamel Daoud, a journalist and columnist for Quotidien d’Oran, is the author of “The Meursault Investigation.” This essay was translated by Edward Gauvin from the French.

    NEXT IN OPINION

  • Israel Defense Force Arguments and Vietnam Déjà Vu
    http://www.laprogressive.com/israel-defense-force

    During the Vietnam War, American officials argued that any civilian casualties resulting from US military action was the fault of the National Liberation Front (“Viet Cong”) because it operated amidst the population. The US used this line to rationalize “free-fire zones,” carpet-bombing, artillery barrages, and the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people.

    One Israel Defense Force argument I keep hearing on TV lately is cut from the same cloth. It goes something like this: “We have to kill all those children and toddlers and babies and elderly women because our ‘targets’ (Hamas ‘militants’) circulate freely among the civilian population.”

    This idea ignores not only the nature of guerrilla warfare and the fact that such wars cannot be “resolved” through military violence, but also masks the inherent asymmetry of the opposing forces.
    It rests on the absurd premise that people fighting for their lives from their own front porches against an immeasurably more powerful military force should strip off their clothes, paint targets on their backs, and lay in a field somewhere out in the open where they can be more easily mowed down. If the Americans who fought against the British at the time of the battles of Lexington and Concord obeyed this dictum there probably wouldn’t be a nation called the United States of America.

    Blowing away large numbers of civilians in pursuit of military “targets,” as the US learned in Vietnam, always generates a lot of refugees (as we are seeing currently in Gaza). These fleeing civilians who are then crammed into makeshift refugee camps disrupt the social fabric and drive up the popular support for those who are fighting back against the enemy that just ruined their lives.
    Since what’s happening in Gaza is a political conflict that cannot be solved through military violence, by unleashing its firepower and enlarging the number of refugees the IDF can expect to strengthen Hamas’s political standing inside the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (as the demonstrations show).

    The IDF actions have also created a really tough “optics” problem for the Netanyahu government. In the current context of social media the Israeli hasbara propaganda methods have grown old and worm-eaten no matter how aggressively they’re pursued on Twitter and Facebook.