The World Socialist Web
Site categorically opposes any military intervention in
Libya. The drive toward war, which was given the green light by the
UN Security Council on Thursday, has nothing to do with the
humanitarian pretexts offered up by the major powers. Rather, it
represents the violent imperialist subjugation of a former
colony.
The bombing of Libya by French, British and American planes will
not protect human life, but will transform the country into a
battlefield with thousands of innocent victims. This is an
imperialist war. Libya is an oppressed, former colonial country.
The WSWS rejects fundamentally and in all circumstances military
attacks by imperialist powers on such countries.
Moreover, this war will take place without any democratic
legitimacy. There is not the slightest indication that it is
supported by the populations of the countries involved. Once again,
huge sums are being spent on a war even as the same governments
declare there is no money for social programs.
Those who say a military attack on Gaddafi’s bases would bolster a
democratic opposition movement against a bloody dictatorship must
answer the following question: Why are the great powers not
applying the same criteria in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the
regimes they back employ brutal violence against any opposition?
And what of Bahrain, headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet, where
Sheikh al Khalifa has shot down unarmed protesters with Saudi
support? What about Gaza, where these same powers stand by as the
Israelis massacre Palestinians? What about Yemen, where the
Western-backed President Ali Abdullah Saleh on Friday shot dead
some 50 protesters?
Not a single government or newspaper that supports a military
strike against Libya has taken the trouble to explain these glaring
contradictions. However, the real target of the violent action
against Libya is clear, if one considers the logic of recent
events.
It is only two months since the Tunisian ruler, Zine El Abidine Ben
Ali, was overthrown in a popular uprising. One month later, he was
followed by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. As a result, the
Western powers have lost two of their key allies in the region.
As with Gaddafi himself, the US and Europe had collaborated closely
with these dictators until the last minute. France, which is now
shouting the loudest for military action against Libya, even
offered Ben Ali police assistance when the uprising against him was
in full swing.
Only a few weeks later, the great powers are preparing a military
intervention in North Africa. Coincidence? Only someone who is
politically blind can fail to see the relationship between these
events.
The domestic opposition to Gaddafi, a brutal tyrant and a close
ally of the Western powers, may initially have expressed real
grievances of the Libyan people. But in the underdeveloped desert
state of Libya, forces quickly materialized that were ready to do
the dirty work of the great powers. They were to be found in the
figures making up the so-called National Transitional Council, who
not only guaranteed international oil companies unhindered
exploitation of the country’s mineral wealth, but also called for
the bombing of their own country. The Transitional Council is
composed of senior officials of the old regime who turned their
backs on Gaddafi in response to the shift by the imperialist
powers.
Military intervention in Libya, whose energy resources have made it
the object of imperialist intrigues for decades, is being used both
to secure access to oil and to contain the revolutionary movements
in the region, which are increasingly directed against the
interests of the imperialist powers and capitalist property. A
military presence in Libya, which is bordered by Egypt to the east
and Tunisia to the west, would help the major powers to intimidate
revolutionary movements throughout the Arab world.
Reference in the UN resolution about excluding the military
occupation of the country by foreign troops is hogwash. Military
necessity has its own logic. Officially, neither Afghanistan nor
Iraq are “occupied” by American troops, but this does not change
the fact that in both countries tens of thousands of American
soldiers have taken up permanent residence.
It is significant that it was the Arab League that called for a
no-fly zone over Libya, giving the US and its imperialist allies a
cover of “regional support” for military intervention. The
representatives of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other emirates, who
are in the process of arresting, torturing and shooting opponents
of their own regimes, have voted in favor of a military
intervention for the supposed purpose of strengthening democracy in
Libya!
The major powers are acting with extreme recklessness. Apart from
the greed for oil and domination, they seem to have no thought-out
strategy. President Sarkozy, who received Gaddafi four years ago
with great pomp in Paris to negotiate trade deals worth billions,
recognized the National Transitional Council as the official
representative of Libya without even consulting his own foreign
minister, let alone his NATO allies.
No one seems to have considered the likely economic, geopolitical
and security implications of a longer war in Libya, a country on
the Mediterranean in the immediate vicinity of Europe. Those
expressing warnings of the consequences of military action come
mostly from conservative circles of the military, who, after
Afghanistan and Iraq, have little desire for another military
adventure.
Both President Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron
also have their own domestic political reasons for intervening. A
year before the next presidential elections, Sarkozy is falling in
opinion polls and hopes to make up ground through an aggressive
foreign policy.
Cameron faces growing opposition to his austerity measures
and—echoing his model Margaret Thatcher’s 1982 Malvinas war—hopes a
war against Libya can divert attention. Since the British army has
been weakened by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is barely
able to intervene independently, Cameron has worked hard to engage
the US.
The imperialist adventure against Libya is reawakening old
divisions in Europe. The European Union’s Common Foreign and
Security Policy (CFSP) is once again in tatters. Germany abstained
in the vote on the UN Security Council, stressing it would not be
party to any military intervention. It thus found itself in a bloc
with Russia, China, India and Brazil against NATO allies France,
Britain and the United States—a development with far-reaching
implications.
These divisions result from the imperialist character of the war.
It is significant that for the first time since the Second World
War, Britain and France are jointly involved in a military conflict
and have taken a position opposed by Germany. One should also
recall that the last war between German and British armies included
major battles in North Africa.
Germany does not in principle reject taking military action against
Libya, and the German government has pushed for tough economic
sanctions. However, it has to date based its influence in North
Africa and the Middle East less on military than on economic
factors, and fears losing out in any military adventure. “Germany
fully supports the economic sanctions, because the rule of Muammar
al-Gaddafi is over and must be stopped,” said UN Ambassador Peter
Wittig to justify Germany’s abstention. “But the use of the
military is always extremely difficult and we see great risks.”
While there are disagreements within the European and American
ruling class over a military offensive against Libya, among the
“humanitarian” imperialists there is full and enthusiastic
approval. This category also includes political tendencies that
support military operations in the name of an abstract “humanity,”
ignoring class issues and questions of history—such as the Greens,
Social Democrats, the Left Party, etc.
Since the German Greens supported the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in
1999, they have become enthusiastic supporters of war and play an
irreplaceable role in the imperialist war propaganda. The same
applies to the preparation for a military intervention against
Libya.
The Greens have attacked foreign minister Guido Westerwelle because
he did not support the resolution in the UN Security Council. “We
have a responsibility to defend human rights,” parliamentary
faction leader Renate Kuenast said. The Social Democrats also
attacked Westerwelle because he does not favor the war effort.
Green EU Parliament representative Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a major
figure in the 1968 student movement, campaigned aggressively for
the recognition of the Libyan National Transitional Council and the
establishment of a no-fly zone. The parliament finally adopted such
a resolution on March 10 by an overwhelming majority.
In addition to the Greens, a variety of pseudo-left organizations
in France have demanded recognition of the National Transitional
Council. A resolution to this effect from the Committee of
Solidarity with the Libyan People bears the signatures of the
Communist Party, the Left Party and the New Anti-Capitalist Party.
President Sarkozy is now fulfilling their demand and launching a
military offensive.
The World Socialist Web
Site calls on workers and young people to reject the war
propaganda under a humanitarian guise with the disgust it deserves.
The fight against political oppression, social exploitation and war
is inseparable from the building of a socialist movement that
unites the international working class in a struggle against
capitalism and imperialism.
World Socialist Web
Site editorial board
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/pers-m19.shtml
