Libya: The Empire Strikes Back
Pre-amble:I started writing this before events in Libya escalated, but it
illustrates why it is imperative that we understand what exactly is
going on in the Middle East and North Africa, especially when it comes
to distinguishing between our wishes and reality. This is especially
true of what is happening in Libya, where fact and invention (as well as
wishful thinking) have become blurred in the press coverage.
"Thanks to
its rich reserves of oil and natural gas, Libya has a positive trade
balance of $27 billion a year and a medium-high per capita income of
$12,000, six times greater than that of Egypt … Witness the fact that
nearly one million and a half immigrants, mostly from North Africa, work
in Libya. Some 85 percent of Libyan energy exports go to Europe: Italy
takes first place with 37 percent, followed by Germany, France and
China. Italy is also in first place in imports to Libya, followed by
China, Turkey and Germany.
"This framework is now
blown into the air as a result of what can be characterized not as a
revolt of the impoverished masses, such as the rebellions in Egypt and
Tunisia, but as a
real civil war, due to a split in the ruling group." — ‘
Libya in the Great Game‘ By Manlio Dinucci,
Global Research [my Emph. - ed.]
Socialism or barbarism?
I know, it’s a cry in the wilderness, but events—which are unfolding
at a pace too fast to keep up with—is a cry for a new way of living but
as yet a formless cry, without direction and extremely vulnerable to all
kinds of forces. In Egypt, as ever, the military are still in power.
The same goes for all the countries involved. Yet the reality is that
unless underlying causes both economic and political, are addressed,
nothing will change except perhaps some minor concessions.
Thus failing any kind of viable economic, let alone political
alternative, and without any real change at the top in any of the
countries concerned, things look grim. And the more time passes before
real change is set in motion, the more chance the Empire has to
retaliate.
And I think it’s clear that events in Libya are the start of a
counter-offensive by the Empire to try and regain control of the
situation (see Fidel on this ‘Reflections of Fidel: The Plan is to Occupy Libya‘ and Glen Ford’s excellent (as usual) piece, ‘Khadafi On the Outs‘.[1]
As the fate
of Libya was being discussed by the powers represented in the NATO and
the UN Security Council yesterday, among those most fervently calling
for no-fly zones were Libya’s own UN ambassadors turned defectors,
Abdurrahman Mohammed Shalgham and Ibrahim Dabbashi
/../
Thus it fell to a few
good Latin American socialists to do what they could to argue the case
of Libya and defend its right to self-determination — that is, the right
of the Libyan people, those who are for, against, or indifferent to the
soon-to-be former Libyan regime, to sort out their own affairs, free
from NATO or any other foreign troops — in the court of world public
opinion. — ‘What Does the Libyan Opposition Want?‘ By Yoshie Furuhashi
Let’s be clear, this is not about Khadafi whatever you think
of the ‘Green Revolution’, it’s about the attempt by the US/EU to
intercede directly and militarily into the situation in the Middle East
/ North Africa, most probably through the use of NATO. (Ironically the
US has an enormous military presence in Bahrain, Quatar, Kuwait and of
course, Iraq but it’s powerless to use them unilaterally, thus the need
for a Libya.)
And conveniently one of the stories to hit the headlines is the allegation that Khadafi directly ordered the Lockerbie bombing, an allegation made by Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, Khadafi’s (former I assume) justice minister.
Virtually all of the news reports coming out of Libya reveal very
little about what is actually going on, most are reports of events but
lacking any kind of verification (see ‘Fear stalks Tripoli, celebrations in Libya’s east‘). Thus it’s difficult to know who is doing what to whom so we get reports of ‘African mercenaries‘ but Libya is an African country with, would you believe, African people in it.
[S]ome
analysts urged against jumping to conclusions in Libya, noting that the
country has a significant black population who may simply be serving in
the regular army and could be mistaken for mercenaries. These include
Chadians who sided with Gaddafi in his past conflicts with Chad and were
rewarded with houses, jobs and Libyan citizenship. — ‘Has Gaddafi unleashed a mercenary force on Libya?‘, The Guardian, 22 February, 2011
In the Western media there has been a veritable blizzard of
propaganda about Khadafi, some calling him ‘deranged’ and of course, the
predictable ‘unpredictable behaviour’ of the man, and it’s true, the
guy is somewhat eccentric, at least in his personal behaviour. But cast
your mind back to the opening days of the Egyptian insurrection when
over 300 people were killed by the military regime and I don’t recall
any of the mainstream news reports talking about ‘deranged’ and
‘unpredictable’ generals being in charge. Instead we read about how
‘responsible’ they were, not that they ran a military-business
dictatorship. It’s a classic imperial setup for a fall.
