Libyan revolution and imperialist meddling

Yesterday the United Nations Security
Council voted by 10 votes in favour against 5 abstentions to impose a
no-fly zone over Libya. The resolution authorises 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".

Gaddafi
has responded – through his foreign minister – by announcing his
intention to call a cease-fire. This is clearly intended to stop the
airstrikes which were being prepared by NATO and other forces. He
realises what he risks if he ignores the UN and simply marches on and
bombs the rebel held towns. With such a ceasefire in place – if Gaddafi
keeps his word and isn’t using this simply to buy time to take towns
such as Misurata – the country is de facto divided into two.

This sudden about face on the part of Gaddafi may also be dictated by
the fact that he has realised that taking Benghazi would be a far more
formidable task than what he has achieved so far. Benghazi is a major
city under the control of the revolutionary people, and these would put
up strong resistance against any force sent in by Gaddafi. Thus a
compromise which leaves him in control of part of the country may seem
the better option.

With the revolution in stalemate, the Interim Council remains
standing in Benghazi but Gaddafi holds on to the biggest city, Tripoli
and several other key cities, including important oil fields and
refineries.

A ceasefire means neither side attacks the other. It also means
putting on hold the Libyan revolution, which is what Gaddafi’s regime
wants, but also what the imperialists want. Those who lose out in all
this are the Libyan workers and youth, those who actually started the
revolution. In Tripoli Gaddafi will keep his grip on the situation and
in the East and other rebel held areas, the revolutionary youth will be
pulled back.

Let us not forget that until recently the west were doing very good
business with Gaddafi. Western oil companies have been operating in the
country for some time. Gaddafi was putting in place laws that would
favour the development of private enterprise and the market. The IMF
recently [February 15, 2011] applauded the Gaddafi regime noting that,
“An ambitious program to privatize banks and develop the nascent
financial sector is underway. Banks have been partially privatized,
interest rates decontrolled, and competition encouraged. Ongoing efforts
to restructure and modernize the CBL [Central Bank of Libya] are
underway with assistance from the Fund.” Gaddafi’s son, Saif, was in
fact a key promoter of “liberalisation”.

The people who sit on the Interim Council, led by Gaddafi’s former
Minister of Justice, have no differences with the Gaddafi clique on this
question. So on both sides of the divide the imperialists will be able
to carry on doing good business. What the imperialists have been seeking
is a way of cutting across the revolutionary wave in the Arab world. In
Libya they have found, at least for now, a way of partially achieving
that. The idea that tyrants can easily be toppled by mass movements has
been brought into question by the survival of Gaddafi. The idea that
outside help from the western “democracies” is required to “defend
people’s democratic rights” has been added to the equation.

All this is aimed at removing from the minds of millions of
downtrodden, ordinary working people, of the unemployed youth, the poor,
that they have the power to rise up and take their destinies into their
own hands. Egypt and Tunisia, however, are still there as examples of
revolutions that have removed despots from power. The idea that
revolution is possible is still gripping the minds of millions in the
Arab world. And whatever manoeuvres the imperialist may come up with,
this idea is not going to go away so easily. In Yemen, Jordan, Oman and
many other countries revolution is on the agenda.

The role of the United Nations

In speaking at the gathering of the Security Council, Susan Rice, the
US representative claimed that by passing this resolution they were
defending the democratic rights of the Libyan people. Such words in the
mouths of the representatives of US imperialism stink of hypocrisy. We
should not be taken in by all this rhetoric. The imperialist powers hide
behind such words as they proceed to defend their fundamental
interests.

Let us not forget that it was only last month that the same Susan
Rice vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution which condemned Israel’s
settlements in Palestinian territory. Thus while in Libya people are to
be guaranteed “democratic rights” the Palestinians can go on waiting for
theirs. In the past two years the US have vetoed more than 30
resolutions that called for a defence of the rights of the Palestinians.
On the other hand, in the past when the US sought a UN mandate to
justify their invasion of Iraq, in spite of failing to get such a
mandate, went ahead and invaded the country anyway.

Unfortunately, among many on the left there are big illusions in what
the United Nations can achieve. There is this idea that somehow the UN
is an organisation that stands above society, i.e. stands above class
and national interests as some kind of “democratic” or “humanitarian”
referee. It is nothing of the sort.

