On Saturday afternoon French warplanes
were the first to bomb Libya, in what one can only describe as open
imperialist aggression. This was followed by US and UK ships and
submarines launching 110 Tomahawk Cruise missiles. The French are
strengthening their position by sending their Charles de Gaulle aircraft
carrier into waters off the Libyan coast
On Saturday afternoon French warplanes
were the first to bomb Libya, in what one can only describe as open
imperialist aggression. This was followed by US and UK ships and
submarines launching 110 Tomahawk Cruise missiles. The French are
strengthening their position by sending their Charles de Gaulle aircraft
carrier into waters off the Libyan coast.
Illustration: LatuffDenmark,
Norway, Spain and Canada are also sending planes. Italy is providing
air bases and ports, while also preparing its own planes. Qatar is
sending four planes making it the first Arab country to provide forces
to bomb Libya, while other Arab countries – no doubt Saudi Arabia will
be among them – are also preparing to send forces.
Since Saturday there have been further bombing raids, presented to
the world as a mission to help the rebel held part of Libya against
Gaddafi’s jets. Initially the rebels in the east declared they needed no
help from outside. Once it became evident that Gaddafi had managed to
hold together a significant force, and the revolution had stalled (See Why has the revolution stalled in Libya?),
the idea that a no-fly zone imposed from the outside would be the
answer gained ground. However, even the Provisional Council continued to
insist that no foreign troops should set foot on Libyan territory. In
fact, the revolutionary youth in more than one occasion produced banners
against foreign intervention.
This explains why the UN resolution is carefully worded, on the one
hand excluding “occupation” – with an eye to what we saw in Iraq and
Afghanistan – and on the other authorising the use of “any means
necessary” to “protect civilians”. Those who called for the no-fly zone
are now getting more than they had bargained for. In revolutions and
wars there are no short-cuts.
Already in the first couple of days we can see that this operation is
not merely to impose a no-fly zone. They have also targeted troops,
tanks and other military hardware on the ground, as well as specific
buildings in Tripoli.
As Gaddafi advanced towards Benghazi and other cities, a cry went out
that the “international community” must “do something” to help the
people of Libya against Gaddafi’s forces. The idea was presented that it
would be an operation limiting itself to stopping Gaddafi using his
superior air power against the rebels. This was merely the excuse with
which they were able to muster UN Security Council support for the
operation. It is clear now that their aims go much further than merely
imposing a no-fly zone.
Arab League, China, Russia: Having your cake and eating it
Faced with such a massive show of firepower, the Arab League now
seems to be having second thoughts, or at least it is showing signs of
internal division. Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League,
has said that the jet and cruise-missile strikes "differ from the aim
of imposing a no-fly zone," criticizing the “severity” of the strikes
and stating that they were only supposed to “protect civilians”. Only a
few days earlier it was the very same Arab League that had voted in
favour of a no-fly zone and called on the UN to sanction one.
How
does one explain Amr Moussa’s sudden cold feet? It is clear that the
sight of what amounts to fundamentally NATO forces bombing yet another
Arab country is provoking widespread opposition among ordinary Arabs,
and those Arab governments that are seen to be backing the bombings will
start to feel the pressure from their own people.
This morning, no doubt after getting his arm twisted by his
imperialist masters, Amr Moussa zig-zagged again, playing down any
divisions on this question and issuing a joint statement with UN
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, declaring that, "We are all united on the
issue of protecting civilians."
China, Russia and India have also criticised the bombings, stating
that the “indiscriminate” bombing raids go further than what was stated
in the United Nations resolution. A spokesperson of the Russian foreign
ministry called for a ceasefire, complaining that the air raids had hit
non-military targets, killing many civilians, as well as damaging a
medical centre. China said it “regretted” the military action and
respected Libya’s sovereignty.
It appears the Russian and the Chinese want to have their cake and
eat it. They are two powers that have the right to veto any UN
resolution. They preferred to abstain, which in practice amounts to
support, as they knew that if they abstained the resolution would get
passed. The Indian government has issued a statement that says that, “It
regrets the air strikes that are taking place. The measures adopted
should mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult situation for
the people of Libya.”
