Support the No Fly Zone – with no illusions
Posted on Friday 18 March, 2011
Filed Under International
EVERY time they replay that clip of Blair kissing Gaddafi, it will hopefully serve to remind television viewers that the West’s intentions in Libya are entirely self-serving. There can be no reasonable doubt that the US, Britain and France are only extending support to the rebels because they have calculated that it is in their best interests to do so. Yet even that does not constitute sufficient reason for the left to oppose the No Fly Zone.
As an opponent of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, I do not find those words particularly comforting to write. I come from a political tradition that rightly stresses opposition to the foreign policy goals of the US and its allies, and this is almost always a useful rule of thumb for socialists.
You would need to be a liberal of spectacularly gullible kind seriously to maintain that the American ruling class and those other ruling classes invest serious amounts of blood and treasure in the promotion of democracy for democracy’s sake.
Sometimes it is a handy ideological bolt-on to one project or another, especially where some local wideboy dictator is getting too big for his boots. But it is somehow never important enough to get in the way of a profitable business deal.
Yet once in a while there is a more or less accidental coincidence between what the US wants to see happen in a country and the interests of working people that live there. Libya, here and now, is one of those times.
The stark fact is that without external support, the forces that have put their lives on the line in the current uprising against Gaddafi face certain defeat, and a reactionary regime will brutally and triumphantly consolidate its rule, perhaps bringing the revolution in North Africa and elsewhere in the Muslim world to a total halt.
Typical of far left arguments against the NFZ are those invoked by Andrew Murray of Stop the War Coalition. I believe the piece originally appeared in the Morning Star, although it has been widely reprinted.
Murray rightly points to the hypocrisy instantiated by US support for the Saudi action in Bahrain, and correctly highlights that truth that Washington, London and Paris are more interested in oil than any other consideration. It is hard to disagree.
But let’s take up some of his other points:
‘Intervention will violate Libya’s sovereignty … As soon as Nato starts to intervene, the Libyan people will start to lose control of their own country and future.’
But the problem is that ‘the Libyan people’ do not now have control of their own country and future. That control rests with the Gaddafi family, and the Libyan people want to take it away from them. This is precisely what is at issue.
‘”No-fly zones” and supplying arms will not be able to halt the conflict and will lead to more bloodshed, not less.’
That is by no means certain. If Gaddafi is simply left to get on with mass murder, bloody reprisals and internal conflict for years ahead represent a very real prospect.
‘Nato will only ever intervene to strangle genuine social revolution, never to support it.’
Read that extraordinary sentence again. Nato ‘only ever’ intervenes to strangle genuine social revolution; Nato is intervening in this instance. Therefore it is a strangling a genuine social revolution.
In context, that ‘genuine social revolution’ seems to mean the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya itself. Few people would openly argue that, although given Murray’s impeccable Stalinist political pedigree, it is entirely possible that this is what he believes.
Finally there’s the conclusion:
‘Military aggression in Libya – to give it the right name – will be used to revive the blood-soaked policy of “liberal interventionism.” That beast cannot be allowed to rise from the graves of Iraq and Afghanistan.’
Many Morning Star readers, of course, remain apologists for Soviet military aggression – to give it the right name – in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. A lot always hangs on just who is sending in the tanks, I guess.
You do not have to be a pacifist to be against military aggression. That reasonable people stand against it should be axiomatic.
But would the United Nations have been guilty of military aggression had it acted to stop the Rwanda genocide in 1994? Surely it should be considered shameful that nothing was done to prevent the subsequent slaughter in Darfur?
While the case of Libya parallels neither of those situations, it does not parallel those of Iraq or Afghanistan, either. If there is a ground invasion, I’ll be joining Andrew on the Stop the War Coalition marches to oppose it. In the meantime, I am reluctantly in favour of the NFZ.
<<Go back
Comments
168 Responses to “Support the No Fly Zone – with no illusions”
Leave a Reply
Ellis, you are not a socialist, you are a crank.
