[Marxism] Gilbert Achcar interview

Joaquín Bustelo jbustelo at bellsouth.net
Sun Aug 28 01:14:50 MDT 2011


On 8/27/2011 1:10 PM, Louis Proyect wrote:
> I think that socialist historians of the future will have their hands 
> filled trying to figure out how in our tiny numbers in the early 21st 
> century we were so willing to indulge in Torquemada type denunciations 
> like this.
>
> It is a fact that Andy's group Socialist Action said that it was 
> impossible to "demonize" Milosevic, a dubious prospect to say the least.
>
> His co-thinkers on this question in the Australian DSP would agree 
> with this even though they backed Australian and New Zealand 
> intervention in [East Timor] which Marxmail lurker Joaquin Bustelo 
> supported as well. Meanwhile, he uses the same kind of language as 
> Andy to describe those comrades in Solidarity who agree with Achcar.

A comrade was kind enough to let me know I was mentioned in this 
discussion since I don't read Marxmail much these days.

On East Timor, I'm not sure why Louis raises this from 12 years ago. But 
he "forgets" that the Cubans took a position similar to mine. It wasn't 
just me and the DSP.

He adds that "Meanwhile, he uses the same kind of language as Andy to 
describe those comrades in Solidarity who agree with Achcar," meaning 
terms like "imperialist stooge," "criminal," "unprincipled," etc.

That is simply false.

To prove it, I reproduce below everything I wrote on Libya in the 
Solidarity pre-convention discussion, and the only things I've written 
on Libya in Solidarity since a post or two last March that I also 
forwarded to this list.

In what's below, I refer to a suggested resolution on Libya for the Soli 
convention. That did not happen: instead, the Political Committee 
adopted a statement expressing sympathy with the anti-Gaddafi movement 
as a popular uprising against a dictator but opposing the NATO bombing 
and denouncing the hypocrisy of the imperialists for claiming to support 
the democratic aspirations of the Arab peoples but opposing the rights 
of the Palestinians. The statement urged Solidarity branches to 
participate in protest against the bombing where those were open to 
critics and opponents of Gaddafi.

At the time I wrote my first comments below, I was not aware that 
everyone on the Soli PC now agreed with taking an active stance of 
opposition to the NATO war, believing the organization was still deeply 
divided over this point as it had been at the time of a National 
Committee meeting in April.

I've substituted initials [in brackets] for the names of other comrades 
since I have not asked for their agreement to make my posts public with 
their names included. I've also included an explanatory phrase or 
additional information also [in brackets]. And I've fixed typos when 
I've found them.

The first post was on July 17, the second on the 19th, the third on the 
21st. The convention was held July 29-31.

* * *
[first post]

On Sun Jul 17 10:26 AM, [DF] wrote:
> I believe the outgoing PC will be submitting a very brief resolution 
> for the convention on our orientation to activities opposing the 
> bombing of Libya. My own view is that branches (in this case NY) 
> should assess the character of events occurring locally. They can best 
> make that decision.... [snip]
> The problem is that either the victory of the Qaddafi regime or the 
> emergence of an imperial-sponsored new government are serious threats 
> to the Libyan people and the broader Arab uprising. That should guide 
> our orientation. (The impact of this military action on U.S. politics 
> and the deepening of the imperial presidency is also important but 
> beyond this immediate debate.) To me, the least bad outcome at this 
> point is a negotiated settlement along the lines proposed by the 
> African Union and/or International Crisis Group. Regardless of that, 
> illusions about liberation-through-imperialist-bombing are 
> unacceptable but so is the anti-imperialism of fools.
Well, I sure hope the PC opts to give this threatened resolution a miss, 
or that the convention votes to table it without discussing it.

We have no agreement in Solidarity around Libya, and it is now way too 
late to begin a *serious* discussion for this convention.

And a serious discussion would be required, because while I agree with 
David that in general, "either the victory of the Qaddafi regime or the 
emergence of an imperial-sponsored new government are serious threats to 
the Libyan people," I do not believe a "plague on both your houses" 
stance is correct. I believe the political approach Trotsky presented in 
saying in the 1930s that he would support a fascist Brazil in the face 
of an attack by imperialist "democracies" is correct, and should help to 
guide us here despite the fact that there is also a civil war in Libya 
so one can't just cookie-cutter apply Trotsky's hypothetical there.

