For some, Western intervention in Libya is the nail in the coffin of the Libyan Revolution.
It has been contended that this no longer a domestic uprising, but a war that now includes foreign powers with a set of interests at the forefront.
Maximilian Forte, for example, claims that the Libyan rebels have erroneously surrendered their revolution to the West by requesting military intervention.
Forte, echoing a regular argument of anti-Imperialist Leftists, highlights Western hypocrisy in selectively choosing which conflicts to intervene in.
Whilst Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama beat the drums of humanitarianism, evoking the “responsibility to protect” slogan in justifying their intervention in Libya, there remains a plethora of conflicts and human rights abuses both past and ongoing that have received the West’s cold shoulder. Forte mentions Uzbekistan 2005, whose dictator brutally killed hundreds of his own people in a crackdown on opponents, but received little reprimand as he enjoys the special status of being a close and crucial US ally.
The list can go on, from Israel and Bahrain to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Western intervention depends entirely on which side of the fence you sit on in international relations and a cost-benefit analysis.
However, left-leaning supporters of the Western strikes in Libya do not discount Western hypocrisy. No one expects the US or the EU to strike Israel the next time the Jewish state decides to kill 1,000+ Palestinian or Lebanese civilians.
Rather, the focus is not necessarily on the actions of the West, but that of Gaddafi and the pro-democratic movement in the Arab world.
Gaddafi is a brutal dictator, as repressive as all authoritarian regimes in the Arab world. Indeed, I will not cry if the King of Saudi Arabia fell tomorrow in a wave of pro-democracy protests. However, neither will I mourn the loss of Assad of Syria or Gaddafi, despite what some would deem admirable and audacious foreign policies that have been confrontational to global powers.
Anti-Imperialist Leftists are quick, and right, to accuse the West of hypocrisy, but are we not also hypocrites if we pick and choose which dictators should stay and go?
Do Assad and Gaddafi win extra points for standing up to the West (although Gaddafi has recently changed his tune)?
No, they do not.
This strikes at another core argument of the anti-Imperialist Left, which is that much of the Arab world’s stagnation is due to Western – American in particular – interference in the region.
The West indeed has its fair share of responsibility when it comes to the failure of the Arab world to develop post-Cold War along the lines of East Asia or Latin America. However, one cannot ignore agency, and the role it plays in determining the shape of the region. This is particularly true of the few regimes in the region that have chosen to compete with American regional interests, and are thus not contingent on them.
The US may have leverage over Saudi Arabia and Morocco (and even that is questionable), but very little over Syria, Libya and Iran. The Assad regime does not require approval from Washington to embark on internal democratic and economic reform.
Instead of being a pioneer for change and progress in the region, the Syrian regime has benefited from a US-backed regional system of despots to solidify and justify his own power in Syria.
Thus, whether democratic reform is pushed in Egypt, or Syria, or Libya, it matters little to those who are vociferous in their support for change in the region.
Western powers may pick and choose which reformist movements they intend to support, but that luxury is not available to human rights activists. For to be a human rights activist, we recognise the aspirations of all suppressed peoples in the world to enjoy the same democratic freedoms, with the same opportunities as a citizen of the UK or Norway.
Western political support for the Libyan rebels does not negate our support for the same team. The role left-leaning activists have to play is to ensure the Libyan Revolution does not become hijacked by the West. Indeed, there are strong arguments within the military camp of the US that equally do not wish to be burdened by another Middle Eastern conflict.
This is a case of ideals and interests converging in support of action in Libya.
Forte claims the Libyan Revolution is dead and dusted as a consequence of military action. What he fails to acknowledge is that Gaddafi was a few hours away from not only destroying the Libyan Revolution, but empowering dictators in the region to do the same.
The pro-democracy momentum would have evaporated across the region had Gaddafi been allowed to enter Benghazi, but seeing Western powers react has inspired suppressed Syrians, for example, to challenge their own authorities.