You know next to nothing about the Middle East yet spout off about it at the drop of a hat.
You litter blogs with your rants, but barely know your political arse from your elbow.
You have nothing to contribute, except your babbling and faulty reasoning skills.
I have a degree in Middle Easternism from Sunderland Poly which is probably more than you’ve got.
Ha ha ha, Ellis has a piece of paper! I always took him to be the type that probably burnt books in his spare time.
I have a degree in life and never attended a Poly. But I know that the West are only interested in Middle East Oil. And the West have been killing for the oil for decades helped by their puppets. Any leftie that supports intervention has to be rather onerous and should be treated with contempt by the left. I am not a leftie.
Mod,
Those writing the diaries frequently do not see clearly the context of the events they are passing through,a nd writing about. Nor are the bases upon which they make those decisions impartial. Read Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution, and his accounts of the tsar’s Diary, for instance. As I’ve said elsewhere in relation to Mubarak and some of his comments, many of these people are completely removed from the reality they are living through. That is not a good basis upon which to make rational decisions. In fact, this is one of the lessons of marxism, and the need for a marxist organisation that is able to look beyond the immediate event and struggle, and to try to prevent worrekrs from reliving the same mistakes!
AQnd as Trotsky says, one of the prime duties is at all times to tell the truth to the worekrs no matter how painful it may be. It is, of course, extremely painful for marxists to have to tell people facing a massacre that their salvation does not come from their class enemeies. It is painful to have to point out that before making bids for State Power you should attempt to win the battle of demcoracy within the working-class. It is painful to tell workers where they do not form a majority in society, not to tie their fate to that of other classes, who tomorrow will be their class enemy, and capable of inflicting massacres on them equally and even greater than those currently being faced! But, all those things are true, and if we are to build a working-class, and a Labour Movement capable of standing on ist own feet, and fighting its own battles, and which is not perpetually beholden to the bouregoisie, they are truths that have to be told loudly! The time for taking off the training wheels of the working class ended more than a hundred years ago.
You say you want to concentrate on the events in Libya. But, surely given the “evidential reasoning” approach you are advocating it is legitimate to ask why you arrive at one conclusion by that method in one case, but arrive at the opposite conclusion in an identical case! Surely it is evidence either that the method has been wrongly applied in one of those instances, or that the method itself is faulty. Nor is it to view things through the eyes of the USSR. Certainly, that is not the case in relation to the question I asked about Israel launching an attack on Gaza of the kind that Gaddafi is now launching against Benghazi. If such comparative analysis is not udnertaken how is it possible to determine whether what is being applied is actually a rational method of analysis to determine what our response should be rather than post facto justification of the actions of the Camp we have adhered ourselves to? certainly – and I recognise that you are not a member of the AWL or arguing their case, I make the point only to illustrate the bankruptcy of their organistion and its Stalinist, Opportunism – that is clearly what they do as witness their acrobatics to justify after their conflicting positions in relation to Serbia/Kosovo, Georgia/Ossetia, and Libya/Benghazi, and their conflicting positions in relation to calling for USSR out of Afghanistan, but opposing such calls in relation to US/UK out of Iraq, the basis for arguing the last position going through at least 3 versions to justify the continued presence of the troops to take account for the fact that previous justifications had been undermined by events!
As I have stated above. There are instances where socialists would not oppose Imperialist interventions to prevent/end the kinds of atrocities you describe. Those instances are where we are talking about a pre-Capitalist society, and where any such intervention could not – at least under current conditions, which would change once we have a series of workers States – be resolved by the countries working class in alliane with the international Labour Movement.
However, as you have noted in NONE of these instances of atrocities in pre-capitalist societies, does Imperialism show any interest in becoming involved to bring them to an end, or to create the kinds of conditions that would lead to the kind of economic development that would be progressive. Perhaps there is some reason why Imperialism only wants to intevene in Capitalist Societies where conditions are such that it has possibilities of making profits, and where it has an interest in preventing the working-class from taking a leading role, or being able to win important gains!