But imperialism is the more strategic and more important enemy; its war 
against the Arab and Muslim worlds, are, I believe, much more the 
context and the content of what it is doing in Libya than the fight for 
power between Libyan factions (I say factions because unlike in the 
other Arab countries, in Libya the very beginning of popular protests on 
a large scale was accompanied by --possibly even instigated or sparked 
by-- some sort of military rebellion or attempted coup).

And our main responsibility is to oppose "our own" imperialism not just 
because we're here but because it is the main imperialist power and the 
entire world imperialist system is structured around the central U.S. 
role. In my opinion, doing that job correctly would involve going back 
and systematically exposing the countless lies that have been told in 
the last six months to demonize Gaddafi, something I seriously doubt 
most comrades would endorse. And it would involve making clear we cannot 
express any sympathy with the Benghazi council while it invites and 
gives cover to imperialist attacks on other Libyans, even if they are 
the enemies [of Gaddafi] on the Benghazi council in a struggle over power.

[I do not know how I completely mangled that last sentence. What I had 
been trying to say was something like that while the rebels provide 
cover for imperialism, Solidarity should not express support for them 
even though otherwise we would.]

I do not believe comrades [CP] or [DF], [nor] lots of their friends, are 
likely to agree with this approach, just as I know I don't agree with 
the approach of the statement(s) the NC put out.

[Those statements are here: http://www.solidarity-us.org/current/node/3243]

* * *
[second post]

On Sun Jul 17 3:01 PM, [CP] wrote:
> Perhaps Joaquin can explain why he is willing to solidarize with the 
> Egyptian uprising, but not the Libyan, despite the fact that:
>
>  1. The Egyptian uprising was also accompanied-- and concluded-- with
>     a military uprising (the military removed Mubarak and installed
>     themselves in power).
>  2. Both uprisings included pro-Imperialist elements (El-Barati and
>     the military in Egypt)
>  3. The old regimes were both pro-imperialist to their core.
>
> Inquiring minds want to know...

In my view there is a tremendous difference between the events in Egypt 
and Libya. In Egypt you saw a series of powerful and sustained mass 
mobilizations against the head of the regime, leading to his becoming so 
politically isolated that eventually the imperialists withdrew their 
support and so the army removed him.

In Libya, there were scattered protests of hundreds of people starting 
on Feb. 15. For Thursday, Feb. 17, a "day of rage" had been called 
--apparently before the 15th-- which was to have been the real launching 
of the movement but unlike Tunisia and Egypt, from the outset it had an 
aggressively insurrectionary stance, with attacks on security 
installations and other government buildings by people trying to take 
them over.

[Checking on some detail just now, I came across this Al Jazeera report 
from February 16: 
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/20112167051422444.html. 
It says attacks on police stations with Molotov cocktails took place on 
the 15th, that the 17th was now being projected on the internet as an 
"uprising", and that the regime's initial reaction was not just to repel 
the protesters but also offer concessions. This provides further 
confirmation that the narrative that was presented in the following days 
--that Gaddafi savagely attacked peaceful Egypt or Tunisia-type 
protests-- was false.]

And already from that first day of mass protests, Feb. 17, there were 
reports suggesting army units were involved with or supporting the 
protests, and my impression is that it soon became clear in Libya that 
there was a mutiny or coup attempt, with part of the army and security 
forces in a confrontation with another sector of the military apparatus.

In reality this was the beginning of a civil war. The initial main 
fighting initially was around a military base in Benghazi held by 
Gaddafi loyalists, but by Saturday night they were routed by rebel 
attacks spearheaded by tanks, i.e., by regular, organized, army troops 
acting as coherent military units.

In the rest of Eastern Libya, the anti-Gaddafi wing of the military and 
government officialdom appear to have taken over without significant 
fighting. At one point there were reports of a unit of more than 100 men 
who had been captured and imprisoned in one of those towns. The men were 
said to be mercenaries, but actually turned out to be Black Libyans. The 
curious thing is that the entire unit was captured. That is not an 
outcome likely to issue from a spontaneous popular uprising on its first 
day, nor in later days (once the unit was on alert due to disturbances). 
To me it suggests a scenario like this unit being called to some sort of 
formation by superior officers and discovering that they were trapped or 
surrounded.

These sorts of events, which back in early March I spent a lot of time 
reconstructing by looking at things like Al Jazeera's real-time blog of 
what was being reported on their networks, CNN transcripts, BBC clips on 
YouTube and so on, suggest that either the mass protests on the 17th 
were called as part of a move to get rid of Gaddafi by a faction of the 
regime or this faction took advantage of that call to put their plans 
into action.

