The rush to intervene in Libya by the UN powers is because they fear the revolution not because they want to save it.
The revolutionaries have actually been fighting back effectively in the last two days. The events have been virtually unreported in the mainstream media which has largely reflected the government line that Gaddafi is on the verge of crushing Benghazi. They have reported this for two successive nights yet it has not happened.
In fact the revolutionaries have created an airforce which they did not have three days ago. Pilots have defected. They have brought down three or four Gaddafi jets. They have captured tanks and taken the surrender of hundreds of Gaddafi troops. Saif Gaddafi’s 48 hour deadline came to an end, and Benghazi Ajdabia and Misrata were all in the hands of the Libyan people. Reports today say there are no Gaddafi troops for 50 miles west of Benghazi.
So the UN rush to intervene is to get control of the situation before the example of popular power that is Benghazi turns the tables on Gaddafi. If the Libyan revolution were to win without the West’s aid then no dictator, even one willing to use murderous force, even in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, would be safe. And that is the last thing that the West’s leaders want.
What are the West up to? After failure in Iraq and Afghanistan the West want to rehabilitate the ‘humanitarian intervention’ argument. They want to get a foothold in fast developing Arab revolutions which have so shaken the imperial architecture of the Middle East.
And on the domestic front they want to whip up the chauvinism that always attends war. How marvelous for Obama if all eyes shift from Wisconsin to the USAF in Libya. How terrific for David Cameron if all eyes shift away from the great TUC anti-cuts demo on the 26th March to the RAF flying over Tripoli.
But as the jets bomb the Libyan people, with the inevitable ‘collateral damge’ that will cause, as liberation passes from the hands of the Libyans to the hands of the Western powers, it will be working people here and in Libya who are the losers. On the one hand, Libyan nationalism may bolster Gaddafi, and on the other the Gulf autocracies, who back the action, will be strengthened.
That is why we must do all we can to stop this military intervention in Libya. Our cry must be ‘Stop the bombing, victory to the Libyan revolution’.
Related Items
31 May - 1 June 2013
an international festival
In the parks, halls and public spaces around Kings Cross
With:
David Harvey, Tariq Ali, Tony Benn, Owen Jones, Nina Power, Sanum Ghafoor, Andrew Murray, Laurie Penny, Lindsey German, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Paul Le Blanc, Terry Eagleton, Paul Gilroy and more...
Saturday 22 June 2013
9:30am – 5pm
Central Hall Westminster
Events
Books
How a Century of War Changed the Lives of Women
By Lindsey German
A Marxist History of the World
From Neanderthals to Neoliberals
By Neil Faulkner
The People V Tony Blair
Politics, the Media and the Anti-War Movement
By Chris Nineham
Timelines
A Political History of the Modern World
By John Rees
A People's History of London
By Lindsey German and John Rees
Counterfire Books
The People Demand: A short history of the Arab revolutions
By John Rees and Joseph Daher
Strategy and tactics: how the left can organise to transform society
By John Rees
Capitalism and Class Consciousness: the ideas of Georg Lukacs
By Chris Nineham
Send us your reports
Send images to our Flickr Account via MMS, add this email to your mobile phone's address book: side29doe@photos.flickr.comYouTube
Send videos to our YouTube channel from your mobile, add this email to your mobile phone's address book: rq03qna6q0wa@m.youtube.comTwitpic
Send images via our Twitpic Account via MMS, add this email to your mobile phone's address book: counterfireorg.5808@twitpic.com
Comments
oh dear, oh dear.
godwin's law (from wikipedia): "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
in other words any online conversation, if sufficiently prolonged, will eventually lead to someone making a comparison with the nazis or hitler. that you've managed it so early on in this thread is a fine tribute to your lack of wit.
Because freezing assets is a means of applying pressure on that regime. It is the regime that is asked to comply - in return the assets will be unfrozen. Similarly, the US is saying that if he complies with the resolution he can stay.
The Transitional National Council isn't mentioned in the resolution. They have no seat at the UN, no say in the military action and how it is conducted.
Air strikes won't work against bands of irregular forces terrorising the residents and hunting down the revolutionaries.
How are people of Libya expected to defend themselves against this without being able to buy arms?
The UN resolution has disarmed the revolution.
"before final decisions were made, special operations forces were inserted in Libya on two missions. First, to make contact with insurgent forces to prepare them for coming events, create channels of communications and logistics and create a post-war political framework. The second purpose was to identify targets for attack and conduct reconnaissance of those targets that provided as up-to-date information as possible. This, combined with air and space reconnaissance, served as the foundations of the war. We know British SAS operators were in Libya and suspect other countries’ special operations forces and intelligence services were also operating there."
http://bit.ly/fNwdLE
This is not 'Operation Libyan Freedom'. Stopping what Gaddafi is currently doing is a different objective to overthrowing him entirely and I honestly believe the west wish to put in the time and expense needed to perform the later and create a replacement regime of their own design. If in 5+ years we are still there feel free to throw this back in my face and I'll happily admit I am wrong. Until then, hold off on the knee-jerk cynicism for a white.
That is not to say I do not support a democratic revolution in Libya. Personally I'd be happy to be rid of Gadaffi. I am not against the rebels. At this early stage it would be unfair for me to judge them at all. I am against the rebels for being killed by their own government for peacefully protesting. They shouldn't need to be armed so I do not believe giving them more weapons would be the best way to help.
Incidentally is giving weapons to the rebellion an opinion shared by STWC?
Speaking purely hypothetically, if in the future the rebels took power and began killing their own countrymen, I would again support a UN backed intervention to stop that from happening.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the weapons the rebels currently have are entirely what they have acquired from the Gadaffi regime. No one else has supplied them guns? The claim that the UN have disarmed the revolution is false as their supply of weapons is pretty much unchanged.
So if they are experiencing problems as you describe, this goes contrary to John Rees blinkered optimism about the rebel's chances he describes in the original article.
Imagine if you will an alternate history where Gadaffi had crushed the rebellion while the rest of the world did not intervene. What do you think that would have done to the momentum for revolution across the region?
The fact remains, nevertheless, that if Gaddafi were permitted to continue his military offensive and take Benghazi, there would be a major massacre. Here is a case where a population is truly in danger, and where there is no plausible alternative that could protect it. The attack by Gaddafi's forces was hours or at most days away. You can't in the name of anti-imperialist principles oppose an action that will prevent the massacre of civilians."