Libya: no to western military intervention
Events are moving with breakneck speed across
North Africa and the Middle East as regimes are buffeted by the
revolutionary wave. In Libya, however, western powers have embarked on
direct military intervention. A no-fly zone, and the implicit escalation
of action, is being executed in the name of humanitarian support. In
reality, it is to protect imperialist interests in the region. ROBERT
BECHERT, of the Committee for a Workers’ International, reports on this
dangerous development.
THE UN SECURITY Council’s majority decision to
impose a ‘no-fly zone’, while greeted with joy on the streets of
Benghazi and Tobruk, was in no way intended to defend the Libyan
revolution. The air strikes’ growing civilian toll is leading to
increased questioning of these attacks. This is adding pressure on
governments, like South Africa, that originally supported, or abstained
on, the UN decision, to distance themselves from what is taking place.
The longer this situation continues, the more
questioning and opposition will develop. Already, many are disgusted by
the hypocrisy of governments proclaiming their willingness to defend
Libyans while doing nothing when civilians are shot down in Bahrain and
Yemen. The western powers’ silence on Saudi Arabian backing for the
Bahraini elite confirms, in the eyes of many, that what they wish for is
that oil-rich Libya also becomes a client state.
Revolutionaries in Libya may think that this UN
decision will help them, but they are mistaken. The jockeying for
positions and tensions between the imperialist powers reveal the naked
economic and political calculations that lay behind the decision. It is
not a lifeline that could ‘save’ the revolution against Gaddafi. The
major imperialist powers decided that they wanted now to exploit the
revolution, gain control over its leadership, and try to replace Gaddafi
with a regime that is more reliable (for them and their interests). And
they hoped that this demonstration of their military power would warn
the Arab masses not to go ‘too far’ in their revolutions.
Almost immediately, however, it has become clear
that the imperialist powers’ hope of a quick victory is disappearing. On
the one hand, the forces around Gaddafi appear to be holding firm, for
the moment at least, while the rebel forces seem unable to advance
around the Gulf of Sirte, let alone towards Tripoli.
This is the background to the growing tensions
between the attacking powers, especially the arguments over who is
controlling the operation, whether or not NATO should be involved, and
over what the overall aim should be. Some fear that they may get
involved in a ground war, or that the country could break up. All of
this is aggravated by the rivalries competition between the attacking
powers themselves. At the same time as being divided over what to do,
the imperialist powers are fearful of the effects of their intervention
both in Libya and throughout the Arab world.
The revolution stalled
THE STALLING OF the revolution is symbolised by the
weakness of the self-appointed leadership of the Interim Transitional
National Council (ITNC) which is dominated by recent defectors from
Gaddafi and pro-capitalist elements. This body seems incapable of
appealing to the masses in western Libya and is increasingly relying on
the imperialist powers for aid. What has been missing is independent
organisations of Libyan workers and youth that could give a clear
direction to the revolution in order to win democratic rights, end
corruption and secure for the mass of Libyans democratic control over,
and benefit from, the country’s resources.
Faced with a rapid eastwards advance of Gaddafi’s
forces, many in eastern Libya seized hold of the idea of a no-fly zone
to help stem this tide, but this is not the way to defend and extend a
genuine revolution in the working masses’ interests. We have seen false
hopes in the power of intervention many times before, for example, in
1969 in Northern Ireland where some on the left thought that the British
army would protect Catholics and provide a breathing space. While the
intervention in Libya initially beat back an attack on Benghazi, it is
clear that the attacking powers, with growing calls for Gaddafi’s
removal, are already starting to try to shape the character of any
post-Gaddafi Libya. For the ruling classes of the US, Britain, France
and elsewhere, their goal is a pliant country open to exploitation.
The regime was able to mount a counter-attack
because the uprising’s initial drive towards the west, where two-thirds
of Libyans live, was not based on a clear revolutionary appeal to the
working masses. Despite mass support in the east, there was no organised
mass movement, built upon popular, democratic committees that could
offer a clear programme to win mass support in western Libya and from
rank-and-file soldiers whilst waging a revolutionary war. This gave
Gaddafi an opportunity to regroup.