Reassuring public opinion
To reassure all these concerned ladies and gentlemen, the British Foreign Office has explained that:
"Unlike Gaddafi, the coalition is not attacking civilians. The UN
resolution authorises all necessary measures to protect the Libyan
people. For the No Fly Zone to be enforced safely, it is necessary to
carry out carefully targeted operations against Libyan air defence
capabilities. All missions are meticulously planned to ensure every care
is taken to avoid civilian casualties. We will continue to work with
our Arab partners to enforce the resolution for the good of the Libyan
people.”
In clear English, that means “we have UN backing and we are going to
bomb whatever targets we feel are necessary”. The resolution passed last
week by the UN Security Council was ambiguously worded, precisely so
that later it could be used to justify any amount of bombing. The
wording "take all necessary measures" already implied that this was
going to be more than a no-fly zone. Air strikes and actions such as
bombing tanks and other forces on the roads were clearly envisaged as
part of the aims of any force being sent to bomb Libya.
The problem the imperialists had was getting sufficient backing from
so-called “public opinion” for an all-out war against Gaddafi. Working
people in countries like the USA and Britain are tired of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. They are fully aware of the fact that they were
lied to. Remember Blair and Bush banging away about weapons of mass
destruction, which could even hit Britain within 45 minutes! Then we
were told there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. People
rightly do not trust their governments, after so many lies.
Now we are being told that the official aim of the no-fly zone is to
stop Gaddafi using his airpower against the rebel held areas of the
country. The point is this: Gaddafi’s ground forces are much better
equipped and better trained than those under the control of the Interim
Council in Benghazi. Let us assume that the imperialists limit
themselves to simply hitting Gaddafi’s air forces – something which they
have already gone well beyond. Thus weakened, the rebel forces will
want to attack the areas controlled by Gaddafi. Should they fail in
this, what will the UN-backed force do then? Inevitably they will have
to attack Gaddafi’s ground forces, as they already have started doing.
Ground forces inevitable at some stage
Although, some of Gaddafi’s air power will have been destroyed in
these first bombing raids, his ability to wage war has been far from
removed. Most of his advance towards the east was done mainly by ground
forces.
an Al Jazeera report explained, “Assumptions of what air power alone
can achieve against ground forces have usually turned out to be
overrated; witness for example the relatively small amount of damage
done to Serbian armoured forces by NATO in 1999. Results in Afghanistan
in 2001 were better, but in that case the integration of Special Forces
allowed air power to be targeted in the most efficient way.
It later added that:
“…the promise of no ‘boots on the ground’ may eventually have to be
revisited, despite the potential repercussions, if only to put Special
Forces observers in amongst the rebels. Otherwise it is hard to see how
this campaign will be effective, at least within built up areas where
most fighting is taking place.” (Al Jazeera, Strikes on Libya – a
military perspective, 19 March 2011)
The UN resolution sanctions ”all necessary means" to protect civilians.
“Regime change” is not mentioned in the resolution, but in reality that
is what they are now aiming at. As George Friedman writing for
Stratfor, the online intelligence publication, states:
“Gadhafi’s primary capabilities are conventional armor and
particularly artillery. Destroying his air force and isolating his
forces will not by itself win the war. The war is on the ground. The
question is the motivation of his troops: If they perceive that
surrender is unacceptable or personally catastrophic, they may continue
to fight. At that point the coalition must decide if it intends to
engage and destroy Gadhafi’s ground forces from the air. This can be
done, but it is never a foregone conclusion that it will work.” (The
Libyan War of 2011, March 19, 2011)
And for all those who may have thought aerial bombardment could
alleviate the suffering of the Libyan people, the same writer states
coldly the following: “Moreover, this is the phase at which civilian
casualties begin to mount. It is a paradox of warfare instigated to end
human suffering that the means of achieving this can sometimes impose
substantial human suffering themselves. This is not merely a theoretical
statement. It is at this point that supporters of the war who want to
end suffering may turn on the political leaders for not ending suffering
without cost. It should be remembered that Saddam Hussein was loathed
universally, but those who loathed him were frequently not willing to
impose the price of overthrowing him. The Europeans in particular are
sensitive to this issue.
And, contradicting all the statements being made about this being
merely a mission to impose a no-fly zone, in another article published
by Stratfor we find the following: “The decision has been made that the
mission is regime change in Libya. The strategic sequence is the routine
buildup to war since 1991, this time with a heavier European component.