By that weekend, Saturday the 19th, absolutely outrageous crimes were 
being attributed to the regime by reports coming out of the country, 
which Gaddafi claimed were lies but most people discounted that, since 
he was not letting reporters into the country. Two major propaganda 
themes that emerged were that Gaddafi, having lost the army and a lot of 
the other paramilitary organizations, had brought in mercenaries to 
terrorize the population and was flying in hundreds more every day, and 
that Gaddafi was using the air force to attack demonstrators and 
civilian population centers.

It is very important to understand the significance of the very sharp 
escalation in the coverage and the details that became available that 
first weekend. It indicates in essence a very active role by the 
imperialists in relation to the media, though not in the vulgar way some 
people might imagine.

Until very recently I worked (for more than two decades) at a 24-hour 
news network. I can guarantee you that those reports and especially the 
[on-air] phone calls with people who claimed to be inside Libya, could 
not and would not have been aired without confirmation and especially 
someone vouching for the person on the other end of the line when they 
were speaking live, and under these circumstances those doing the 
vouching would almost certainly have been "western" (American/West 
European) diplomatic, military or intelligence sources. And that is true 
whether you're talking about the BBC, CNN International, Al Jazeera, Sky 
News, MSNBC or anyone else (except Fox). So that means that all of a 
sudden a network of people (presumably inside Libya) were given the 
world's biggest megaphone, and they made very good use of it.

One incongruity is that one would expect an organized military mutiny or 
attempted coup to present itself pretty much as such. That wasn't the 
case here. Of course, one could say that after being high up in the 
repressive forces the general who was minister of the Interior or the 
Minister of Justice did not believe people would back them, but the 
truth is we don't know.

The first significant Libyan government official to publicly speak out 
on the side of the anti-Gaddafi movement was the deputy ambassador to 
the United Nations (the ambassador wasn't there, so he was the top guy). 
Speaking on Monday, Feb. 21, he called on the international community to 
institute a no-fly zone to prevent further attacks by Gaddafi's air 
force against civilian protesters and population centers, and stop more 
mercenaries from being flown in. As if to underscore the message two 
Libyan Mirage fighter-bombers were flown that day to Malta by pilots 
--both colonels-- who were defecting. The Maltese authorities recounted 
that the pilots had said they had been ordered to attack civilian 
targets in Benghazi. And the main international TV networks were flooded 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXsXk2H31fs&>with reports 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucNHrwKvreE>of Gaddafi air force 
bombardment <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOeP5zGASSk>of civilians in 
and near Tripoli on that day, truly atrocious, cowardly and criminal 
attacks that make your blood boil with rage.

However only two days later, on the 23rd, in the course of reporting on 
the reign of terror in Tripoli, Anderson Cooper played video images of 
what Tripoli had been like on that Monday, the day we were being told 
about all that bombing, and this is what he said 
<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1102/23/acd.01.html>:

    Libya's dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, now using not just foreign
    mercenaries to hang onto power, but arming teenagers, thugs,
    encouraging prisoners and anyone else he can get on to the streets.

    We have talked to a number of people in Tripoli today and you're
    going to hear from them and all say the same thing. They have seen a
    dramatic change for the worse on the streets today, more dangerous,
    more deadly than ever.

    *We have new video tonight of what Tripoli looked like 48 hours
    ago,* before Gadhafi made that rambling speech yesterday threatening
    to execute those who opposed him. Take a look. *Two days ago, crowds
    of anti-government protesters felt safe enough to gather in
    Tripoli's Green Square in the heart of the capital, lighting fires. *

    Tonight, those crowds are in hiding, armed thugs, young and old,
    roaming the streets, hunting rebel opponents and anyone who looks
    like a journalist, anyone with a camera or anyone suspected of
    trying to tell the world what is happening.

On Monday we were presented the same picture of Tripoli that Cooper 
*now* is telling us prevails on *Wednesday*,**as *opposed to Monday, 
*when things were quiet ...

[Later, I found this Feb. 21 report on the supposed bombing on Tripoli 
on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucNHrwKvreE, as well as this 
Anderson Cooper report from Monday Feb. 21: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWf4jkEEL_Y&t=8m16s 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWf4jkEEL_Y&t=8m16s>.]