“Those writing the diaries frequently do not see clearly the context of the events they are passing through,a nd writing about. “
That might well be the case, but equally they could see what’s happening what is happening, at least *some* could.
Pick up any history book on a critical event and you will invariably see an entry from a diary, a reflection, etc that is the stuff of history.
The history of people, what they think, what they thought, and how they saw things developing or not.
Plenty of life’s what ifs.
You might not like it but that doesn’t negate its usage.
More later.
DFTM
Then actual evidence should be easy. And remember you said that the use of “mercenaries” was a insulting Libyan euphemism for black Libyans. Don’t start spreading shit if you don’t have anything to back it up. Oleaginous fuck.
Evidence that I’m an apologist for imperialism
Evidence that “Mercenary” is a racist Libyan term for Balck people
Should be easy if you weren’t a liar
“Evidence that “Mercenary” is a racist Libyan term for Balck people”
You must be a bit thick or something. Though the use of oleaginous would suggest you are a pretentious idiot – the worst kind!
I didn’t say the word ‘mercenary’ is a racist Libyan term for black Africans. I said the rebels were claiming that Gaddafi’s black African supporters were mercenaries, paid to fight for Gaddafi. This has been reported on most news channels. The rebels have done this to play into popular prejudice, which sees black Africancs as outsiders. A bit like Muslims are viewed in the West. On that subject it is quite ironic that those most marginalised in our own society are the ones we spend millions upon millions liberating. The logic of that doesn’t quite stack up, unless you are a ‘sensible’ imperialist apologist like Socrepublican.
“Evidence that I’m an apologist for imperialism”
Your support for one war after another. You just can’t handle the truth so you invent a lie because this makes you feel better. Nietzsche would be pround. (Beyond good and evil).
SocRep,
I’d advise you to ignore DFTM. He is a troll who writes under various names across the web. He has no ideas of his own. Some time ago he was writing udner the name “The Sentinel”, in which persona he advanced the ideas of the BNP. He is only interested in winding people up. He’s a nutter, a fantasist and best left to stew in his own inanity.
So Boffy still insists on peddling this lie even though I have provided proof to the contrary. I am beginning to think you have some sort of mental illness Boffy, seek medical assistance now!
Boffy
I know this, but thank you.
Your argument was thus:- mod used the term mercenaries and so he was racist because it was well known that this was a Libyan term of abuse for their fellow black citizens
(to Mod) “No in Libya when they talk about mercenaries they mean black Africans as well you know you racist”
http://www.davidosler.com/2011/03/libya-bahrain-where-next-for-the-arab-spring/#more-3240
Surely such a claim needs evidence? A link, an article, a remark by a third party?
Of course now are you suggesting that because many of the para-state military used by Gaddafi are Black African, the rebels couldn’t resist using codewords to be derogatory towards all Black Libyans? Kind of racist isn’t it? The sort of rhetorical generalisation that you might expect from a media savvy Kahanist or Richard Pipes. Of course you could quote them if you like.
I’m actually opposed to the NFZ over Libya as you might have read if you had the capacity for nuace beyond Black and white. I opposed Iraq, Israel’s attack on Gaza, any and all future “pre-emptive” attacks on Iran, Russia’s quiet erasure of Chechnya and am ambivilent about Kosevo. I think I and my will to power would disappoint Frederick somewhat.
Of course feel free to post any comments that are at odds with this I have made. Or just keep up lying. Thgere is an opportunist streak in your comments that is metaphorically oily and doesn’t wash off. What you call pretentious I’ll just call accurate
Washington waited until the last minute to put up the no-fly zone to make the rebellion dependent on them for success. THe U.S. is co-opting the rebellion to regain control of the Middle East and reverse the democratic tide that is still sweeping the region. Sadly, most liberals and progressives seem to support this damage control measure by the empire.