Gaddafi
and Sarkozy shaking hands during a summit in 2007, a photo that has
subsequently been removed from the president’s website. Photo:
Présidence de la RépubliqueThe UN Security Council, has
within it five major powers, the US, China, Russia, France and Britain,
who have the right of veto. If any single one of these feels that its
national interests are at risk it can stop a resolution going through.
What this means is that the UN can take a decision, when the "national
interests", that is the interests of the respective ruling classes, of
all these powers converge in some way.

Here we saw the spectacle of the direct representatives of Sarkozy,
Cameron and Obama agreeing to intervene in Libya, the same people who at
home are cutting pensions, attacking the right to free public
education, cutting back on welfare in general, while at the same time
defending the interests of their own capitalists. These same people have
no qualms in sending the police against protesting workers and youth in
their own countries, while at the same time shamefacedly decrying the
lack of democratic rights in other countries.

Marxists do not fall for any of this. The interests of the capitalist
class are the same at home and abroad. Their home policy is based on
defending the profits and privileges of the ruling class. Their foreign
policy is determined by the exact same criteria. That is why it is very
unfortunate that many on the left – whether they call themselves
Social-Democratic, Socialist, Labour, Left, Communist and so on – have
fallen for all the rhetoric of the ruling class.

Bahrain and Libya… two weights and two measures

One has only to look at the situation in Bahrain to see the utter
hypocrisy of what is going on. In Bahrain we have seen a mass movement
of immense proportions. The government has responded brutally, shooting
at unarmed peaceful demonstrators. Other Gulf States such as Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait have sent in troops and police forces to help
the government quell the revolt. Where is the call for a UN force to
defend the Bahraini people? So far, what we have is Ban Ki-moon, the UN
secretary-general expressing his "deepest concern" about what is
happening in Bahrain.

The argument that the Bahraini government (which is violently
repressing its own people) has called for the “help” of neighbouring
countries and that by doing so legitimizes foreign intervention is
grotesquely ridiculous. These hypocrites forget the very fact that the
mass revolt in Bahrain has deprived the local government of any
authority whatsoever to claim it represents the will of the majority.

Why do we have two weights and two measures here? Because in each
situation the interests of the imperialists are different. If the
revolution in Bahrain were to successfully overthrow the regime, then
next in line would be Saudi Arabia, followed by the other smaller Gulf
States. Saudi Arabia has the largest oil reserves in the world. Kuwait
and the UAE also have sizeable reserves. The Saudi regime itself is not
exactly an example of democracy. It is a brutal regime, and always has
been.

The Saudi regime has come under some – very mild – pressure to
introduce “reforms”. The result? The king is about to announce a…
“government reshuffle”, an “anti-corruption drive” and promises to
increase subsidies on basic foodstuffs. But where are the democratic
reforms, the right to form parties, the right to organize free trade
unions and to strike? We can rest assured that these will not be in the
king’s speech today.

Saudi Arabia is a very important player in what is happening in the
Middle East. It is a key ally of US imperialism, but in the recent
period we have seen differences over how to deal with the revolutions
that have been spreading across the whole region.

For example, when the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions started, the
Saudis and other reactionary Arab regimes were all putting pressure,
particularly on Mubarak to resist at all costs. They understood that the
toppling of the Egyptian regime could open the floodgates and that they
could be next.

US imperialism, on the other hand, after the initial shock of seeing
millions on the streets – something they had not expected – realized
that in order to maintain some degree of control over the situation,
what was required was some loosening up from the top, i.e. to grant some
reforms from above in order to avoid revolutionary explosions from
below. That is in fact the line they are pushing now, even giving some
kind advice to the Bahraini regime to follow along the same lines.

But it is one thing to pontificate from across the Atlantic Ocean; it
is another to be sitting right on top of the volcano in the Middle
East. These regimes realize that once you start loosening up from the
top, in the face of revolutionary movements of the masses, it is only
the beginning of a process that will go much further than they would
like. Once the masses get a feeling that a regime is weak, that it is
divided and it is making reforms only to try and stop the tide of
revolution, then they are encouraged and move forward with more demands.
The masses want full democratic rights, and with these they also want a
solution to their burning economic and social problems.

This the imperialists understand and what they are trying to do now
to make cosmetic changes while maintaining the essence of the old
regimes that have either been toppled or are about to be toppled, i.e.
regimes that maintain and defend the interests of the capitalist system
as a whole.