Moreover, there is this report from Russia Today, which they posted to 
youtube <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYesnOD6_gQ> on March 1under the 
headline "Airstrikes in Libya did not take place - Russian military."

    The reports of Libya mobilizing its air force against its own people
    spread quickly around the world. However, Russia's military chiefs
    say they have been monitoring from space -- and the pictures tell a
    different story. According to Al Jazeera and BBC, on February 22
    Libyan government inflicted airstrikes on Benghazi -- the country's
    largest city -- and on the capital Tripoli. However, the Russian
    military, monitoring the unrest via satellite from the very
    beginning, says nothing of the sort was going on on the ground. At
    this point, the Russian military is saying that, as far as they are
    concerned, the attacks some media were reporting have never
    occurred. The same sources in Russia's military establishment say
    they are also monitoring the situation around Libya's oil pumping
    facilities.

And RT pointed out that no camcorder or cellphone clips of the attacks 
or aftermath had emerged. And, yes, despite those wrenching accounts we 
all heard in February, there isn't any evidence that many of those 
things actually happened. No one has produced video clips of the 
bombardment, pictures of the craters left by the bombs, the trails of 
machine-gun pockmarks and so on. It is of course impossible to prove a 
negative with scientific rigor, that something *did not* happen. But in 
this age of cameras on the ubiquitous cell phones, I think the absence 
of video clips and pictures make the case overwhelming.

Then to complete the picture, if you Google "Air strikes Libya Russian 
military satellite" (without the quotes) you will see that the Russian 
story was picked up by everybody and their sister /outside/ the core 
imperialist countries, where the major media all boycotted the 
information. So there was every reason for the imperialists to try to 
refute the Russian claim. They never even tried. Nor did the Benghazi 
council or others in the Libyan opposition. Nor did CNN, which has a 
contract t get extremely high quality satellite images from a commercial 
provider, offer any such images until after mid-March. Which means the 
U.S. government blocked access to them (technically, the government 
doesn't "censor" the pictures, it just buys exclusive use of them, 
avoiding messy first amendment lawsuits).

[And recently I came across a March 5 Pentagon presser where defense 
secretary Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen were asked whether they could 
independently confirm whether there really had been air attacks on 
Libyan civilians. The answer was no: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j3x4CKfsQI&t=0m39s 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j3x4CKfsQI&t=0m39s>.]

The accounts about the mercenaries suffered a similar fate. The 
rampaging rambos ravaging the Libyan people evaporated into thin air as 
soon as Gaddafi finally relented and let international press people into 
Tripoli.

I believe it is now clear that those air raids in fact did not take 
place. Gaddafi's air force was not carrying out constant strikes against 
civilians. The planeloads of mercenaries did not exist. But that also 
means that the harrowing accounts of the reign of terror in Tripoli and 
other cities, as mercenaries commandeered ambulances, shot anyone that 
as much as stuck their head out of a window, dragged injured 
oppositionists from their hospital beds, as bombs and machine gun fire 
rained down from above were also fictional. And that the defecting 
pilots story is just that -- a story. Presumably the planes and the men 
were real, but they've never been identified nor has anything at all 
been said about them since the initial splash of publicity.

Just so there is no misunderstanding. I'm sure LOTS of bad things 
happened in Libya in those days and are continuing. Civil wars are like 
that, and I don't doubt that Gaddafi is perfectly capable of behaving 
atrociously even within that context. But, again, everything suggests he 
did not engage in the kind of mad-dog savagery that was attributed to him.

So look now at the entire picture:

What happened in Libya on February 17 was seen from the outside as the 
beginning of a mass civilian political upsurge, but inside Libya it 
marked /instead /the beginning of a civil war because there was some 
sort of mutiny, rebellion, coup attempt, or split /within/ the regime 
and its repressive forces. That imparted a character and dynamic to the 
situation very different from that in the other Arab countries. [And 
also, it now appears that those organizing/leading/projecting the 
protests meant for them to be insurrectionary].

Forty eight hours later --Saturday, Feb. 19--, the imperialists have 
already decided to throw Gaddafi under the bus. Sure, he'd been playing 
nice the last few years, helping the US with its international torture 
archipelago, screwing the Palestinians, but he was very far from the 
reliable "ally" and "friend," not to mention sock puppet, that Mubarak 
had been.

Forty eight hours after that --Monday, Feb. 21-- there is a tidal wave 
of reports of Gaddafi's savagery, centered on the bombing of Tripoli and 
Benghazi, the defection by the air force colonels, the reign of terror 
imposed by Gaddafi mercenaries.