The revolution can only be claimed dead if the West take charge of the revolt, which by all indications, they are reluctant to do. The Libyan rebels need to ensure they remain the face of the revolution.
The role of local dissidents is crucial to ensure Libya does not turn into an Iraq. Many have made a false analogy between Libya 2011 and Iraq 2003. Bush’s invasion of Iraq was an entirely external attempt to impose democracy on a foreign country alien to the concept. The entire project was initiated, drafted and implemented by the Bush administration.
A system imposed on another state and society, with little involvement from domestic agents, is often doomed for failure.
Ironically, Assad accurately argued at the time that democracy has to emerge from within the Arab world, not from abroad. And that is exactly what is occurring today, and it is an important distinction that needs to be recognised.
The Libyan people initiated the call for change, and by their own blood attempted to take Gaddafi down. This is entirely their project, it is the emergence of a democratic movement from within Libyan society.
The West’s role in the current situation is not to reset such a drive, and replace it with its own agenda, but to ensure the challenge does not lose momentum. Of course, the French may have a hidden agenda in acquiring a greater slice of Libyan oil, and no one assumes the West is not intervening for certain interests of its own. However, if the pursuit of such interests empowers the Libyan Revolution – not undermine it – then it is a win-win for all, perhaps an uncomfortable reality for some in the Left and Right.
Tags: Libya, Revolution, War
- What Really Happened Between Putin and Morsi
- Lebanon’s Liberals Must Take Advantage of Orthodox Electoral Law
- Pics from deadly Beirut bombing plus analysis
There is one important mistake here, that is by no means unique to your essay–that is assigning the political label of “left” to the argument. The exact same arguments are being made by the anti-imperialist Republican and Libertarian right in the United States–I have documented these very extensively on my site. I quote the Cato Institute many more times than Castro. On the question of Libya, anti-imperialist arguments from the left and the right (these are simplistic shorthands, at the very best) are virtually indistinguishable, so it’s interesting that without knowing more about me that you chose to confine and pigeon hole this as “left.” Anti-imperialism is not the special reserve of any particular political ideology–it is something akin to an absolute moral value…the way some are anti-rape and not “leftist anti-rapists.”
Unless the Libyan revolution consists of a cluster of rebels in Benghazi, as you seem to suggest–and in which case, that’s not really much of a Libyan revolution–what Gaddafi seemed about to achieve was dealing a serious setback. Most revolutionary movements have suffered massive setbacks–there is no linear progress from protest to successful revolution. It’s not easy, and it needs to remain local, because Libya is complex enough already. Now, it is much more complex, with new actors added, new interests vested, and a whole new layer of violence. Whatever the rebels now achieve, they will never be able to argue that they alone achieved it by their own means. They are in debt. They are in debt, particularly, to precisely the kinds of forces that always collect on their debts. Don’t minimize this: this is a strategic mistake of extreme proportions on the part of the rebels.
Anyway, I thought your article was quite fair, and interesting to read. We will surely disagree on a range of issues, but it won’t be because I underestimate the seriousness and depth of your commentary. Many thanks for reading my article, and commenting. Much appreciated.
Sorry Antoun. You’ve lost me on this. I cannot be as kind in my response as Maximilian.
You summarise Gaddafi with the glib one-liner I hear again and again on Fox, CNN, AJE, BBC, ABC and all the rest of then. He’s a “brutal dictator”.
It’s a point of view. But it is also a GROSSLY simplistic summation of a long life at the helm of a developing country – in the face of repeated attempts by hostile external forces to wrong-foot, weaken and destroy his government.
For a more balanced appraisal of the background to this current crisis and the long career of Mr Gadaffi, I recommend this rather lengthy article by Keith Harmon Snow written in early March: GENOCIDE IN LIBYA? NATO INVASION UNDER WAY. ITS THE OIL, STUPID.
http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2011/03/petroleum-empire-maps-for-north-africa/
Mr Snow is no apologist for Gaddafi. But he has a sense of context, knowledge of the region’s modern history – and he is clearly out of short pants. For instance, he accurately states that Gaddafi was set up over Lockerbie; for me, that’s a rather crucial indication of whether someone discussing Libya is (a) informed and (b) honest.
