Three more viewpoints on the Western intervention from other socialists. We print them to promote further debate. Much more contentious debate can be found on our website www.workersliberty.org.
Cannot oppose if only way to prevent massacre
Given the urgency of preventing the massacre... and the absence of any alternative means of achieving the protection goal, no one can reasonably oppose [the UN Security Council resolution]...
The Western response, of course, smacks of oil. The West fears a long drawn out conflict. If there is a major massacre, they would have to impose an embargo on Libyan oil, thus keeping oil prices at a high level at a time when, given the current state of the global economy, this would have major adverse consequences... Only France emerged as very much in favour of strong action, which might well be connected to the fact that France — unlike Germany (which abstained in the UNSC vote), Britain, and, above all, Italy — does not have a major stake in Libyan oil, and certainly hopes to get a greater share post-Qaddafi.
We all know about the Western powers’ pretexts and double standards…
The fact remains, nevertheless, that if Qaddafi were permitted to continue his military offensive and take Benghazi, there would be a major massacre. …The attack by Qaddafi’s forces was hours or at most days away. You can’t in the name of anti-imperialist principles oppose an action that will prevent the massacre of civilians. In the same way, even though we know well the nature and double standards of cops in the bourgeois state, you can’t in the name of anti-capitalist principles blame anybody for calling them when someone is on the point of being raped and there is no alternative way of stopping the rapists.
This said, without coming out against the no-fly zone, we must express defiance and advocate full vigilance in monitoring the actions of those states carrying it out, to make sure that they don’t go beyond protecting civilians as mandated by the UNSC resolution. In watching on TV the crowds in Benghazi cheering the passage of the resolution, I saw a big billboard in their middle that said in Arabic “No to foreign intervention.” People there make a distinction between “foreign intervention”, by which they mean troops on the ground, and a protective no-fly zone. They oppose foreign troops. They are aware of the dangers and wisely don’t trust Western powers.
The Egyptians are reported to be providing weapons to the Libyan opposition — and that’s fine — but on its own it couldn’t have made a difference that would have saved Benghazi in time. But again, one must maintain a very critical attitude toward what the Western powers might do.
Gilbert Achcar, writing in International Viewpoint
Why not arm the revolutionaries?
In Libya, we think that supporting and defending the revolution can be achieved by different means than the western military armada. no to western interests in Libya; no to Libya becoming Iraq; no to Qadaffi. Why not arm the revolutionaries? Why “defend” the revolution in precisely this manner? We have no confidence in the intervention.
But we cannot demand the immediate end to the bombardment because we are against the massacre of civilians. We demand the immediate end of the massacre of civilians. It is complicated. We are against the bombardment but we can’t call for it to end immediately.
Loumamba from the Ligue Gauche des Ouvriers (Tunisian socialist group)
Be vigilant against re-run of Iraq intervention
The Libyan insurrection is a fundamental element of the revolutionary wave in the Arab world. Its objective is to do away with 40 years of political oppression, tribal division of society and regional inequalities. If Qadaffi has enjoyed a certain prestige in the Arab world, that was based on the false idea that Libyans had profited from the redistribution of oil revenues.
The poor masses, in particular in the vast rural areas of Libya, were in fact completely excluded from these revenues, which were essentially given over to the reinforcement of the ruling clan and its fat financial profits.
This ruling clan has not hesitated to put itself several times at the service of Western imperialism, in intervening in the affairs of different African countries, then becoming more and more openly an agent for guarding the borders of the European Union from immigration. We therefore unconditionally support the revolt of the people of Libya.
In the face of the bloody military repression of the regime, the insurrection found itself isolated from the world. In this context, Qadaffi was able, town by town, to re-take control of regions which had fallen into the hands of the insurgents. He was aided in that by weapons which French imperialism had provided him with, to the tune of 30 million euros in the year 2009 alone...
Imperialism’s cynical gambit was: weaken the insurrection, then weaken Qadaffi, make itself the arbiter of the situation, re-establish and strengthen control over the region.
We cannot reproach the population of Libya, facing death, for welcoming and favouring certain military actions of the coalition — even when that coalition includes the worst criminals, imperialist powers, or Saudi Arabia which is firing on its own people and intervening in Bahrain. … it is because the aid which they had a right to expect from the whole world, and in particular from the international proletariat, never arrived — because for a long time, the powerful revolutionary organisations which could provide it have not existed. We have to remedy this...
The peoples and the workers should intervene!
It is urgent that the exploited, in dominant countries like France, stop being spectators of the situation and intervene to put an end to the capitalist order and its leaders, who are leading the world into poverty and murderous wars! ... In the first place, we must be attentive to changes in the military situation, and ready to mobilise, when it becomes necessary, against any re-run of the Iraqi scenario in Libya, for the withdrawal of any military presence strategically turned against the peoples, and to support and extend the revolutionary process.
The Union for Communism (group based in Lyons who work closely with the Worker-Communist Parties of Iran, Iraq and Kurdistan. They are in close contact with the Moroccan Revolutionary Marxist Current).