That very same day, Libya's deputy ambassador to the United Nations says 
the whole UN mission is against Gaddafi and calls for an imperialist 
no-fly zone to stop the air attacks and the flying in of more 
mercenaries to terrorize the population. Things to note:

Thing One: You cannot do what the acting head of that Libyan diplomatic 
mission did, have a press conference and give interviews calling for an 
act of war against your own government, without the approval of the host 
country, and specifically the State Department.

Thing Two: This press [offensive from the UN mission] was obviously and 
transparently timed to coincide with the crescendo of anti-Gaddafi 
propaganda based on falsehoods, indicating a well-coordinated effort.

Thing Three: This means the anti Gaddafi faction of the Libyan regime 
did not turn to imperialist intervention in desperation but instead 
consciously sought it from the outset. Perhaps they hoped in the first 
day or two that just the initial rebellion would be enough to get them 
across the goal line. But the moment they saw that it wasn't enough, 
their reaction was to try to parachute into power from NATO planes, 
assuming an imperialist-imposed no-fly-zone would be enough to dislodge 
Gaddafi from his throne or tent or whatever it is that he has.

Thing Four: the hook up between the pro-imperialist, anti-Gaddafi regime 
faction and the imperialists had to have taken place by Friday the 18th 
or Saturday the 19th at the very latest, because it is over the weekend 
that the anti-Gaddafi reports become a saturation bombardment of Big Lie 
propaganda and for that to happen the imperialists needed to be on board 
to vouch for the oppositionists

Thing Five: The person that saw what was going on clearly and understood 
its implications was Fidel Castro. On that same Monday, Feb. 21, and 
apparently before hearing of the appeal for imperialist intervention by 
Libyan diplomats in the United States (because he doesn't mention it) 
Fidel wrote one of his commentaries with the poetic, symbolic 
title,"NATO's plan is to invade Libya," 
<http://www.cubadebate.cu/reflexiones-fidel/2011/02/22/el-plan-de-la-otan-es-ocupar-libia/> 
and appealed to everyone --whether you were for or against Gaddafi-- to 
join in sounding the alarm against the danger of an imperialist attack.

    Se podrá estar o no de acuerdo con el Gaddafi. El mundo ha sido
    invadido con todo tipo de noticias, empleando especialmente los
    medios masivos de información. Habrá que esperar el tiempo necesario
    para conocer con rigor cuánto hay de verdad o mentira, o una mezcla
    de hechos de todo tipo que, en medio del caos, se produjeron en
    Libia. Lo que para mí es absolutamente evidente es que al Gobierno
    de Estados Unidos no le preocupa en absoluto la paz en Libia, y no
    vacilará en dar a la OTAN la orden de invadir ese rico país, tal vez
    en cuestión de horas o muy breves días.

    One might or might not be in agreement with Gaddafi. The world has
    been invaded with all sorts of news, using especially the mass
    media, and we will have to wait whatever time it takes to know with
    rigor what was true and what was false, or what mixture of events
    took place in Libya in the midst of this chaos. What is absolutely
    obvious to me is that the United States Government could care less
    about peace in Libya and will not hesitate in ordering NATO to
    invade that rich country, perhaps in a matter of hours or a few days.


Fidel also noted that Venezuela had been dragged in by the hair into the 
Libyan imbroglio with a false report on Sunday that Gaddafi was headed 
there, and expressed his agreement with the desire expressed by the 
Venezuelan foreign minister "that the people of Libya find, in an 
exercise of their sovereignty, a peaceful solution to their 
difficulties, one that preserves the integrity of the Libyan nation and 
people, without meddling from imperialism."

And Fidel added, referring to that report about Venezuela (and remember, 
this was when Gaddafi was being presented as some sort of Pol Pot or Idi 
Amin) "For my part I can't imagine that the Libyan leader would abandon 
the country, evading being accountable for the actions imputed to him, 
whether or not they are partly or completely false." ("Por mi parte, no 
imagino al dirigente libio abandonando el país, eludiendo las 
responsabilidades que se le imputan, sean o no falsas en parte o en su 
totalidad.")