The early days will go extremely well but will not define whether or
not the war is successful. The test will come if a war designed to stop
human suffering begins to inflict human suffering.”
The first two days of bombing have already claimed the lives of many
civilians. So much for defending the “civilian” population! The
imperialists have no real concern for the lives of ordinary people. The
fact that they claim to be protecting civilians in Benghazi is merely a
ruse to get the backing of public opinion. They will kill many civilians
in Tripoli and other areas they feel need bombing. Kevin Connolly,
reporting for the BBC from the rebel-held city of Tobruk has already
explained that “it is not clear if the allies can attack Col Gaddafi’s
troops operating in the centre of Misrata without harming the very
civilians they have come to save.”
What the imperialists are out to do is remove Gaddafi, as they
removed Saddam Hussein in the past. Prior to the Libyan revolution, they
had managed to bring Gaddafi on board. He was collaborating with them
in all fields and they felt no reason to push for “regime change”. And
yet Gaddafi’s was one of the most brutal in the region, with anyone who
expressed opposition risking imprisonment, torture and death. What was
important for the imperialist was not the nature of the regime, but the
fact that Gaddafi was opening up the economy to western investment. The
economy had been partially privatized and more was on its way.
With the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and the wave of protests
that risk unseating more of their friends, the imperialist felt
powerless to intervene. Gaddafi’s Libya has given them the excuse they
were seeking. They have used the “humanitarian” card to justify what is
outright imperialist aggression against a small country.
This war is aimed at cutting across the revolutionary wave that is
sweeping the Arab countries. Obama claims that it will be a short
campaign of just a few days, but this is clearly false. A few air raids
are not going to achieve their aims. It will require sustained bombing
and eventually they will be sucked in even more, possibly with ground
troops. In the process many civilians will be killed. No doubt we will
soon be hearing statements about the “unfortunate” bombing of civilians.
We will hear that disgusting phrase about “collateral damage”.
Imperialist powers jostling for positions
This war is also about different imperialist powers intervening to
carve out their own spheres of influence and also as a counter-weight to
their own internal problems. Foremost in all this is Sarkozy, the
President of France. A recent opinion poll shows that 71% of French
people are unhappy with the performance of Sarkozy, his worst approval
rating since he came to office in 2007. He has in fact become extremely
unpopular in France, after his government introduced severe austerity
measures last year which saw 3.5 million French workers on the streets
protesting.
France was the first country to recognise the Interim Council in
Libya as the official government of the country. And it was the most
vociferous in pushing for the no-fly zone and also the first to actually
bomb targets in Libya. We have to see what manoeuvres lie behind this.
In recent years, France as a former imperial power has seen it influence
dwindle, losing spheres of influence, particularly in Africa. In this
they were in conflict with US and British imperialism. By being the most
gung-ho in pushing for intervention in Libya, Sarkozy no doubt thinks
he can regain some lost influence… and oil in Libya. His actions have
nothing to do with humanitarian concerns.
Cameron is in a similar position in Britain, also suffering a sharp
fall in public approval in the recent period. His popularity ratings
have been “falling over a cliff” as some have put it. As his government
continues to push forward with draconian austerity measures, Cameron is
facing growing workers unrest, as we will see this coming Saturday in
London with what promises to be one of the biggest demonstrations since
the 1970s, if not bigger.
Thus both Sarkozy and Cameron could do with something that could
distract attention away from the internal problems in their respective
countries and direct people’s minds on intervention in Libya. At the
same they can strut across the world stage, claiming to defend human
rights and democracy around the world. No doubt, the governments of
Denmark, Norway, Canada, and even little Qatar, can do with a bit of
distraction from their own internal affairs.
The United States was wary of getting sucked into another military
campaign in an Arab country. Public opinion has significantly changed
towards the war in Iraq, where now a majority considers it was wrong,
and the same applies to the war in Afghanistan. That explains why until
the last minute [Tuesday of last week] the Obama administration wasn’t
so keen on voting for a no-fly zone over Libya.