The growth in support for a no-fly zone was a
reversal of the sentiment expressed in the English language posters put
up in Benghazi in February: ‘No to Foreign Intervention – Libyans can do
it by themselves!’ This followed the wonderful examples of Tunisia and
Egypt where sustained mass action completely undermined totalitarian
regimes. The Libyan opposition masses were confident that their momentum
would secure victory. But, at least partly due to the character of the
opposition’s leadership, Gaddafi was able to retain a grip in Tripoli,
the largest city of nearly 1.8 million. The combination of this relative
stabilisation of the regime and its counter-offensive led to a change in
attitude amongst the opposition towards foreign intervention that
allowed the largely pro-western ITNC to overcome youth opposition to
asking the west for aid.
Despite the Gaddafi regime’s blood-curdling words,
however, it is not at all certain that its relatively small forces could
have launched an all-out assault on Benghazi, Libya’s second largest
city, with around a million living in its environs. A mass defence of
the city would have blunted Gaddafi’s attack, especially if combined
with an appeal to the troops to join the revolution. To do this
successfully the revolution would have to be seen clearly as standing
for political freedom and offering a way forward for society. But the
ITNC is incapable of doing this and there was no independent movement of
workers and youth to give such a lead. Now, if a stalemate develops and
Gaddafi remains in power in Tripoli, it could mean a de facto breakup
that goes back to the separate entities that existed before Italy first
created Libya after 1912 and Britain recreated it in the late 1940s.
Imperialism’s absolute hypocrisy
WHATEVER EFFECT THIS no-fly zone and military
intervention has, any trust placed in the UN or imperialist powers
threatens to undermine all the genuine hopes and aspirations of the
revolution. This is because the powers behind the military intervention
are no friends of the Libyan masses. Until recently they were quite
happy to deal with, and pander to, the murderous Gaddafi clique in order
to maintain a partnership, especially in oil and gas. Indeed, the day
after the UN took its decision, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal
lamented that, "the close partnership between the Libyan leader Col.
Muammar Gaddafi’s intelligence service and the CIA has been severed".
(18 March) It reported that, "according to a senior US official", this
was "especially productive" - something confirmed by secret US material
published on WikiLeaks.
Having lost Mubarak and Ben Ali, imperialism is
trying to take advantage of the popular uprising in Libya to refurbish
its ‘democratic’ image while working to help install a more ‘reliable’
regime in Libya, or part of Libya at least. North Africa and the Middle
East, with their oil and strategic location, are of tremendous
importance to the imperialist powers. Libya, with the largest oil
reserves in Africa (ninth largest in the world), is a special prize as
its low population and its geography make it easier to exploit.
However, the attackers’ propaganda again reveals the
absolute hypocrisy of the main imperialist powers that have shamelessly
supported dictatorial regimes throughout the Middle East. There was not
even a hint of a no-fly zone or ‘protecting civilians’ during the
Israeli government’s 2008/9 attack on Gaza. Instead, their lips were
sealed. For millions in the Middle East, the US and British reaction to
the attack on Gaza, alongside the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, are
the measures by which the intentions of these powers are judged.
Now, at the same time that these powers were
deciding the no-fly zone, they did nothing to prevent Saudi Arabia and
their Gulf allies’ increasingly brutal suppression of the majority of
the Bahraini population and attempt to foment sectarianism. Within
twelve hours of the UN decision, the forces of the major powers’ Yemeni
ally shot dead at least 40 protesters in the capital, Sanaa.
The UN was only able to take its decision on Libya
because the Arab League supported a no-fly zone. Yet, despite sometimes
having to dimly reflect popular opinion, this body is in no way
representative of the Arab masses. It is a collection of mainly
reactionary autocrats who themselves rule by repression, as seen in
Bahrain and Yemen. The imperialist powers are very clear about not
upsetting these rulers. British ministers, for example, speak about the
need for ‘freedom of expression’ in the Middle East, trying not to
mention the word ‘democracy’.
The ‘concern’ of David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy
for Libya is partly motivated by domestic unpopularity and the hope that
a foreign success will strengthen their standing. Cameron hopes for a
boost similar to that which Margaret Thatcher enjoyed after the 1983
Falklands/Malvinas war. But Thatcher achieved a quick military victory.