I quote this at some length because this column was then taken by a 
couple of leftists from Spain living in Tunisia to write an article 
<http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=123027> demanding Latin American 
revolutionaries, beginning with Fidel, stop giving back-handed support 
to Gaddafi by approaching Libya in the framework of the world struggle 
against imperialism. That article led to very public blow-outs in far 
left milieus in Europe reflected in web sites like Rebelion and Caos en 
la Red. It was picked up by many Trotskyist groups, including the Fourth 
International that some Soli comrades are engaged with, and it was the 
main piece <http://www.solidarity-us.org/current/node/3215> we had on 
the Solidarity web site on Libya for many weeks:

    Any kind of Western interference must be opposed, but we don’t
    believe, truly, that NATO is going to invade Libya; it seems to us
    that this threat, just barely pointed out, has the effect of
    entangling and blurring the anti-imperialist camp, even to the point
    of making us forget something that we ought to know: who Gaddafi is.


And after a detailed recounting of Gaddafi's misdeeds over the past 
decade or so, the authors return to their theme:

    And so now when Gaddafi’s imperialist friends – who’ve seen how the
    Arab world revolted without their intervention – condemn the Libyan
    dictatorship and talk about democracy, we vacillate. We apply the
    universal template of the anti-imperialist struggle, with its
    conspiracy theories and its paradoxical distrust of the people, and
    ask for time so that the clouds of dust thrown up by the bombs
    dropped from the air might clear – to be sure that there are no CIA
    cadavers underneath. That is, when we don’t offer direct support, as
    the Nicaraguan government did, to a criminal with whom the slightest
    contact can only stain forever anyone who claims to be leftist or
    progressive. It’s not NATO who’s bombing the Libyans, but Gaddafi.
    /*
    */

"/*It’s not NATO who's bombing the Libyans, but Gaddafi,*/" Fidel's 
critics wrote, when they would have been better served by following his 
example and reserving judgement until things became a little clearer. 
Because they are now saddled with the very ironical result that, as it 
turns out, the claims about Gaddafi bombing his own cities were false 
and those false reports were spread to make possible the very NATO 
intervention that they discounted. Because that's what Fidel saw quite 
clearly -- the sort of propaganda barrage that was unleashed around 
Gaddafi wasn't about Gaddafi but about preparing an imperialist 
intervention.

* * *

[CP] asks why I don't express solidarity with the Libyan uprising and 
the reason is what I explain above, that from the outset, at the very 
center of this movement have been political forces that didn't just ally 
with imperialism but looked to the imperialists to play a major role in 
putting them in power. I certainly sympathize with the sentiments and 
aspirations of the civilians and the soldiers (not the colonels or 
generals, though) who rose up against Gaddafi. But war is the 
continuation of politics by other means, and it does not seem to me that 
it is the politics of a popular movement against a repressive and 
undemocratic regime that are dominant here, but rather, of increased 
imperialist control.

In Egypt it seems to me the effect of the political changes brought 
about by the movement have been quite clearly to reduce imperialist 
influence and give more weight to working people. I think this 
formalistic, well the military were involved here and there too, people 
leading the thing were pro-imperialists here and there, and so we should 
have the same political stance does not make any sense.

I think for us in the United States, and probably throughout the rest of 
the planet outside the Arab world and perhaps just outside Libya, 
opposing NATO's war is job #1 in relation to Libya. On that, I don't 
think it is particularly helpful to stress how much we like one side or 
the other in the internal conflict, because that is now inextricably 
intertwined with the foreign aggression. I like what the Venezuelans 
said at the outset, expressing the hope that the Libyans would settle 
this peaceably and internally without outside interference, and I think 
they did the right thing to try to put together some sort of offer of 
mediation.

My understanding is that Gaddafi has accepted, at least in theory or in 
general, those sorts of proposals including the most recent one from the 
African Union and the Benghazi council rejects anything that does not 
*begin* with Gaddafi's removal. But that rebel stance is just a 
reiteration of their hope that imperialist support will put them in 
power, because of course you do not go into a negotiation to end a 
military conflict with the precondition that the other side grant you 
the strategic objective you have been seeking but have been unable to 
come close to winning on the battlefield.

[Quite obviously from a tactical point of view the Benghazi council was 
right to follow the course they did as they now appear to have won.]

And when there was a fair bit of buzz at the end of June about cutting 
some sort of deal that would have Gaddafi leaving his formal positions 
and the country within a few months, the imperialists had their criminal 
international court indict Gaddafi and his son to make any sort of 
accommodation like that impossible.

I think Solidarity should very resolutely oppose the imperialist 
military campaign in Libya, but not try to take sides on the internal 
conflict within Libya as such.

