http://www.iwallerstein.com/libya-world-left/

Immanuel Wallerstein » Commentaries » Libya and the World Left

Libya and the World Left
Commentary No. 301, Mar. 15, 2011

There is so much hypocrisy and so much confused analysis about what is going
on in Libya that one hardly knows where to begin. The most neglected aspect
of the situation is the deep division in the world left. Several left Latin
American states, and most notably Venezuela, are fulsome in their support of
Colonel Qaddafi. But the spokespersons of the world left in the Middle East,
Asia, Africa, Europe, and indeed North America, decidedly don't agree.

Hugo Chavez's analysis seems to focus primarily, indeed exclusively, on the
fact that the United States and western Europe have been issuing threats and
condemnations of the Qaddafi regime. Qaddafi, Chavez, and some others insist
that the western world wishes to invade Libya and "steal" Libya's oil. The
whole analysis misses entirely what has been happening, and reflects badly
on Chavez's judgment ­ and indeed on his reputation with the rest of the
world left.

First of all, for the last decade and up to a few weeks ago, Qaddafi had
nothing but good press in the western world. He was trying in every way to
prove that he was in no way a supporter of "terrorism" and wished only to be
fully integrated into the geopolitical and world-economic mainstream. Libya
and the western world have been entering into one profitable arrangement
after another. It is hard for me to see Qaddafi as a hero of the world
anti-imperialist movement, at least in the last decade.

The second point missed by Hugo Chavez's analysis is that there* is not
going to be any significant military involvement of the western world* in
Libya. The public statements are all huff and puff, designed to impress
local opinion at home. There will be no Security Council resolution because
Russia and China won't go along. There will be no NATO resolution because
Germany and some others won't go along. Even Sarkozy's militant anti-Qaddafi
stance is meeting resistance within France.

And above all, the opposition in the United States to military action is
coming both from the public and more importantly from the military. The
Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Adm. Mullen, have very publicly stated their opposition to
instituting a no-fly zone. Indeed, Secretary Gates went further. On Feb. 25,
he addressed the cadets at West Point, saying to them: "In my opinion, any
future defense secretary who advises the president again to send a big
American land army into Asia or the Middle East or Africa should have his
head examined."

To underline this view of the military, retired General Wesley Clark, the
former commander of NATO forces, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post on
Mar. 11, under the heading, "Libya doesn't meet the test for U.S. military
action." So, despite the call of the hawks for U.S. involvement, President
Obama will resist.

The issue therefore is not Western military intervention or not. The issue
is the consequence of Qaddafi's attempt to suppress all opposition in the
most brutal fashion for the second Arab revolt. Libya is in turmoil because
of the successful uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. And if there is any
conspiracy, it is one between Qaddafi and the West to slow down, even quash,
the Arab revolt. To the extent that Qaddafi succeeds, he sends a message to
all the other threatened despots of the region that harsh repression rather
than concessions is the way to go.

This is what the left in the rest of the world sees, if some left
governments in Latin America do not. As Samir Amin points out in his
analysis of the Egyptian uprising, there were four distinct components among
the protestors ­ the youth, the radical left, middle-class democrats, and
Islamists. The radical left is composed of suppressed left parties and
revitalized trade-union movements. There is no doubt a much, much smaller
radical left in Libya, and a much weaker army (because of Qaddafi's
deliberate policy). The outcome there is therefore very uncertain.

The assembled leaders of the Arab League may condemn Qaddafi publicly, but
many, even most, may be applauding him privately ­ and copying from him.

It might be useful to end with two pieces of testimony from the world left.
Helena Sheeham, an Irish Marxist activist, well-known in Africa for her
solidarity work there with the most radical movements, was invited by the
Qaddafi regime to come to Libya to lecture at the university. She arrived as
turmoil broke out. The lectures at the university were cancelled, and she
was finally simply abandoned by her hosts, and had to make her way out by
herself. She wrote a daily diary in which, on the last day, Mar. 8, she
wrote: "Any ambivalence about that regime, gone, gone, gone. It is brutal,
corrupt, deceitful, delusional."

We might also see the statement of South Africa's major trade-union
federation and voice of the left, COSATU. After praising the social
achievements of the Libyan regime, COSATU said: "COSATU does not accept
however that these achievements in any way excuse the slaughter of those
protesting against the oppressive dictatorship of Colonel Gaddafi and
reaffirms its support for democracy and human rights in Libya and throughout
the continent."

Let us keep our eye on the ball. The key struggle worldwide right now is the
second Arab revolt. It will be hard enough to obtain a truly radical outcome
in this struggle. Qaddafi is a major obstacle for the Arab, and indeed the
world, left. Perhaps we should all remember Simone de Beauvoir's maxim:
"Wanting to be free yourself means wanting that others be free."


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to