Who
really won in Libya?
Socialist
Worker (ISO), August 23, 2011
Another
dictator is being toppled in North Africa –but the regime
that will replace his will be beholden to imperialist powers
that don't care at all about democracy.
The
reign of Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi seems to be
coming to an end after anti-government fighters backed by
NATO forces took control of Tripoli.
After
months of a military stalemate, the fall of the Libyan
capital came with remarkable speed. As this article was
being written, Qaddafi had not been captured, and there were
still reports of fighting in Tripoli. But while the
situation might remain unclear for some time, the main
question now is not if, but when. [Update: On the day of
publication, heavier fighting broke out in Tripoli, leaving
more doubt about how long the pro-Qaddafi side could hold
out.]
Masses
of Libyans celebrated in Tripoli and around the country as
the regime's control of its last stronghold seemed to give
way, and they will again when Qaddafi is definitively
toppled. Qaddafi is a despised dictator who ruled Libya with
an iron fist for more than 40 years, squelching dissent
while enriching his family and the small circle around it.
His rule continued whether he was seen by the West as an
enemy to be demonised –or as a valued ally in the "war
on terror."
Hatred
of the dictatorship and a thirst for democracy and freedom
drove the uprising against Qaddafi when it first arose in
February, clearly inspired by the revolutions against
tyrants in Tunisia to Libya's west, and Egypt to its east.
But
the character of Libya's uprising has been twisted and
transformed in the months since.
The
rebel forces that took over Tripoli this week operated in
collaboration with U.S.-led NATO military forces that have
no interest at all in Libyans' desire for freedom. As Independent
journalist Patrick Cockburn predicted some months ago, the
fall of Tripoli and Qaddafi's regime will be "primarily
won by NATO, and not popular revolution."
Last
March, the United Nations sanctioned a U.S.-led air campaign
in Libya, with the justification that this was the only way
to stop Qaddafi's military from committing a massacre
against the uprising. But the air war continued and
escalated. Meanwhile, Western governments were reshaping the
anti-Qaddafi opposition to fit their needs –like ensuring
the flow of oil from Libya for one, and even more
importantly, creating a reliably pro-Western barrier against
the tide of revolution that has swept through the region.
To
do this, the U.S. and its European allies backed the most
conservative elements among those who claimed to lead the
struggle against Qaddafi. A few were already on the CIA
payroll –others were former officials of the Qaddafi
regime who decided to switch sides.
The
new government that will form in place of the Qaddafi regime
will be led by these elements. It will be beholden to the
U.S. and Europe for its existence –and pliable to their
interests.
No
one who cares about justice will shed a tear for Muammar el-Qaddafi.
He was a tyrant, with the blood of many people on his hands.
But no one who opposes imperialism and its crimes can
celebrate Qaddafi's downfall in these circumstances.
The
new government that will come to power in Libya won't answer
to the people of Libya and their desire for democracy and
justice. It will answer to imperialism –and that is a blow
to the Arab Spring, which this year showed the world the
hope of an alternative to oppression, violence and tyranny.
*
* *
The
speed with which Tripoli fell
–at least in the initial advance into the city–
surprised even rebel forces, particularly after hard-fought
battles in nearby cities like Zawiyah in the weeks
beforehand.
The
regime's propaganda campaign –complete with staged
demonstrations– about how residents of the capital would
rally to the defense of their beloved leader was an obvious
fraud. But the rapid advance showed just how little support
Qaddafi had among Libyans once the threat of repression no
longer hung over their heads.
Nevertheless,
the media image from Tripoli over the past days –of
lightly armed fighters, riding into the capital in all
manner of vehicles, and haphazardly taking over– obscures
the real story: The assault on Tripoli was a coordinated
military campaign, wholly dependent on NATO forces.
Anti-Qaddafi
forces have been reliant on NATO air support since the
intervention began in March. In the five months through last
Saturday, August 20, Western forces flew 7,459 strike
missions in Libya –an average of about 50 per day–
against thousands of different targets.
NATO
coordination with rebel forces intensified in recent weeks,
with fighters on the ground selecting targets and
transmitting their locations using equipment provided by
Western forces, according to the New York Times. When
they need air strikes, "[t]he rebels certainly have our
phone number," one anonymous diplomat commented.
During
Sunday's advance on Tripoli, the Times reported,
"NATO troops continued close air support of the rebels
all day, with multiple strikes by alliance aircraft helping
clear the road to Tripoli from Zawiyah. Rebel leaders...credited
NATO with thwarting an attempt on Sunday by Qaddafi
loyalists to reclaim Zawiyah with a flank assault on the
city."
Western
support hasn't been limited to air power alone, either.
Special Forces and intelligence operatives have been in
Libya since the intervention in March, training and advising
the different rebel groups, and often directing their
movements.
*
* *
All
this is a profound contrast to the early stages of the
uprising against Qaddafi. Coming in the wake of the downfall
of his fellow dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, the revolt in
Libya followed the same pattern of mass popular mobilization
that won over even units of the military. The initial base
of the rebellion was the eastern part of the country nearest
Egypt, but support spread. By the end of February, it seemed
like the dictator was doomed.
But
Qaddafi was able to hold onto power and organize a counter-offensive
that relied on military units still loyal to him dealing out
savage repression. Once the struggle became primarily a
military battle, the rebellion lost its momentum and its
advantage –of relying on the mass mobilization of Libyans
demanding democracy.
By
mid-March, Qaddafi's forces had routed the poorly armed
defenders of a string of cities that had joined the uprising
–and were threatening Benghazi, the eastern city at the
heart of the revolt.