One thing I should have added: I agree with you re: Murray’s points. They are weak because they make the case agaist imperialist intervention on the grounds that “this will make it worse,” even though the outcome of a war is inherently unpredictable. We have no way of knowing what will be “worse” for the Libyan people (what is good for them isn’t up to us in the West anyway).
The important thing is to dissect the politics of a war, its causes and effects, and its actors. Supporting imperialist intervention on “humanitarian” grounds is a recipe for supporting unlimied occupation of many part of th world that have deep problems (poverty, racism) that have no short-term or bloodless solutions. Bosnia is still a U.N. protectorate and none of the problems raised by the Yugoslav civil war have been resolved.
SocRep,
Here is an article that gives some context to my argument
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/71178
The alleged use of Black African mercenaries was pretty well reported at the beginning of this revolt. It was an accusation by the ‘revolutionaries’ and was a ploy to feed into prejudice against this group. By repeating this Modernity was shown to be a racist twat – judged by his own standards. By being ignorant of this SocRep has shown himself to be ignorant of some pretty basic facts. Facts which at least make you think twice about elements of the ‘revolutionaries’. Though as I said earlier in a civil war both sides will play dirty, e.g. Gaddafi repeating the ‘sensible’ idea of all enemies are somehow linked to Al Qaeda.
Socrep I have read enough of your comments to see you are an imperialist apologist. If you can’t handle the truth that is your problem.
“I have read enough of your comments”
Produce them then. Is that difficult to comprehend? I have a blog on Dave’s blog roll, find my sniveling apologies for Imperialism (By the by, I fairly sure you have next to no idea what the term means or its history, but I’m sure you know it when you see it)
Well progress on the other thing. Of course it does not exactly say what you imply, does it?
The UNHR report that says “Libya must end its practices of racial discrimination against black Africans, particularly its racial persecution of two million black African migrant workers. There is substantial evidence of Libya’s pattern and practice of racial discrimination against migrant workers” was from 2010, when Gaddifi had complete power.
Note how tenative these commentators are
“it is perhaps reasonable to question the validity of this supposed use of “African” mercenaries….”
“the African media and forums are beginning to ask if the prominence and publicity given to so called African mercenaries running amok amongst Libyan protesters pillaging and raping is beginning to tell a rather interesting story about the motives of some Libyan protesters.”
“I honestly don’t have a problem with the term ‘African mercenaries’ because this is how Libyans probably refer to Black non-Libyans”
“perhaps reasonable to question”, “are beginning to ask”, “probably”? Notice that these tentative suggestions don’t invalidate the whole uprising legitimacy for the commentatators. Indeed they base it on atrocity stories they think weaken the case for the rebels. On this “probably’s” you stake a rock solid case on Mod using this discourse knowingly and thus is a racist.
You might have missed one of the comments below that links to another article
Rough google translation (in French)
http://blog.lesoir.be/colette-braeckman/2011/02/22/les-mercenaires-de-kadhafi-issus-de-toutes-les-guerres-africaines/
The “African mercenaries”, some of whom speak French and are at the forefront of the crackdown on demonstrators are the residue of all conflicts in which the Libyan president has swallowed (interferred with?) over four decades…Subsequently, in 2009 having held the presidency of the African Union, Gaddafi deal with wiser heads of state in place, while continuing to maintain countless parallel networks composed of all “lost soldiers” of his African wars. To quell the revolt, he had only to tap into this vast pool of potential mercenaries”
Try harder
Keep digging SocRep.
Lenins tomb is now looking into the racism issue (plenty of references to get your teeth into):
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/03/libyan-revolution-and-racism.html#
I will stick to my original thesis, judged by standards that he continuously applies to all and sundry, Modernity is a racist twat.
The one Tory MP to vote against the war was pointing out yesterday, I think on al-Jazeera, that if the rebels could hold their own in Misrata, the chance of a massacre in Benghazi was very low.
It is clear that NATO is now the Rebel airforce. The big lie about protecting civilians is exposed again.