A no-fly zone alone will not produce such a victory. Sarkozy, after the
disaster of his Tunisia policy that led to the resignation of his
foreign minister, needs a ‘success’ to lift his low poll ratings as next
year’s presidential election looms closer. After originally opposing the
Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, he now suddenly ‘supports’ the Libyan
opposition and recognises it as the legitimate government, probably with
an eye to helping French companies get their hands on Libyan oil and
gas.
The unreliable ally
DESPITE THE IMPERIALIST powers’ rapprochement with
Gaddafi after 9/11, he remained an unreliable ally. Throughout his
nearly 42 years in power Gaddafi’s policies have zig-zagged, sometimes
violently. In 1971 he helped the then Sudanese dictator Gaafar Nimeiry
crush a coup led by leftist officers in reaction to the earlier
suppression of the left, including the ban on the one-million member
Sudanese Communist Party.
Six years later, Gaddafi proclaimed a ‘people's
revolution’ and changed the country's official name from the Libyan Arab
Republic to the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah.
Despite this change in name, and the formation of so-called
‘revolutionary committees’, this was not genuine democratic socialism or
a move towards it. The Libyan working people and youth were not running
their country. Gaddafi remained in control, something underlined by the
increasingly prominent role that many of his children played in the
regime.
Gaddafi’s first reaction to this year’s dramatic
revolutionary events was to side with the dictatorial, corrupt
autocrats. Just after Ben Ali fled from Tunisia, Gaddafi told Tunisians
that they had "suffered a great loss" because "there is none better than
Ben Ali to govern". Perhaps revealing how he viewed his own future,
Gaddafi added that he had hoped that Ben Ali would rule "for life".
Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored that, since 1969,
on the basis of a large oil income and a small population, there has
been a big improvement in most Libyans’ lives, especially in education
and health. This is something which, at least partly, explains why
Gaddafi still has some basis of support amongst the population. Even
while there is growing opposition to the Gaddafi clique, especially
amongst Libya’s overwhelmingly young, educated and urban population,
there is also a fear of who might replace him and opposition to anything
that smells of foreign rule. Many Libyans know the second line of the US
marine corps hymn, "to the shores of Tripoli", referring to an
intervention in 1803. The revolutionaries’ widespread use of the old
monarchy’s flag was bound to alienate those who do not want to return to
the past and was used by Gaddafi to justify his rule. Additionally,
flying this old flag risks alienating Libyans from the west as the
former king came from the east and had no historic roots in the area
around Tripoli.
But these factors are not a complete explanation of
why Gaddafi was able to stabilise his position before the western
intervention and, at least temporarily, sections of the military kept
fighting. While there was a popular uprising in eastern Libya, Gaddafi
was able to maintain his positions in the west, where two-thirds of the
population live, despite large protests in Tripoli and uprisings in
Misrata, Zuwarah and a few other areas. This was a result both of the
way in which the revolution unfolded and of Libya’s history.
In the absence of workers’ action
UNLIKE EGYPT AND Tunisia, the working class in Libya
has not, so far, begun to play an independent role in the revolution.
Furthermore, many workers in Libya are migrants who have fled the
country in recent weeks. The absence of a national focal point which,
for example, the Tunisian UGTT trade union federation provided (despite
its pro-Ben Ali national leadership), complicated the situation in
Libya.
The huge revolutionary enthusiasm of the population
has not been given an organised expression. The largely self-appointed
ITNC that has emerged in Benghazi is a combination of elements from the
old regime and more pro-imperialist elements. For example, its foreign
spokesman, Mahmoud Jibril, former head of Gaddafi’s National Economic
Development Board, was described by the US ambassador in November 2009
as a "serious interlocutor who ‘gets’ the US perspective" – someone the
US can work with.
It is easy for Gaddafi to present these types of
people as threats to Libyans’ living standards and as agents of foreign
powers. At the same time, the effect of this propaganda will be limited
due to a steady worsening of the population’s living standards and
continued 10% unemployment since the end of the 1980s oil boom and,
particularly, after the start of privatisation in 2003.
Now, in addition to anti-imperialist rhetoric,
Gaddafi has made concessions to maintain support. Each family has been
given the equivalent of $450. Some public-sector workers have been given
150% wage increases, and taxes and customs duties on food have been
abolished. But these steps do not wipe away all that has happened over
the past years. Furthermore, they do not answer the demands for real
democratic rights or end the growing frustration of Libya’s youthful
population - with an average age of 24 - against the regime’s corruption
and suffocating grip.