Joaquín

PS: I wanted to add, after looking at some of the later discussion after 
I drafted this, that while I certainly would not have and won't vouch 
for Gaddafi's future conduct, I think the stuff about how he would have 
staged some humongous massacre in Benghazi should not be credited. It 
was being sold by the same people who invented the horrific accounts 
about cities being bombed and rampaging mercs in the first few days of 
the conflict that now look like they were mostly fabricated.

And the prediction was made with exactly the same aim in mind -- to pave 
the way for an imperialist military intervention starting with a "no-fly 
zone." As to the statements attributed to Gaddafi, I can't speak to all 
of them, but I did read some in a fair bit of detail and it wasn't in 
essence very different from what one might expect under those 
circumstances: a promise to treat them [the rebels] like the prodigal 
son and talk and work things out if they stop fighting and a threat to 
use them to make hamburger if they don't.

I had my fill of that kind of ultraviolent speechifying --from both 
sides-- when I was covering the civil war in Nicaragua a quarter century 
ago. I learned to discount a lot of it. That sort of overheated rhetoric 
seems to be as inevitable in wars as the lies and the bloodshed. But 
even granting that what was claimed about Gaddafi would have come true, 
is there anybody here who wants to give us assurances that in the end, 
the imperialist intervention won't wind up costing the Libyan people as 
much or more grief and suffering and death?

* * *

On Wed Jul 20 12:11 PM, [CP] wrote:
> I am in full agreement with the PC resolution on Libya-- opposing 
> continued NATO/US intervention and supporting the movement to 
> overthrow Qaddafi. I remain convinced that the Libyan movement is part 
> and parcel of the "Arab Spring"-- a socially and politically 
> heterogeneous movement for basic democratic rights that socialists 
> /must support. /Put simply, the question before Solidarity now is 
> /not/ whether or not to support (in a critical and extremely limited 
> way) the US/NATO military action, but whether or not we support /any 
> and all manifestations of the democratic movement in the Arab countries. /

I agree that the /popular uprising/ that began in Libya in mid-February 
was progressive. But it is far from clear to me that this was the /only/ 
thing going on. There is substantial circumstantial evidence, which I 
explained in a long post in the last couple of days, that there was also 
an active putschist conspiracy of an even more pro-imperialist faction 
of the regime than Gaddafi, or that what may not yet have fully been 
such a faction became one with the outbreak of the popular rebellion. 
And it is this circle, and not the popular uprising, that the 
imperialists are supporting.

I presented evidence that this dissident wing of the regime (and Libyan 
exile allies, although I didn't get into their role in my last post), 
from the first days of the uprising were seeking an imperialist 
intervention and brazenly lied and fabricated the most horrific 
accusations against Gaddafi tailored to justify the establishment of a 
no-fly zone. Comrades should reflect on the cynicism involved in 
organizing and carrying out such an operation for the purpose of 
establishing the military domination of your country by the British, 
French and American imperialists.

That saturation bombardment of war propaganda eventually had the 
intended effect, with the imperialist military intervention becoming a 
decisive factor in the unfolding war, preventing the victory of the 
Gaddafi forces.

[And now handing it to the Benghazi Council, with reports only beginning 
to filter out of the much larger on-the-ground role of imperialist 
intelligence agents and special forces.]

I do not think Solidarity should express judgments about whether the 
opposition to Gaddafi now should be considered a democratic popular 
uprising, a tool of the imperialists, an ambitious clique of former 
Gaddafi loyalists or whatever. And obviously, Gaddafi & Co. are hardly 
the distilled essence of revolutionary anti-imperialism, even though 
they are in the imperialists' gun sights. We are not in Libya, nor is 
the internal situation there the least bit transparent, so we are not in 
a very good position to make a determination and there is absolutely no 
need to.

I do not know why [CP] and I guess the comrades on the PC think "the 
question before Solidarity now is ... whether or not we support /any and 
all manifestations of the democratic movement in the Arab countries/." ///
/
This question envelops multiple errors.

First it absolutizes and turns into a principle something that doesn't 
even exist: "the democratic movement in the Arab countries," which is a 
distilled perfect essence floating in the mysts of Plato's cave while we 
in this vale of tears are reduced to looking at shadows, to see whether 
they are true "manifestations" of that great and noble spirit.