True, Gaddafi is no saint. If you know of any national leaders who are saints, please let me know.
True, Libya is not a ‘western democracy’. But it has attractive offsetting characteristics. For instance, it does not have a long track record of imperial rule and attacking other nations with lethal force.
Are Gadaffi and his regime really the murderous plutocratic rip-offs as currently portrayed? Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez don’t think so – and I find myself on their side in plenty of other debates (eg Palestine). Why would democratically-elected Chavez stake his popular reputation backing a vile, thieving autocrat? Please explain.
The UNDP’s Human Development Index assigned Liyba No 1 ranking in Africa for 2010. The HDI is a multi-factor way of evaluating human well-being that’s more sophisticated than GDP per capita. How did that remarkable acheivement happen? Pure accident? How long will it last? Now that’s a good question. I have my own, rather pessimistic view about that. I’ve seen what happens to predominantly-Muslim countries that get mauled by the west. It’s not a nice record.
It was wholly reasonable for outsiders like you and me to demand a non-violent response to protests from the Governments of Tunisia and Egypt, because protests in those countries were overwhelmingly non-violent. But in Liyba, what’s happened seems significantly different. Whether or not intial protests against Gaddafi were peaceful, it very quickly turned into armed insurrection and civil war. ‘Protestors’ in Libya are not students with flowers. They are armed. They have seized territory. They include army defectors. They have likely been schooled by western advisors.
Under those circumstances, demanding a non-violent response from Gaddafi was, plain and simple, a trick to put him in a no-win situation.
This helps explain Gaddafi’s repeated calls for UN Observers so the truth about atrocities on both sides could be properly assessed. The only reason for brushing aside these repeated requests that I can think of is that Gaddafi’s opponents have more to hide than he does. Which side of a dispute usually rejects impartial external observers? The side with most to hide? Or the side with least to hide? The side that’s currently being defamed? Or the side that’s currently enjoying a dream run from the western mass media?
It is precisely because of competing and very different narratives about what’s going on in Libya that UN Observers would make a crucial difference. They could help sift truthful claims from lies. That is clearly the view of the Russian Government. But it was politically unable to block UNSC Res 1973 once the African Union and Arab League were persuaded to back intervention.
You may think the Libya and Iraq cases are very different, but there are similarities. One of them is the propaganda drive to implant the belief, in world opinion, that popular opposition to the current Government is overwhelming.
My local MP still believes the Iraq War was justified and I’ve had furious arguments with him about that. But I can’t unblock the deep impression made on him in the run-up to the Iraq invasion by hudreds (his word) of “Iraqis” who lobbied him and his colleagues at the time, regaling him with horror stories about Saddam Hussein and helping give first hand credence to medai reports.
These “Iraqi” lobbyists have not been seen since – nor did they ever surface on the scene before. How did that happen? Think about it. Think about where all the new English-language Twitter accounts with names like ‘FreeLibya’ come from. Think about Imperialism 2.0 (and its siamese twin Revolution 2.0) Think about Zionist domination of western politics and Israel’s long term (and scarecly to-secret) strategy of balkanising the Arab world.
Think also how the hysteria about ‘Islamic extremism’ has featured so little in popular discourse over the last month or so. Why would that be? Which national leader was the first to seek an Interpol arrest warrant for Osama Bin Laden, by he way?
Your generation is crucial Antoun. If the finest and most idealistic folk of your generation get suckered into supporting the Zionist agenda (as happened, in general, to all other recent generations such as my own), I believe human freedom and civilisation will be in dire danger.
The article above is a depressing indicator that remains a very real possibility.