Libya: End Game and the Left.
As Gaddafi makes his last stand what position should the left take?
On the 13th of April the Tendance wrote, à propos an article by Serge Halimi,
The world’s left is divided between those who put the emphasis on opposition to a Western-led military operation and those who put the priority on solidarity with an oppressed people.
John Wight on Socialist Unity continues the former position, and pessimistically considers the overthrow of Gaddafi within this framework,
Equally by now it is also the case, particularly for those nations of the developing world, that national and political sovereignty has likewise been rendered redundant, and in the last analysis is a matter for Washington and its loyal European satraps.
Amid a lot of whataboutery and confused ramblings which meld together colonialism, imperialism, and globalisation he states,
With NATO so crucial to the toppling of Gaddafi, the question becomes what next? Hopefully the collective brains in Washington, London and Paris have given the state of a post-Gaddafi Libya some thought.
We base our views on a very different, Marxist, principle: the primacy of the mass struggle.
Earlier (18th March) on Tendance Coatesy this standpoint was advanced:
- The left has to begin from the premise of support for the Libyan people’s resistance to the Gaddafi tyranny. This is only a ‘civil war’ in the sense that all revolutions are civil strife. Given the opportunity the Libyan masses rallied to calls to overthrow the Gaddafi-state. Only its immediate use of violent repression halted their advance.
- The Libyan uprising takes place within the context of pan-regional Arab democratic revolutions. It is directed against a bureaucratic capitalist tyranny, with close links to international capital, Western states and institutions.
- The UN-endorsed military interventions are neither part of a plan for military occupation, nor for the installation of an externally created political replacement for Gaddafi. In the first instance they correspond to the express wishes of the Libyan popular masses, as organised in their provisional governing bodies.
- The UN sanctioned actions are not part of any generalised right to ‘humanitarian intervention’ but correspond to the particular needs of the Libyan population, under imminent threat of repression by the Gaddafi state machine. The are aimed to protect civilian populations.
Much has happened since then. Our optimism about the UN was exaggerated. There is little doubt that NATO and the Western powers have exceeded the UN mandate. NATO’s actions have not been always justified – to say the least. There have been efforts, largely succesful, to reach agreements with the Libyan National Transitional Council . There have been dubious actions on their part. It is not a ‘clean’ revolution.
But, the point at present is not to begin by denouncing the influence of the Western powers.It is to look at the political structures now emerging internally in Libya and the best ways of supporting the popular masses’ fight for democracy and social rights. These include the rights of supporters of Gaddafi. The fight may now take place within the victorious opposition. The left has to stand with the most progressive forces – if, or when, they emerge.
Scepticism about outside influences, tribal interests, the impact of Islamism, and the no doubt pro-business actions of the provisional government should not lead us to forget these basic principles.
A very sensible and rounded summary of the key issues.While I agree that NATO actions exceeded the UN mandate, I would suggest that this has largely been a result of the playing out of the logic of the situation, driven by the nature and intransigeance of the Gadadfi regime. Tthe western powers had a quite cosy accord with Gaddafi prior to the February events. Even once the “no fly zone” had begun the door was always open to him to back off and accept some form of settlement. It seems pretty clear that some elements in the west would have preferred that. But it was impossible to negotiate seriously with the regime; the NTC and the fighters would not have accepted any solution that left Gaddafi in place; and once the revolt of Zawiya and Misrata began it was not possible to present the conflict as an East-West one with partition as a possible solution.
It is certainly now a very compromised revolution but not without important vital signs. I suspect the upcoming issue will be the attempt of western and domestic conservative forces to disarm the rebel brigades. This will be justified under the slogan of restoring public order and security (and hence difficult to do while the armed popular forces are the main guarantors of pubic safety), and accompanied by a big smokescreen of scare-mongering about the examples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, (and, anywhere else that spring to mind); the imminence of inter-tribal warfare, mass looting, massacres of opponents, etc.(Not happening? Why let facts stand in the way of a good story?) The chorus has already begun, reinforced by that section of the left who just reject the Libyan revolution wholesale .
I agree in principle that “The left has to stand with the most progressive forces” – but I fear it will often be very difficult to work out exactly where that line is drawn (e.g Islamists who are rooted in the poor communities but threaten a deepening oppression of women). I think we need to start with something even more elementary such as – stand with those forces who defend the right of the Libyan people to debate and decide their own future course.
Utter shite from a nasty old Stalinist in today’s Morning Star:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/109062