Gaddafi’s use of the threat of imperialist
intervention to divide the country did gather some support. Now it may
gain more backing if the country actually becomes divided, especially if
the air attacks continue and widen out to civilian targets, as happened
in Serbia in 1999. Gaddafi’s promise that,
indicates that he can attempt to rest on
anti-colonial feelings or simply try to threaten imperialism that it is
‘me or chaos’. Gaddafi will try to make sure that he or his family keeps
hold of the reins of power. Impending defeat, however, could persuade
more of his top officials to jump ship and join the ITNC.
Internationally, tens upon tens of millions of
people have followed and been inspired by the revolutions in North
Africa and the Middle East. They have sparked protests against the
effects of the capitalist crisis in many countries. Because of this, and
Gaddafi’s advance on Benghazi, there was popular support in some
countries for the no-fly zone, but this is already starting to be
questioned as the bombing continues. Even the leaders of the Arab League
are trying to back away from being too closely associated with what is
happening. Socialists will use these developments to argue that this
intervention is primarily in the interests of the imperialist powers.
This is why nothing substantial is being done to hold back repressive
actions of imperialism’s Gulf states allies.
Revolutionary solidarity
BUT WHAT THEN can be done to genuinely help the
Libyan revolution internationally? Firstly, there can be no support for
the no-fly zone and military intervention. It is not in the interests of
the Libyan people. On its own, the no-fly zone will not automatically
lead to the overthrow of Gaddafi. In fact, like Saddam Hussein in Iraq –
faced with no-fly zones from 1992 to 2003 – he could entrench his
position for a time in those parts of the country his regime controls,
so long as the intervention did not go onto the offensive.
However, the growing western unofficial calls for
regime change show that sections of the imperialist powers are looking
to use their intervention to create a client regime that will, they
hope, extinguish the fires of revolution, at least in Libya. This is why
the support by some lefts for this intervention is mistaken and
dangerous. Such support poses the danger not only of the revolution
being derailed but also of being cut off from those Libyans who, while
not fully supporting Gaddafi, genuinely wish to fight colonialism and
imperialism.
Those on the ‘left’ who argue that there is no
realistic alternative to stop Gaddafi’s attacks are ignoring what
happened in Tunisia and Egypt: namely, that a determined mass movement
of the working masses and youth can overthrow a dictatorship. Support
for the imperialists’ intervention works against building such a
movement and furthermore gives a propaganda gift to Gaddafi.
It is true that the intervention has received
popular backing in eastern Libya. The same was true when British troops
went onto the streets of Northern Ireland in 1969 and when the Indian
army moved into Sri Lanka in 1987. The CWI, while understanding these
sentiments, also understood that they would not last, and argued not
simply against the military interventions but for a positive programme
to build a working class-led movement that could provide a socialist way
out of the crisis.
Of course, opposition to this imperialist attack and
practical solidarity with the Libyan workers and youth needs to be
urgently organised. Internationally, trade unions internationally need
to block the export of Libyan oil and gas. Bank workers should organise
the freezing of all the Gaddafi regime’s financial assets.
The fate of the revolution, however, will be decided
inside Libya itself. Its victory requires a programme that can cut
across tribal and regional divisions and unite the mass of the
population against the Gaddafi clique and in the struggle for a better
future.
There can be no support for the imperialist
intervention, including its UN colouring. The Libyan working masses and
youth should show no trust whatsoever in the so-called democratic
powers. They need to always remember that, up until a few weeks ago, the
US, Britain, France, etc, were all friends of Gaddafi and are still
friends and allies of the dictators and rotten regimes across the Arab
world.
A programme for the Libyan revolution that will
genuinely benefit the mass of the population would be based on winning
and defending real democratic rights. It would call for an end to
corruption and privilege. It would safeguard and further develop the
social gains made since the discovery of oil, in opposition to any form
of re-colonisation. It would stand for a democratically controlled,
publicly owned economy planned to use the country’s resources for the
future.
The creation of an independent movement of Libyan
workers, poor and youth that could implement such a real revolutionary
transformation of the country is the only way to thwart the
imperialists’ plans, end dictatorship and transform the lives of the
mass of the people.