Second it begs the question: the issue being raised is not whether we 
should support the good guys, but whether --when you take into account 
all the contradictory factors-- these really are the good guys. In other 
words, we need to come down to the ground from the dizzying heights of 
"manifestations," so that we can analyze what are the real social layers 
in motion and what is the direction of motion that is the result of the 
interaction of various and contradictory forces. Usually one would say, 
for example in Egypt, that despite the participation and even seeming 
domination of the movement by high ranking members of the military 
caste, imperialist agents like the atomic guy and so on, fundamentally 
this movement has been pushing society in a progressive direction, 
breaking down dictatorial control, creating greater space for the 
struggles of working and oppressed people. And historically there have 
been enough of these movements that we actually do not carry out the 
analysis because from experience we see the kind of movement it is. In 
this sense there is a justification for abstractions like "democratic 
movements in the Arab world" /provided we remember that is a 
generalization based on certain repeating features or patterns, not a 
"thing" that really exists /and is pressing as hard as it can to 
manifest. Because sometimes we see a surface resemblance of a pattern 
but something different is going on if you look more closely. And 
sometimes a situation is contradictory and confusing and you see 
elements of any number of patterns: here a popular uprising, there a 
quisling, at the other end a fight for power or a falling out among 
thieves. And we need to resist the temptation to think that one or 
another must be considered primary or dominant or even that "history 
will tell us" because history could care less, "history" doesn't exist, 
shit happens and then it is gone and we live with the consequences.
/
/Third, it is an error because we do not live and function in that part 
of the world, "support" has no /direct /meaning at all save perhaps for 
an article or two someone might write that would be no different whether 
or not we proclaimed our "support" to "any and all manifestations...". 
For revolutionaries in Libya and perhaps neighboring countries "support" 
means something completely different than it does to us, and they do 
have to have a position, but then again they know a hell of a lot more 
about it than we do.

What I tried to do in some earlier posts and now the long one from a 
couple of days ago is point out this is far from a "typical" situation 
of an anti-dictatorial struggle or upsurge, or if it is, the multiple 
smokescreens of lies and propaganda make it impossible to determine.

And by the way, to the pro-Gaddafi folks I'd say the same sort of thing, 
that this division of the world into imperialists/anti-imperialists is 
/idealism:/ getting a few bombs, or even millions thrown at you by the 
U.S. imperialists does not automatically make the recipient a working 
class hero. You don't combat the demonization of Gaddafi by depicting 
him as a saint or silencing his critics but by documenting the 
propaganda and the lies and showing that it isn't about Gaddafi /at 
all,/ it's about the imperialist designs on Libya.

The MAIN thing /we /can do in relation to what's going on in the Arab 
world or anywhere else in the global South is to oppose American 
imperialism's efforts to dominate the world, which we should do BOTH 
because it is "our own" imperialism but also because the United States 
is the most powerful imperialist country in the world, the lynchpin of 
the entire system. That opposition can, under the right circumstances, 
change history and prove to be a more powerful and concrete support than 
even an armored division.

The pre-eminent example, of course, is Vietnam, but there are others. 
The Bay of Pigs invasion, for example, might have turned out differently 
if Kennedy had not been too scared of popular reaction here and 
elsewhere to provide the CIA brigade with the protection of a "no fly 
zone." That fear was kept alive by the relatively tiny "Fair Play for 
Cuba Committee" because Kennedy knew from the welcome Fidel got in 
Harlem when he came to the UN that there was a lot of sympathy with the 
Cuban revolutionaries among working people in the United States.

The main thing we should be saying in relation to Libya is /not /that we 
support the rebels or Gaddafi's regime, but that everyone should unite 
in opposing the imperialist intervention. Whatever they think of Gaddafi 
or the rebels.

Fidel got it right from the outset, he said no matter what you think of 
Gaddafi, we need to unite against the then-threatened NATO attack, 
(although at first very few people even saw the danger). Now that NATO 
is at war in Libya, his advice applies with even more force.

The real question before Solidarity is not "whether or not we support" 
the Benghazi side as a manifestation of the movement for democracy 
despite its crappy pro-imperialist leadership or the Tripoli side as a 
manifestation of the struggle against imperialism despite its crappy 
dictatorial leadership.

The issue before us is how we can most effectively combat the 
imperialist military campaign in Libya.

By doing /that/ we will be giving the most effective possible support 
that we can to the people of Libya, their movement for democracy and 
their struggle against imperialism.

Joaquin









More information about the Marxism mailing list