On Friday, the Wall Street Journal described the situation thus:
“Just last Monday, when Nicolas Sarkozy urged Hillary Clinton to get the
U.S. behind an international intervention in Libya, she demurred. The
U.S. Secretary of State warned the French president that a war could be
risky and bloody, say officials from both countries who were briefed on
the exchange.
“Yet by the weekend, France, the U.S. and an international coalition
stood poised to take ‘all necessary measures’—code for military
strikes—in Libya, under United Nations authority.“In hindsight, the meeting at the Elysée Palace in Paris was the
launch point for four frantic days of diplomacy that turned the Obama
administration toward intervention, western and Arab diplomats say. A
lot of factors drove the shift, they say, including the
administration’s concern about being out of step with the changes
sweeping the Arab world and of being outmaneuvered by the U.K. and
especially France, both more aggressive advocates of intervention.” (Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2011) [Our emphasis]
From all this, we can see how this aggression against Libya is not
dictated by any concerns for the people of Libya. It is about a group of
imperialist gangsters coldly calculating how they can best defend their
interests in North Africa and the Middle East.
Do not fall for imperialist rhetoric
Workers and youth around the world should not be fooled by all the
rhetoric about the so-called humanitarian aims of the military
intervention in Libya. It is always the case that when imperialist
powers go to war, they do so by first preparing public opinion. This
time it is about the poor people of Benghazi.
In Iraq public opinion was prepared with a barrage of propaganda
about weapons of mass destruction, and also that Saddam Hussein was an
“evil dictator”, which he was of course, but they conveniently ignored
their own past good dealings with the terrible dictator. In Afghanistan,
first they backed the Islamic fundamentalists against the Russians, and
then when these turned on the Americans in the form of the Taliban
regime, they discovered the need to defend the Afghan people. Now they
are defending them by bombing them to pieces.
Their hypocrisy is further laid bare when we look at Bahrain, as we
have already mentioned in previous articles. The Bahraini regime is
using British arms to crush its own people. Where is Cameron’s desire to
intervene here?
To be fair on the man, it is true that has intervened… in February in
the “democratic” parliament of Kuwait where he admitted that the West
had been “wrong” to prop up some of the dictators now in the process of
being overthrown. But while Cameron was making his speech more than 100
British companies were participating in a massive Middle East arms fair
hoping to do some good business with some of these selfsame dictators.
And it was British defence minister Gerald Howarth who was leading the
British delegation of entrepreneurs.
In Yemen we have an equally brutal dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh,
whose security forces last week killed more than fifty people. Any sign
of a UN resolution coming up? No, just a few speeches expressing regret
at such incidents. Their minds are now concentrated on the situation in
Libya.
Effect of bombing on Gaddafi regime
But what has been the effect of the bombing inside Libya, in
particular in Tripoli? As we have already explained, the fact that the
Interim Council called for a no-fly zone, giving the UN the excuse it
needed to intervene, has allowed Gaddafi to use this to present the
rebels as stooges of the west, as agents of foreign powers who want to
take over Libya. Now that the bombing has started it seems that this
effect has been multiplied. As western bombs fall on Tripoli and other
parts of the country, undoubtedly killing many civilians and destroying
important infrastructure, support for Gaddafi will be strengthened.
In the East meanwhile the leaders of the Interim Council have tied
their fortunes to the intervention of imperialist powers. In this they
have betrayed the revolution. They have put the fate of the Libyan
people in the hands of France, Britain, the USA and other smaller
powers. None of these powers are intervening to defend the revolution.
And if they should successfully remove Gaddafi, the government they help
put in power will not defend the interests of the Libyan workers and
youth. How can Cameron and Sarkozy attack the workers in their
respective countries and then go and defend the Libyan workers?
The present Interim Council has clearly indicated that it leans
towards the west, it wants good relations with the west, and it will
guarantee their investments in Libya, and so on. It would end up being a
puppet government of the western imperialist powers, nothing more, and
nothing less. Whenever and wherever new regimes have come to power on
the back of imperialist bayonets, these have not won the freedom of
their people, but merely enslaved them to the same old master as before.
That is what the imperialists are aiming for. That is why the workers
and youth of the world, struggling against their own capitalist classes,
must oppose this imperialist aggression of Libya. The task of
overthrowing Gaddafi belongs to the people of Libya and to no one else.