It is in this context that we need to look at what is happening in
Libya and why the UN voted the resolution that prepared the ground for
the imposition of a no-fly zone over the country. It was evident that US
imperialism was not prepared to take up on itself the task of imposing
such a zone. They have had their fingers burned in Iraq and are not keen
to get bogged down in another war in an Arab country. That explains why
so much insistence has been placed on the fact that there is not going
to be an “occupation” of Libya. Unfortunately for the US strategists,
they have now been dragged into supporting such a resolution and will
have to participate to some degree in imposing the no-fly zone. They see
it as the lesser evil, and also have to weigh up their interests in the
region as a whole. They cannot ignore the needs of the Saudi Arabian
regime, which is far more important to them.

A call for a no-fly zone actually came from within Libya itself, from
the Interim Council in Benghazi. The reason for this was that Gaddafi
had kept control of key sections of the armed forces, as we have
explained in a previous article [see Why has the revolution stalled in Libya?],
in particular of the air force which could be used to bomb rebel held
areas. The leadership of the Council has played an important role in all
this. They dithered at crucial moments, held back the revolutionary
youth, hoping more sections of the military would come over to the
revolution or even that Gaddafi would be removed by people within the
regime itself.

Revolutionary momentum must be regained

Once the revolutionary momentum was lost, Gaddafi was able to
reorganize his forces and begin to strike back. At that point the
conflict became more of a war than a revolution, and with far superior
firepower, the people of Benghazi and other cities were facing the risk
of losing everything they had fought for and of suffering a bloody
clampdown at the hands of Gaddafi’s forces. When it seemed that Gaddafi
was close to launching an offensive against Benghazi the UN decided to
pass its resolution.

The reaction on the streets of Benghazi was ecstatic. Now they felt
they had the big powers backing them and they feel Gaddafi can be
defeated. This euphoria is understandable, but is it justified? The
imperialists are not intervening to defend the Libyan revolution. On the
contrary, their purpose is to strangle the revolution and divert it
along safer lines. They are backing the Council in Benghazi, whose
members have shown that what they want is to be on good terms with the
imperialists, open up Libya to imperialist economic interests even more
than has been done so far, and in the process win ministerial positions
for themselves.

For what kind of regime could emerge from a defeat of Gaddafi
achieved with the aid of the imperialists? Victory over Gaddafi in such
circumstances would come at a price. One only has to look at Iraq to see
what kind of regime it would be. Libya would have a government that
would have to carry out the demands of the imperialists. That would
involve speeding up the programme of privatization initiated by Gaddafi,
further cuts in welfare, cuts in food subsidies and so on. It would be a
capitalist regime, with a democratic façade, but none of the pressing
social problems would be solved. On the contrary they would worsen.

For now, however, Gaddafi still has his armed forces intact. His
attack was not mainly based on aerial bombardment, but on troops on the
ground, aided by tanks and other hardware. If what is intended is to
defend civilians, then a no-fly zone would not be enough. Eventually
they would have to commit ground troops.

Once such a process starts then it would lead eventually to the need
to send troops into Libya. From a purely military point of view, they
could defeat Gaddafi, as they defeated Saddam Hussein, but at what cost?
It would mean much destruction and many deaths. Precisely what they
were supposed to be avoiding with this resolution.

Now that Gaddafi has accepted to hold back his forces, this may not
become reality. But the alternative is one of a crystallisation of the
situation as it is now and the opening of negotiations that will see the
Benghazi Council, Gaddafi and the imperialist powers (under the cover
of the UN) sit around a table and decide how to divide up the country’s
wealth at the expenses of the Libyan people.

The real alternative for the Libyan workers and revolutionary youth
will be to regain the initiative. They must explain that the revolution
is not simply about removing a despot who had good relations with the
imperialists and replace him with another pro-imperialist government.
The Libyan people yearn for freedom and democracy, the right to express
their views and aims and the right to organise to achieve those aims. It
is clear, however, that the aims of those who sit on the Interim
Council are not the same as those of the workers and revolutionary youth
who started the revolution.

The message must be sent to the people, in Tripoli especially, that
the revolution is not about, placing a few defectors from Gaddafi’s camp
in government in place of Gaddafi himself. It is not about having a
government that will continue with more or less the same imperialist
imposed policies that Gaddafi was pursuing anyway.

The revolution is about ending all compromises with imperialism. It
is about establishing workers’ control over the nationalised industries
and taking back any key resources that have been privatised. For this to
happen, the workers must come out with their own voice, with their own
banner, and their own party. That is what is missing in the revolution.
And that is what needs to be built.

The revolutionary youth and the workers will be drawing conclusions
from the events that have unfolded over the past few weeks. They have
been through a very bitter school. But if they do not want to see their
revolution stolen from them, they must come out as an independent force.