ZNet Articles
Blog PostsLibya: Who’s Side Are We On?
By Richard Greeman at Apr 01, 2011 |
|
by Richard Greeman
As a lifelong Marxist and non-violent revolutionary, I do not of course 'support' the US-NATO hypocritical intervention in Libya -- as if these war-mongering imperialist governments wanted or needed my support!
But I do recognize that the alternative to this intervention would have been a bloody massacre of the democratic forces by a horrific dictatorship – one that the same imperialists supported with money and arms up until yesterday. I also recognize that the Libyan democratic forces have asked for this intervention -- while excluding any Iraq-style on-the-ground NATO invasion. So – like many of my Arab friends here in France -- I am not signing on to the petty-bourgeois Left’s one-sided ‘stop the bombing’ campaign, which distorts reality in favor of ‘anti-imperialist’ ideology and objectively supports the maniacal Khadaffi's murderous campaign against his own people.
Too Far Left to See Reality
Equally unreal is the Left’s call for an unenforceable “bi-lateral cease-fire” (which Khadaffi already claims to be observing!) and an unenforceable bilateral “arms embargo” (which like the Spanish Civil War embargo of 1936 would only affect the forces of democracy, leaving the dictatorship free to employ foreign mercenaries). As one Moroccan militant put it: “some people are so far left they can no longer see reality.”
For many months Left appeared to have been mostly sleeping as French and US forces continued to occupy Afghanistan, to murder civilians indiscriminately, and to impose in Kabul a reactionary puppet Sharia regime of murderous, corrupt, drug-dealing anti-woman warlords who are just as bad as the Taliban (with whom NATO is negotiating)in the name of "democracy” and “women’s' rights."[1] Now suddenly the anti-war movement has risen from its slumbers to storm the heavens in support the ‘sovereignty’ of Khadaffi’s murderous tyranny.
Since when did the ‘sovereignty’ of so-called nations carved out of Africa by colonialists drawing lines on maps in London or Paris become a sacred issue for the Left? Aren’t we supposed to be for ‘self-determination’? Sovereignty rights, like ‘states rights’ in the racist U.S., is most often invoked by dictators as a defense against ‘outside interference’ by human rights groups. To be sure, there is a serious danger that Western military support for the Libyan rebels may morph into yet another neo-imperialist redistribution of the spoils of war, with France and the U.S. pushing aside Italy, the former colonial power, to whom Khadaffi granted the biggest oil and gas concessions. So what else is new?
Massive Non-violent Resistance
What is new in the rolling Arab revolts of the past two months (as well as in the mass demonstrations and labor strikes in Iran that preceded them) is the successful use of Non-Violent Resistance, another aspect generally ignored by the Left. What the Arab masses have taught us is that massive non-violent resistance – demonstrations, sit-ins, mass occupations, strikes – can bring a violent dictatorships to their knees. To be effective, of course, non-violent revolt needs to be massive. Up until now, dictatorships – by controlling the mass media, banning meetings, and persecuting dissidents – have been largely successful in isolating their subjects and preventing people power to reach a ‘critical mass.’ Today, the 21st Century connectivity of interactive Internet sites, cell-phones and social media – widely available everywhere on the planet -- have changed that equation in favor of mass democratic movements of the oppressed.
This lesson has been largely ignored by the Left, which remains fixated on losing strategies like armed resistance and guerrilla warfare which over and over again have proven counterproductive. On the other hand, the new tactic spread instantly to the grass-roots labor movement in Wisconsin, which consciously took its inspiration from Tahir Square -- and received support from the Egyptian Teachers’ Union! (I love the irony of A-rabs teaching us Amurricans democracy!) What these movements showed is that non-violent résistance encourages positive democratic and socialist values. In Egypt we saw women and men, young and old, workers and professionals, secularists, Christians and Moslems spontaneously joined in mutual respect and solidarity, while street crime fell as the police vanished and neighborhoods organized and picked up the trash. Indeed, an admirable prefiguration of true democracy (including respect for women) was established for two weeks among the thousands in Tahir Square (and among the occupiers of the Wisconsin State Capitol as well).
Was massive non-violence possible in Libya ? Could it have succeeded in overthrowing Khadaffi as it did Egypt’s longtime dictator Mubarak and his power-hungry sons? We can never know ; but what we do know is that the armed defenders of the popular movement are no match for Khadaffi’s U.S.-supplied armor, elite units and mercenaries and that a brutal civil war and a lethal foreign intervention have resulted. However, a perhaps more useful comparison would be with the democratic movement in Yemen, which like Libya, remains a traditionally warlike society -- one where where armed factional conflict is endemic. Yet what is remarkable about Yemen is that the mass movement, like that of Egypt, has remained non-violent in the face of government-sponsored armed aggression. Indeed, the tribal warriors who have joined the movement have apparently left their weapons at home, with the result that the movement has remained unified and keeps growing, whereas Libya will remain mired in bloody civil war for the foreseeable future with a real danger of dismemberment. In Syria too, where in 1982 the Baathist dictator Hafez al-Assad(father of the current dictator) massacred 10 to 25,000 men women and children at Hama during the 1982 Islamist uprising, the demonstrators have remained non-violent.
