There are conflicting signals as yet. But once it gets into action, even as a supportive force of the UK and France as is the present case, the drive for "regime change" would tend to get stronger. Because it looks too imprudent to leave a hurt Gaddafi in power to do all sorts of mischief, from the West's point of view, as and when the pressure is relieved.
But things have their own dynamics. And, in Libya tribal loyalties will play a major role. And it's a tall order to effect a regime change without engaging ground force, as was done in case of Iraq. For that neither there is the UNSC approval nor public support in the West. It'd assume considerable fighting capacities on the part of the rebels in the east with far less and inferior firepower and already quite a bit hammered by Gaddafi's forces and also resumption of mass protests in the west. Sukla On 21/03/2011, Daniel Mazgaonkar <[email protected]> wrote: > hey, friends, does the Empire USA wishes to eliminate Gaddafi just as she > did wish about Saddam ? > > Daniel. > > On 21 March 2011 23:01, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Rohini! >> >> This appears to be by far the best analytical report on unfolding >> developments in Libya today. >> >> Sukla >> >> >> On 21 March 2011 18:20, Rohini Hensman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> A very nuanced position that I would agree with. >>> Rohini >>> >>> http://www.zcommunications.org/libyan-developments-by-gilbert-achcar >>> >>> >>> [image: G_achcar_s1]Libyan Developments >>> ------------------------------ >>> By Gilbert Achcar <http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/gilbertachcar> >>> >>> 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 include *The 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 resolution >>> establishes >>> "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. >>> >>> >>> >>> Farooq Tariq >>> spokesperson >>> Labour Party Pakistan >>> 25 A Davis Road Lahore, Pakistan >>> Tel: 92 42 6315162 Fax: 92 42 6271149 Mobile: 92 300 8411945 >>> www.laborpakistan.org >>> www.jeddojuhd.com >>> >>> >>> __._,_.___ >>> Reply to >>> sender<http://mc/[email protected]&subject=Re%3A%20Gilbert%20Achcar%20on%20Libyan%20Developments>| >>> Reply >>> to >>> group<http://mc/[email protected]&subject=Re%3A%20Gilbert%20Achcar%20on%20Libyan%20Developments>| >>> Reply >>> via web >>> post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socialist_pakistan_news/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyZ3J2NjZhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyNDAyOTk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDU2NwRtc2dJZAMxOTk4NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEzMDA2Nzg5NjM-?act=reply&messageNum=19987>| >>> Start >>> a New >>> Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socialist_pakistan_news/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZmFlbjg5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyNDAyOTk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDU2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMDA2Nzg5NjM-> >>> Messages in this >>> topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socialist_pakistan_news/message/19987;_ylc=X3oDMTM3bTg5ZTRzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyNDAyOTk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDU2NwRtc2dJZAMxOTk4NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMDA2Nzg5NjMEdHBjSWQDMTk5ODc->( >>> 1) >>> Recent Activity: >>> >>> - New >>> Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socialist_pakistan_news/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnNWpsZGlwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyNDAyOTk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDU2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMzAwNjc4OTYz?o=6> >>> 64 >>> >>> Visit Your >>> Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socialist_pakistan_news;_ylc=X3oDMTJmN2o1YWwzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyNDAyOTk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDU2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzMDA2Nzg5NjM-> >>> Socialist Pakistan News (SPN) is managed by supporters of Weekly Mazdoor >>> Jeddojuhd and Labour Party Pakistan >>> [image: Yahoo! >>> Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZmh2MWh0BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEyNDAyOTk1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTQ0NDU2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTMwMDY3ODk2Mw--> >>> Switch to: >>> Text-Only<http://mc/[email protected]&subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional>, >>> Daily >>> Digest<http://mc/[email protected]&subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest>• >>> Unsubscribe<http://mc/[email protected]&subject=Unsubscribe>• >>> Terms >>> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> >>> . >>> >>> __,_._,___ >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Free Binayak Sen" 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/free-binayaksen?hl=en-GB. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Peace Is Doable >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Free Binayak Sen" 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/free-binayaksen?hl=en-GB. >> > > > > -- > > A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their > mission can alter the course of history. ---Mahatma Gandhi > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Free Binayak Sen" 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/free-binayaksen?hl=en-GB. > > -- Peace Is Doable -- 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.