We should also remember that that following 9/11 Khadafi did a complete volte-face
and did some kind of deal with the pirates, jettisoning his
anti-imperialist rhetoric (not that it seems to have done him the
slightest bit of good) and joined the phony ‘war on terror’, proving
once again that the Empire has no friends. All are dispensible.
2011, year of revolutions?
Earlier in February I alluded
to 1848 Year of Revolutions, asking if 2011 was an ’1848 moment’. 1848
was (I assume coincidentally) the year the Communist Manifesto was
published. It was also the year Marx moved to Paris, the epicentre of
the European insurrections, just as Egypt is the catalyst for the
current round of insurrections. But what are chances of the
insurrections morphing into revolution?
This is, in part, what Marx wrote about the events of 1848:
The country,
however, which transforms whole nations into proletarians; which with
its gigantic arms encompasses the whole globe; which has already once
defrayed the cost of the European counter-revolution; and in which class
antagonism has reached a high degree of development – [the United States] appears
to be the rock on which the revolutionary waves split and disperse and
which starves the coming society even in the womb. [The United States] dominates
the world markets. A revolution of the economic conditions of any
country of the European Continent or even of the whole Continent, is but
a storm in a glass of water, unless [the United States] actively
participates in it. The condition of trade and commerce of any nation
depends upon its intercourse with other nations, depends upon its
relations with the world markets. [The United States] controls the world markets, and the bourgeoisie controls [the United States]. — Cologne, December 31, 1848. marxists.org
Of course, in the original it was England not the United States that
was the major imperial power and it was Europe not the Middle East that
was in the eye of the storm. But there are major differences with 1848,
direct parallels can be misleading. In 1848 England was an imperial
power yet to reach its apogee, the USA by contrast appears to be on a
downward trajectory in spite of its overwhelming military and
(diminishing) economic power.
But as Marx pointed out in 1848, there is no revolutionary movement
either in the US or the EU let alone in the insurrectionary countries,
thus expecting pressure from the current citizens of Empire is highly
unlikely. The left, such as it is, is still euphoric from events in
Egypt and has joined the chorus in focusing on Khadafi, not the Empire (with a few notable exceptions).
Follow the money
But just as the economic situation was in part the trigger in 1848,
so too today it’s the neoliberal policies of the IMF and World Bank that
is central to our understanding of how and why the Middle East / North
Africa is in revolt. The neoliberal policies forced on the people by the
various and sundry dictatorships installed/propped up by the Empire,
was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back when added to the
political repression.
So, are true revolutions really possible in the Middle East /North Africa without a revolution in the USA? Indeed, are socialist revolutions possible anywhere without a revolution in the ‘belly of the beast’?
All things
are finite and no empire lasts forever. Rome’s empire fell and
eventually somewhere down the road so will the global empire of the
United States. Washington and its cohorts are now beginning to sink in
the sands of the Middle East. The U.S. government has put the United
States on the wrong side of history. If Mubarak was the modern pharaoh
of Egypt, then on the world-stage the U.S. is the pharaoh. Washington
too will eventually see disgrace if it does not listen to the growing
chorus. — ‘The Popular Uprising in Egypt: The Military Machine Remains Intact, The Political Status Quo Prevails‘ By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Noble words indeed but who is to write the history that Nazemroaya speaks of? With the idea
of socialism totally discredited in the eyes of many and the
ever-present anti-communism still pervading our consciousness, will the
insurrections of 2011 be no more than a memory of what might have been?
Note
1. See ‘Libya: The Rest of the Story‘
and,
Is Tripoli
being set up for a civil war to justify U.S. and NATO military
intervention in oil-rich Libya? By Mahdi Darius Nazemroay
Hopefully Related posts:
- Khadafi On the Outs By Glen Ford
- Libya Independent Media Newslinks for 22-23 February, 2011
- Middle East / North Africa Newslinks for 21 February, 2011
- Libya independent newslinks for 21-22 February, 2011
- Libya Mostly Mainstream Newslinks for 26 February, 2011
- Libya in the Great Game By Manlio Dinucci
- Egypt Independent Media Newslinks 22-23 February, 2011
- Reflections of Fidel: The Plan is to Occupy Libya
- LIbya Independent Media Newslinks for 25-26 February, 2011
- Libya Mostly Mainstream Newslinks for 22 February, 2011