Abstract Posturing or Concrete Solidarity ?
Returning to the ‘No Bombing in Libya’ campaign, I certainly agree that the U.S.-France led intervention is hypocritical. However, it also strikes me as hypocritical that left organizations which remained relatively quiet during the inspiring, non-violent, labor, youth and womens’ demonstrations in Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and now Syria -- have suddenly and loudly jumped on this ‘anti-US-imperialism’ bandwagon during a highly ambiguous open-ended situation in Libya. To me it was shocking that here in France, with over 10% Arab population and a heavy colonialist past, there were so few solidarity demonstrations with such low turnout. Nor have I seen much criticism on the Left of the self-proclaimed socialist Chavez, who courts Iranian PresidentAhmadinejad and has long supported the monstrous Quadaffi to the hilt.
During most of my life-time the 'Left' and much of the peace movement supported totalitarian Communist regimes and parties as 'anti-imperialist', and now it is objectively supporting that great ‘anti-imperialist’ Ghadaffi! When will some people learn that the enemies of our enemies are not necessarily our friends? It is all too easy to soothe the liberal conscience by being AGAINST -- for example against the US government, which I agree is always motivated by power and greed. Much more complicated to say what you're FOR and to develop links of solidarity with people in struggle, like the women and workers' movements US-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq as well as in the newly vibrant Arab world.
Radical posturing may feel good, but what is needed is ongoing solidarity with people in struggle -- the long haul -- which is not so easy. For those who wish to join the popular resistance, I recommend becoming part of U.S. Labor Against the War http://uslaboragainstwar.org/which gives direct support to the struggle for labor and women’s rights in the Middle East.
[1]For the latest appeal from an Afghani feminist, watch "Stop These Massacres": Ex-Afghan Parliamentarian Malalai Joya Calls for End to U.S. Occupation of Afghanistan”http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/28/stop_these_massacres_ex_afghan_parliamentarian
Can a serial killer really come to the rescue?
By Emersberger, Joe at Apr 01, 2011 14:37 PM
I think an analogy best explains my position. Imagine a terrible crime is about to take place. Are there circumstances where calling on a serial killer to help the victim might be justified? Our governments are analagous to a serial killer - one with tremendous fire power at his disposal, both military and economic. The serial killer may well prevent the short term crime - for his own depraved motives - to perpetrate even more horrble crimes. Nevertheless, the victim may certainly beg for help from the serial killer or anyone strong enough to save him or his loves ones. I could not blame the victim for thinking of nothing else but that. But what of the people who actually call the serial killer in knowing that they cannot control the killer and that everything about his motives, his grisly track record and his power suggests it is very likely he will use the emergency to perpetrate horrible crimes - probably even against the victim he may temporarily save?
I didn't predict Iraq would be such an undeniable disaster, but what I said to Johann Hari (who writes for the UK Independent and who supported the invasion of Iraq) was that the US and its allies would not be satisfied with Iraq if they were able their invasion a "sucess".That much was quite predictable. Incredibly, the US, UK and others were not able to call Iraq a "sucess". Some truths are too big even for them to bury. But the West has still proceeded to threaten Iran very seriously - using the same utterly discredited approach they used against Iraq. Not hard to see that Iran would be thoroughly bombed by now if Iraq had been a "success" and still might be bombed. The world is a complicated place, no doubt, but some things can be known and predicted in a general way - like extremely depraved actions from the West (unless revolutionary changes take place within western societies).
In theory , yes a very short term military intervention - after other approaches were given a reasonable chance - coud be justified (example, in averting a very dire short term emgency in Benghazi). HOWEVER, the problem is we have no credible reason to belive the consequecnes would only be short term. Note how th ebombing continues after the imminent massacre in Benghazi has been averted. Could we have said in 2003 "I support a war ONLY to remove Saddam Husein but not all the other things the West is surely going to do afterwards." "All the other things" come with te territory when you call on a powerful serial killer to do police work. The burden of proof is on those who call the serial killer to show that horrific consequces - greater than any short term benefit - are not likely. The burden must be a heavy one.as Chomsky just wrote. I don't think it has been met.
I think progressives who are backing western bombing in Libya are - though driven dy noble intentions - forgetting how criminal and dangerous their governmetns are. Part of the reason for that is a relentless propaganda system within our societies. Another is that westerners are protected from the worst crimes of their governments. We can, for example, express the harshest criticisms publicly (as I am now) without worrying about being bumped off or thrown into prison. All that can casue us to forget what a monstrous threat our governments pose to others. It can also casue us to greatly overestimate our capcity to contrain the criminality of our governments abroad. Look at Iraq. No doubt, in the ansence of opposition our governmnets woudl have inflicted an even greater bloodbath, but they still got away with it.
Reply this comment
Re: Can a serial killer really come to the rescue?
By Jones, David at Apr 01, 2011 17:44 PM
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Can a serial killer really come to the rescue?
By Emersberger, Joe at Apr 01, 2011 19:11 PM
I don't know if all serial killers kill for the mere joy of killing or if - like our government leaders - they imagine other objectives that they put above human life - similar to the way we walk down the street without caring about how many ants we kill.
Reply this comment