there's also "I don't have to have a position on that issue." It's akin to "wait and see."
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Maxim Linchits <[email protected]> wrote: > It has occurred to me that there are more than two sides in this debate on > Libya. In addition to the "for and against" views, there may also be the > "we have no fucking idea" view. > > Can we even talk about the probability that more or fewer deaths will > result now that the no fly zone is in place? No one knows what the "no > fly-zone" will morph into with time in the hands of NATO. Perhaps a no fly > zone will simply give rebels time to defeat Gaddafi or negotiate a > settlement . Perhaps it will lead to a ground invasion by NATO. Who here > really knows? > > Of course admitting a lack a foresight is hard when predictions shore up > one's political position , but in politics "I don’t know" is often the only > scientifically valid answer. > > Now I wonder what this debate would look like, if all sides took for granted > that that the situation in Libya proper is completely unpredictable, and > went from there > > Max > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Devine > Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 6:16 PM > To: Pen-l > Subject: [Pen-l] debate on Libya > > a friend forwarded this to me. It may be of use. > > SOCIALIST WORKER (UK) Issue: 2245 dated: 2 April 2011 > http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=24350 > > Alex Callinicos / posted: 6.01pm Tue 29 Mar 2011 > > Should the left back intervention in Libya? > > Western intervention in Libya has caused some divisions on the genuine left. > This isn’t surprising. If we look at the Arab world, a combination of the > widespread loathing of Muammar Gaddafi and support for the revolutions has > limited opposition to the use of Western firepower against his forces. > > The most intelligent case for supporting the intervention has been made by > my old friend Gilbert Achcar. A consistent opponent of Western imperialism, > Gilbert argues that this is an occasion when anti-imperialists should be > willing to make compromises. (1) > > Gilbert is right, revolutionaries have sometimes been prepared to take help > from imperialist powers. > > Soon after the Russian Revolution of 1917, invading German armies were > threatening the survival of the infant Soviet republic. Britain and France > offered help. Lenin wrote to the Bolshevik central committee: > “Please add my vote in favour of taking potatoes and weapons from the > Anglo-French imperialist robbers.” (2) > > Gilbert is also right to dismiss claims by some on the left that Gaddafi is > in some way a “progressive” and that the leadership of the revolution in > Benghazi support Al Qaida. He asks, “Can anyone claiming to belong to the > left just ignore a popular movement’s plea for protection, even by means of > imperialist bandit-cops, when the type of protection requested is not one > through which control over their country could be exerted?” > > This is where I begin to get queasy, particularly when Gilbert also contends > that the US, France and Britain intervened under pressure of public opinion > to prevent a massacre in Benghazi. > > Compare the comments of the right wing French “philosopher” Bernard > Henri-Lévy. > > He boasted in last Sunday’s Observer about his role in persuading French > president Sarkozy to push for Western intervention: “What is important in > this affair is that the devoir d’ingérance [the right to violate the > sovereignty of a country if human rights are being excessively violated] has > been recognised.” (3) > > Championed > > For “BHL”, as he’s known in France, what counts is the politics of the > intervention. He sees it as an opportunity after the Iraq disaster to > rebuild support for the idea, championed by Tony Blair, that Western powers > have the right to attack states they deem to have broken their rules. [BTW, > are other countries allowed to attack Western powers deemed to have broken > the rules, e.g., for the unprovoked and unilateral war against Iraq in > 2003?] > > But this isn’t the most important reason for the intervention, at least as > far as the US is concerned. > > Gilbert demolishes the argument that Gaddafi wouldn’t have continued to > allow Western companies access to Libya’s oil. I agree—oil isn’t the main > issue. The US is rushing to get in front of the Arab revolutionary wave that > threatens to sweep away its system of domination. > > A White House adviser told the Financial Times, “The place where we have the > least interest in the Middle East is Libya…” Nodding to the island kingdom > that is home to the US Fifth Fleet and risks becoming caught up in a tug of > war between oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Iran, he adds, “The place where we > have the greatest interest is Bahrain.” (4) > > The clampdown in Bahrain, orchestrated by Saudi troops, represents an effort > by the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf autocracies to turn back > the revolutionary tide. Barack Obama and his administration have strongly > criticised the repression there and in Yemen. > > They hope to use the revolutions to restructure Arab societies along more > stable neoliberal lines. Taking on Gaddafi is a way for the US to associate > itself with the revolutions—and to shape their politics. > > BHL describes addressing a meeting of revolutionaries in Benghazi and > persuading them to appeal for Western support. No doubt he’s bragging, but > the anecdote illustrates the immense efforts under way to incorporate the > revolutions. > > There is the final argument, used by both Gilbert and BHL, that intervention > prevented a massacre in Benghazi. The sad fact is that massacres are a > chronic feature of capitalism. The revolutionary left is, alas, too weak to > stop them. > > Until we become stronger, we can at least offer political clarity about > what’s at stake. > > 1 Gilbert Achcar, “A Legitimate and Necessary Debate from an > Anti-Imperialist Perspective”, ZNet, 25 March 2011, > www.zcommunications.org/libya-a-legitimate-and-necessary-debate-from-an-anti > -imperialist-perspective-by-gilbert-achcar > > 2 The Bolsheviks and the October Revolution: Central Committee Minutes of > the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) August 1917-February > 1918 (London, 1974), p. 215 > > 3 K Willsher, “Libya: Bernard-Henri Lévy Dismisses Criticism for Leading > France to Conflict”, Observer, 27 March 2011, > www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/27/libya-bernard-henri-levy-france > > 4 Richard McGregor and Daniel Dombey, “Foreign Policy: A Reticent America”, > Financial Times, 23 March 2011, > www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ddd2d0c-557e-11e0-a2b1-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Hzhs8sHI > > © Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you > include an active link to the original. > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way > and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
