Nato’s Libya intervention debated
I HAVE long been an admirer of the articles and
books of Peter Taaffe. They are written in a way that makes complex
events understandable to me. However, having just read the most recent
article in Socialism Today on Libya (Libya:
The No-Fly Zone and the Left, No.148, May 2011), I must differ. I
agree with a lot of the article. However, I agree with most of those
rebels in Misrata who, in a recent TV interview, called for more
airstrikes to take out Gadaffi’s tanks.
These were ordinary working-class men and women who
make up the rebels in Misrata who were saying this. These brave men and
women are fighting with their backs to the sea surrounded by Gadaffi’s
troops who have more resources. Nobody appears to be arming and training
the rebels. They don’t want foreign troops in their land, but they want
air strikes and soon, as the city is being bombarded by Gadaffi’s tanks.
Of course, from the West’s point of view, they may
be happy to see Misrata fall and the rebels retreat. The country would
then be divided in half with the east keeping the oil – just what the
Western powers would like, although they don’t say that in public.
Gadaffi would take bloody revenge on Misrata once it had fallen.
So I support the Misrata rebels’ call for air
strikes. By saying this, does that mean I support imperialist
intervention? No, I don’t think so. It’s not the same thing in my view.
If I was in Misrata, I would be calling for the planes to knock out the
tanks.
Chris Fernandez
Derby
Peter Taaffe responds:
THE COMMENTS by Chris are very welcome. It is
important that our readers inform us regularly about their views on the
content of articles. We welcome favourable comments but also points
where there are differences. Our intention is to inform the workers’
movement through our analysis, and hopefully raise the political level
of understanding of our readers. This can be furthered if we have a
genuine dialogue with workers on such serious issues as Libya.
Chris is not alone in wanting to see action taken in
defence of the rebels in Libya. And, initially, we were fully in favour
of seeking to assist the uprising when it was a genuine revolution with
the workers dominating through elected committees, not just with food
but with weapons and the means of resisting the murderous onslaught of
Gadaffi’s troops.
The best way to do this is through the independent
class action of the international workers’ movement, beginning in those
countries in the region that have been touched by the flames of
revolution. Unfortunately, such an appeal has not been forthcoming from
the rebels. Instead, they have appealed to the imperialist powers to
assist them through airstrikes. This became more pronounced as the
petty-bourgeois and bourgeois forces succeeded in elbowing the workers
aside.
If weapons were supplied to assist a genuine mass
rebellion, even if they were supplied by the imperialist powers – on the
precondition that there were no strings attached – we would not stand in
the way of this. It was Leon Trotsky who pointed out: "In 90 cases out
of 100 the workers actually place a minus sign where the bourgeoisie
places a plus sign. In ten cases however they are forced to fix the same
sign as the bourgeoisie but with their own seal, in which is expressed
their mistrust of the bourgeoisie". But even in a case like this, he
added that Marxism "must each time orient itself independently… arriving
at those decisions which correspond best to the interests of the working
class". (Learn to Think – A Friendly Suggestion to Certain
Ultra-Leftists, May 1938)
However, imperialism has no intention of doing this,
partly because it is not sure that the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois
leaders who presently dominate the ranks of the rebels will be able to
control the situation – to imperialism’s benefit – after the removal of
Gadaffi. In other words, it is not sure it could control the revolution.
This is the fundamental concern throughout the region – hence the
relative silence and inaction on massacres in Bahrain and repression in
Syria, and the encouragement of sectarian forces in Egypt, etc.
In desperation, the besieged rebels in Misrata and
Benghazi look for help from outside. There is support, therefore, for
airstrikes in these towns and internationally. But we cannot go along
with this, precisely because it will not assist the interests of the
Libyan masses, the North African and Arab revolution, or the working
class internationally.
The interim government is now dominated by bourgeois
forces, with key positions held by former Gadaffi ministers. This is why
the Financial Times reported: "A coalition of mostly Western and Arab
countries supporting Libya’s rebels has agreed to set up a special
non-military fund with pledges of several hundred million dollars, while
calling for patience after seven weeks of Nato-led bombing that have
failed to oust Muammer Gaddafi’s regime". (6 May) There would be no
question of them acting in this fashion if the rebellion in the east was
dominated by mass democratic committees.
Also, the airstrikes are a blunt instrument which
have not stopped Gadaffi’s troops and have inflicted terrible
‘collateral’ damage on the rebels themselves. There is the additional
factor that such methods could actually strengthen support for Gadaffi
which is still obviously there in the west of the country. Only a class
appeal holds out the possibility of being completely successful in
splitting Gadaffi’s ranks and mobilising opposition in Tripoli.
Remember, the workers in Benghazi have already defeated Gadaffi’s forces
in an uprising. An indiscriminate air war has as little chance of
succeeding in Libya as in Afghanistan, where it has proved to be
completely counter-productive; the cowardly use of US drones has
resulted in the massacre of the innocent as well as ‘guilty’ Taliban
fighters.
I do not think it is correct to say that ‘the West’
will be happy to see the fall of Misrata. It wants to see the overthrow
of Gadaffi now, even though it accommodated to him previously. The West
would even like to intervene decisively to guarantee victory to the
rebels – if it had the land forces and was not constrained by fears of
mission creep. It could not do this in the first instance, hence the
airstrikes. There are some on the left who argued that imperialism
wished to remain at the level of a military ‘no-fly zone’. We wrote that
they wish to "neatly separate support for action of this character from
the wider perspectives of the powers that take such action". They argued
that "the UN, with Britain and France as its instruments, has set very
limited objectives in Libya".
After our article appeared, Obama, Cameron, Hague
and Sarkozy all indicated that they were working for the overthrow of
Gadaffi. Hague announced the sending of British ‘advisers’ – in reality,
the SAS – to the east of Libya. This is the way that US intervention in
the Vietnam war started. Libya will not be a repeat of the Vietnam war
but the airstrikes are just the beginning of imperialist encroachment,
the aim of which is to derail a revolution from below similar to those
that have unfolded in the Middle East and North Africa.
It is clear that Chris and many others who share his
views do not intend "to support imperialist intervention". But the road
to hell is paved with good intentions! Airstrikes by foreign imperialist
powers are military interventions. The rebels are only so much small
change in the calculations of imperialism. They are much more interested
in Libya’s oil reserves and, more importantly, in holding back and
derailing the wider revolution in the region. It is for this reason that
we opposed the no-fly zone from the start.
But there is an additional vital issue: the
consciousness of the Libyan masses. Calling for ‘help’ from outside –
moreover, from the class enemy – strengthens Gadaffi’s calls to defend
the country from imperialism. It lowers the consciousness of the working
class, weakening its ability to struggle independently. In Palestine, in
the occupied territories at least, the masses were mostly passive as
they awaited liberation through the ‘avenging angel’ of the Palestine
Liberation Organisation (PLO) and its military struggle launched from
outside the country. Only when the PLO was defeated and evicted from
Lebanon was the ground prepared for the Palestinian masses to act
independently in the occupied territories through the intifadas.
The marvellous revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia
smashed the idea that the masses of the Middle East and North Africa
could be liberated only through outside intervention – the argument
imperialism used in relation to Iraq. Surreptitiously, they are
attempting to resurrect this doctrine in relation to Libya,
unfortunately with the assistance of ultra-left organisations which
invariably adopt an opportunistic position, particularly on crucial
issues such as war.
It would be mistaken, therefore, for us to give any
support whatsoever to imperialist intervention in the form of no-fly
zones – for the reasons explained above and in the original article. |