Libyan Developments
________________________________
By Gilbert Achcar
Saturday, March 19, 2011
[Gilbert Achcar grew up in Lebanon, and is currently Professor at the School of
Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London. His books
includeThe Clash of Barbarisms: The Making of the New World Disorder, published
in 13 languages, Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy,
co-authored with Noam Chomsky, and most recently The Arabs and the Holocaust:
The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives. He was interviewed by Stephen R. Shalom.]
Who is the Libyan opposition? Some have noted the presence of the old
monarchist
flag in rebel ranks.
This flag is not used as a symbol of the monarchy, but as the flag that the
Libyan state adopted after it won independence from Italy. It is used by the
uprising in order to reject the Green Flag imposed by Gaddafi along with
his Green Book, when he was aping Mao Zedong and his Little Red Book. In no way
does the tricolor flag indicate nostalgia for the monarchy. In the most common
interpretation, it symbolizes the three historic regions of Libya, and the
crescent and star are the same symbols you see on the flags of the Algerian,
Tunisian and Turkish republics, not symbols of monarchism.
So who is the opposition? The composition of the opposition is -- as in all the
other revolts shaking the region -- very heterogeneous. What unites all the
disparate forces is a rejection of the dictatorship and a longing for democracy
and human rights. Beyond that, there are many different perspectives. In Libya,
more particularly, there is a mixture of human rights activists, democracy
advocates, intellectuals, tribal elements, and Islamic forces -- a very broad
collection. The most prominent political force in the Libyan uprising is the
"Youth of the 17th of February Revolution," which has a democratic platform,
calling for the rule of law, political freedoms, and free elections. The Libyan
movement also includes sections of the government and the armed forces that
have
broken away and joined the opposition -- which you didn't have in Tunisia or
Egypt.
So the Libyan opposition represents a mixture of forces, and the bottom line is
that there is no reason for any different attitude toward them than to any
other
of the mass uprisings in the region.
Is Gaddafi -- or was Gaddafi -- a progressive figure?
When Gaddafi came to power in 1969 he was a late manifestation of the wave of
Arab nationalism that followed World War II and the 1948 Nakba. He tried to
imitate Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, who he regarded as his model and
inspiration. So he replaced the monarchy with a republic, championed Arab
unity,
forced the withdrawal of the U.S.'s Wheelus Airbase from Libyan territory, and
initiated a program of social change.
Then the regime moved in its own way, along the path of radicalization,
inspired
by an Islamized Maoism. There were sweeping nationalizations in the late 1970s
-- almost everything was nationalized. Gaddafi claimed to have instituted
direct
democracy -- and formally changed the name of the country from Republic to
State
of the Masses (Jamahiriya). He pretended that he had turned the country into
the
fulfillment of socialist utopia with direct democracy, but few were fooled. The
"revolutionary committees" were actually acting as a ruling apparatus along
with
the security services in controlling the country. At the same time, Gaddafi
also
played an especially reactionary role in reinvigorating tribalism as a tool for
his own power. His foreign policy became increasingly foolhardy, and most Arabs
came to consider him crazy.
With the Soviet Union in crisis, Gaddafi shifted away from his socialist
pretensions and re-opened his economy to Western business. He asserted that his
economic liberalization would be accompanied by a political one, aping
Gorbachev's perestroika after having aped Mao Zedong's "cultural revolution,"
but the political claim was an empty one. When the United States invaded Iraq
in
2003 under the pretext of searching for "weapons of mass destruction," Gaddafi,
worried that he might be next, implemented a sudden and surprising turnabout in
foreign policy, earning himself a spectacular upgrade from the status of "rogue
state" to that of close collaborator of Western states. A collaborator in
particular of the United States, which he helped in its so-called war on
terror,
and Italy, for which he did the dirty job of turning back would-be immigrants
trying to get from Africa to Europe.
Throughout these metamorphoses, Gaddafi's regime was always a dictatorship.
Whatever early progressive measures Gaddafi may have enacted, there was nothing
left of progressivism or anti-imperialism in his regime in the last phase. Its
dictatorial character showed itself in the way he reacted to the protests:
immediately deciding to quell them by force. There was no attempt to offer any
kind of democratic outlet for the population. He warned the protesters in a now
famous tragic-comic speech: "We will come inch by inch, home by home, alley by
alley ... We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity."
Not a surprise, knowing that Gaddafi was the only Arab ruler who publicly
blamed
the Tunisian people for having toppled their own dictator Ben Ali, whom he
described as the best ruler the Tunisians would find.
Gaddafi resorted to threats and violent repression, claiming that the
protesters
had been turned into drug addicts by Al Qaeda, who poured hallucinogens in
their
coffees. Blaming Al Qaeda for the uprising was his way of trying to get the
support of the West. Had there been any offer of help from Washington or Rome,
you can be sure that Gaddafi would have gladly welcomed it. He actually
expressed his bitter disappointment at the attitude of his buddy Silvio
Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, with whom he enjoyed partying, and
complained that his other European "friends" also betrayed him. In the last few
years, Gaddafi had indeed become a friend of several Western rulers and other
establishment figures who, for a fistful of dollars, have been willing to
ridicule themselves exchanging hugs with him. Anthony Giddens himself, the
distinguished theoretician of Tony Blair's Third Way, followed in his
disciple's
steps by paying a visit to Gaddafi in 2007 and writing in the Guardian how
Libya
was on the path of reform and on its way to becoming the Norway of the Middle
East.