For
a time during this counter-offensive, the U.S. and other
Western governments seemed willing to stand aside and allow
Qaddafi to crush the rebellion, rather than allow another
popular revolution against a North African dictator who
cooperated with the West. But as the regime's violence
became more brazen and deadly –and with doubts circulating
about Qaddafi's reliability in cooperating with Western oil
companies– opinion shifted in Washington and the capitals
of Europe.
The
intervention was justified as a "humanitarian"
mission to stop bloodshed –with U.S.-led operations
supposedly limited to imposing a "no-fly" zone and
stopping regime forces that threatened civilians. But the
war aims quickly expanded, as antiwar voices like
SocialistWorker.org predicted they inevitably would. Barack
Obama and other Western leaders were soon talking about
continuing the "humanitarian" mission until
Qaddafi was overthrown and a new government installed.
Many
Libyans welcomed the first attacks as the only way to stop a
looming bloodbath in Benghazi. But from the start of the
uprising in February, the widespread sentiment was against
Western powers dictating the future of Libya. As in other
uprisings of the Arab Spring, those who joined the
demonstrations expressed their determination that Libyans
should make their own revolution. In early March, rebels
captured a British Special Forces unit that claimed it
wanted to make contact with the opposition –and expelled
it from the country.
But
once air operations began, Western governments devoted huge
resources to shaping the opposition. Figures with a history
of collaborating with the U.S. were promoted, as were former
officials with the Qaddafi regime who switched sides.
The
head of the National Transitional Council (NTC) –already
recognized before Qaddafi's fall as the official government
of Libya by the U.S. and some 30 other countries– is
Mustafa Abdul Jalil, who was Qaddafi's justice minister
until he resigned in February at the beginning of the
uprising. The U.S. views Abdul Jalil as "cooperative,"
according to State Department cables revealed by Wikileaks
–but then again, he's a familiar face, thanks to the
quite-friendly relations between Washington and the Qaddafi
regime.
Just
as rebel fighters worked closely with NATO forces, the NTC
is on good terms with Western diplomats and political
figures. As the advance on Tripoli began over the weekend,
NTC leaders were in consultations with Jeffrey Feltman, a
U.S. assistant secretary of state who traveled to Benghazi
for meetings to discuss "a stable, democratic
transition."
There's
no doubt what someone like Jeffrey Feltman means by "stability."
Nevertheless, what happens next isn't set in stone. For
example, Patrick Cockburn reported over the weekend that
rebels he talked to in the city of Misrata –which saw some
of the bloodiest battles of the last five months – say
they won't take orders from the NTC.
There
may be challenges to the authority of leaders groomed by the
West. But the U.S. and its allies will be in a strong
position in such conflicts. They pushed the most pro-Western
elements of the opposition into the spotlight as "leaders"
of the rebellion. Their militaries were indispensable in the
battle against the Qaddafi regime. And Western forces now
have a presence in Libya –in the air and on the ground–
and can intervene in any battles over what comes next.
By
contrast, any potential Libyan opposition to the West or to
its carefully chosen post-Qaddafi regime is in a weak
position. As British socialist Richard Seymour wrote: "There
is as yet no political force through which the masses could
act independently of the new government, were they even of a
mind to do so."
Thus,
the U.S. and its allies are all but certain to get a
cooperative government in power after Qaddafi –regardless
of the aspirations of the masses of Libyans.
*
* *
Don't
expect such considerations to enter into the pious
statements of Western political leaders and their enraptured
media, though. They'll too busy blustering about how evil
Qaddafi is, and how he "got what's coming to him."
"Tripoli
is slipping from the grasp of a tyrant," Barack Obama
pronounced in a statement over the weekend. But if Qaddafi
was a tyrant –and he certainly was– he's one the U.S.
was more than willing to cooperate with, all the more so
over the past decade.
During
the 1980s, Qaddafi, then an ally of the former USSR in the
Cold War, was a favorite scapegoat of U.S. politicians.
Ronald Reagan called him the "mad dog of the Middle
East" and ordered air strikes against Tripoli and
Benghazi in 1986 –one bombing run meant to target Qaddafi
personally instead killed his adopted 15-month-old daughter.
But
by the late 1990s, Qaddafi was making peace with his former
enemies. After the September 11 attacks, Libya signed on as
an ally of the U.S. in the "war on terror" and
backed the invasion of Iraq two years later. In the wake of
normalized relations came lucrative business deals with oil
giants ExxonMobil, Chevron and other Western companies.
Libya
is the only country in North Africa with significant oil
deposits –which explains the enthusiasm of nearby European
leaders to make friends with Qaddafi during the 2000s.
Italy's right-wing Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had an
especially cozy relationship with the dictator.
But
according to State Department documents exposed by Wikileaks,
relations with the oil companies had soured in recent years
because of Qaddafi's growing tendency to demand "tough
contract terms" and big bonus payments that further
enriched the small circle around him.
Given
the chance to intervene militarily in a region that has
experienced two successful revolutions since the start of
the year, Washington and its allies turned on their ally –and
suddenly rediscovered that he was an oppressive dictator.
This
record shows the truth about the U.S. government and its
alliances around the world. They have nothing to do with
principles such as democracy and freedom. Washington was
happy to work with Qaddafi when that relationship served its
interests.
Now,
the U.S. is betting that it can regain some of the ground it
lost in the Arab world as a result of the revolutions in
Tunisia and Egypt by enabling the overthrow of Qaddafi –and
bolstering a new government that can be relied on to protect
Western interests. Qaddafi deserved to be overthrown. But
the circumstances of his downfall are an advance for
imperialism– which means a setback for the struggle to
extend democracy and freedom.
This
article was edited slightly to reflect developments on
Tuesday, August 23.
|