What is your assessment of UN Security Council resolution 1973 adopted on March
17?
The resolution itself is phrased in a way that takes into consideration -- and
appears to respond to -- the request by the uprising for a no-fly zone. The
opposition has indeed explicitly called for a no-fly zone, on the condition
that
no foreign troops be deployed on Libyan territory. Gaddafi has the bulk of the
elite armed forces, with aircraft and tanks, and the no-fly zone would indeed
neutralize his main military advantage. This request of the uprising is
reflected in the text of the resolution, which authorizes UN member states
"to take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated
areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi,
while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan
territory." The resolutionestablishes "a ban on all flights in the airspace of
the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians."
Now there are not enough safeguards in the wording of the resolution to bar its
use for imperialist purposes. Although the purpose of any action is supposed to
be the protection of civilians, and not "regime change," the determination of
whether an action meets this purpose or not is left up to the intervening
powers
and not to the uprising, or even the Security Council. The resolution is
amazingly confused. But given the urgency of preventing the massacre that would
have inevitably resulted from an assault on Benghazi by Gaddafi's forces, and
the absence of any alternative means of achieving the protection goal, no one
can reasonably oppose it. One can understand the abstentions; some of the five
states who abstained in the UNSC vote wanted to express their defiance and/or
unhappiness with the lack of adequate oversight, but without taking the
responsibility for an impending massacre.
The Western response, of course, smacks of oil. The West fears a long drawn out
conflict. If there is a major massacre, they would have to impose an embargo on
Libyan oil, thus keeping oil prices at a high level at a time when, given the
current state of the global economy, this would have major adverse
consequences.
Some countries, including the United States, acted reluctantly. Only France
emerged as very much in favor of strong action, which might well be connected
to
the fact that France -- unlike Germany (which abstained in the UNSC vote),
Britain, and, above all, Italy -- does not have a major stake in Libyan oil,
and
certainly hopes to get a greater share post-Gaddafi.
We all know about the Western powers' pretexts and double standards. For
example, their alleged concern about harm to civilians bombarded from the air
did not seem to apply in Gaza in 2008-09, when hundreds of noncombatants were
being killed by Israeli warplanes in furtherance of an illegal occupation. Or
the fact that the US allows its client regime in Bahrain, where it has a major
naval base, to violently repress the local uprising, with the help of other
regional vassals of Washington.
The fact remains, nevertheless, that if Gaddafi were permitted to continue his
military offensive and take Benghazi, there would be a major massacre. Here is
a
case where a population is truly in danger, and where there is no plausible
alternative that could protect it. The attack by Gaddafi's forces was hours or
at most days away. You can't in the name of anti-imperialist principles oppose
an action that will prevent the massacre of civilians. In the same way, even
though we know well the nature and double standards of cops in the bourgeois
state, you can't in the name of anti-capitalist principles blame anybody for
calling them when someone is on the point of being raped and there is no
alternative way of stopping the rapists.
This said, without coming out against the no-fly zone, we must express defiance
and advocate full vigilance in monitoring the actions of those states carrying
it out, to make sure that they don't go beyond protecting civilians as mandated
by the UNSC resolution. In watching on TV the crowds in Benghazi cheering the
passage of the resolution, I saw a big billboard in their middle that said in
Arabic "No to foreign intervention." People there make a distinction between
"foreign intervention" by which they mean troops on the ground, and a
protective
no-fly zone. They oppose foreign troops. They are aware of the dangers and
wisely don't trust Western powers.
So, to sum up, I believe that from an anti-imperialist perspective one cannot
and should not oppose the no-fly zone, given that there is no plausible
alternative for protecting the endangered population. The Egyptians are
reported
to be providing weapons to the Libyan opposition -- and that's fine -- but on
its own it couldn't have made a difference that would have saved Benghazi in
time. But again, one must maintain a very critical attitude toward what the
Western powers might do.
What's going to happen now?
It's difficult to tell what will happen now. The UN Security Council resolution
did not call for regime change; it's about protecting civilians. The future of
the Gaddafi regime is uncertain. The key question is whether we will see the
resumption of the uprising in western Libya, including Tripoli, leading to a
disintegration of the regime's armed forces. If that occurs, then Gaddafi may
be
ousted soon. But if the regime manages to remain firmly in control in the west,
then there will be a de facto division of the country -- even though the
resolution affirms the territorial integrity and national unity of Libya. This
may be what the regime has chosen, as it has just announced its compliance with
the UN resolution and proclaimed a ceasefire. What we might then have is a
prolonged stalemate, with Gaddafi controlling the west and the opposition the
east. It will obviously take time before the opposition can incorporate the
weapons it is receiving from and through Egypt to the point of becoming able to
inflict military defeat on Gaddafi's forces. Given the nature of the Libyan
territory, this can only be a regular war rather than a popular one, a war of
movement over vast stretches of territory. That's why the outcome is hard to
predict. The bottom line here again is that we should support the victory of
the
Libyan democratic uprising. Its defeat at the hands of Gaddafi would be a
severe
backlash negatively affecting the revolutionary wave that is currently shaking
the Middle East and North Africa.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
