Libya and the Imperial Re-Division of Africa

Libya and the Imperial Re-Division of Africa
The Imperialist Powers' Odyssey of “Return” into Africa
By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24471
Global Research, April 26, 2011
PART I

Plans to attack Libya have been longstanding. The imperial war machine of the United States, Britain, France, Italy, and their NATO allies is involved in a new military adventure that parallels the events that led to the wars against Yugoslavia and Iraq. The war machine has been mobilized under the cover of “humanitarian intervention.”
In fact what the Pentagon and NATO have done is breach international law by intervening on the side of one of the combating parties in Libya in a civil war that they themselves have encouraged and fuelled. They have not protected civilians, but have launched a war against the Libyan regime in Tripoli and actively assisted the Benghazi-based Transitional Council in fighting the Libyan military.
Before the rapprochement with Colonel Qaddafi, for years the U.S., Britain, France, and their allies worked to destabilize Libya. Confirmed by U.S. government sources, Washington attempted regime change in Tripoli several times.[1] According to General Wesley Clark, former NATO commander, the Pentagon had active plans for launching a war against Libya.
The U.S. and its NATO allies are now embroiled in a new war that has the patented characteristics of the wars and invasions of Iraq and the former Yugoslavia.

A large naval armada off the shores of Libya has been bombing Libya for weeks with the declared objective of ousting the Libyan regime. At the same time, Libyan internal divisions are being fuelled.

Misinformation is systematically being spewed. Like Saddam Hussein before him, the U.S. and the E.U. have armed and helped Colonel Qaddafi. It is, therefore, important to hold the U.S. and the E.U. accountable for these weapon sales and the training of Libyan forces.
Also, like in Iraq, another Arab dictator was befriended by the U.S., only to be subsequently betrayed.

Prior to Iraq’s rapprochement with the U.S., at the outset of the Iraq-Iran War, Saddam Hussein was a Soviet ally and considered an enemy by Washington.

The case of Colonel Qaddafi is in many regards similar. Ironically, Qaddafi had warned Arab leaders in 2008 at a meeting in Damascus under the auspices of the Arab League about regime change. He pointed to the U.S. government’s “bad habit” of betraying its Arab dictator friends:
Why won’t the [U.N.] Security Council investigate the hanging of Saddam Hussein? How could the leader of an Arab League state be hanged? I am not talking about Saddam Hussein’s policies or our [meaning the other Arab leaders] animosity towards him. We all had our disagreements with him. We all disagree with one another. Nothing unites us except this hall. Why is there not an investigation about Saddam Hussein’s execution?
An entire Arab government is killed and hung on the gallows – Why?! In the future it is going to be your turns too! [The rest of the Arab officials gathered start laughing] Indeed!
America fought alongside Saddam Hussein against Khomeini [in the Iraq-Iran War]. He was their friend. Cheney was a friend of Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld, the [U.S.] defence secretary during the bombing of Iraq [in 2003], was a close friend of Saddam Hussein.
At the end they sold him out. They hung him. Even you [the Arab leaders] who are the friends of America – no I will say we – we, the friends of America, America may approve of our hanging one day. [2]
At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. deliberately encouraged open revolt against Saddam Hussein’s regime, but stood back and watched as Saddam Hussein put down the Iraqi revolts by force.

In 2011, they have done the same thing against Qaddafi and his regime in Libya. Not only was the revolt in Libya instigated by Washington and its allies, the rebels have been supplied with weapons and military advisers.
When the U.S. and its allies triggered the anti-Saddam revolts in Baghdad in the wake of the Gulf War, “no-fly zones” over Iraq were established by the U.S., Britain, and France under the pretext of protecting “the Iraqi people from Saddam.” For years Iraq was systematically attacked. The Iraqi Republic was bombed and its capabilities to defend itself were eroded.
Today, the U.S. and its allies have imposed a no-fly zone over Libya with the pretext of protecting “the Libyan people from Qaddafi.” If they wanted to protect the Libyan people from Qaddafi, why did they arm Qaddafi in the first place? Why did they enter into business transactions in the wake of the 2006 and 2008 anti-government riots in Libya? There is much more to this narrative, which is part of a broader march to war.
A New Imperial Re-Division of Africa: The London Conference
The London Conference on Libya reveals the true colours of the coalition formed against Libya. In a clear breach of international law, the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, and their allies are making decisions about the future of Libya ahead of any changes on the ground. [4] Democracy is a bottom-up process and Libyan governance is an internal matter to be decided upon by the Libyans themselves. These decisions can not be made by foreign powers that have been the staunch supporters of some of the worst dictatorships.
The nations gathered at the conference table in London have no right whatsoever to decide on whether Qaddafi must stay or go. This is a sovereignty right that only Libyans alone have. Their involvement in the civil war is a breach of international law, as is their siding with one of the camps in the civil war.
The London Conference on Libya can be likened to the Berlin Conference of 1884. Unlike 1884, this conference is aimed at dividing the spoils of war in Libya, instead of the direct carving up of an entire continent. Also, Washington, instead of staying away like in 1884, is the leading power in this new conference involving the affairs of the African continent.
The position of the U.S. and its Western European allies is very clear:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and British Foreign Secretary William Hague led the crisis talks in London between 40 countries and institutions, all seeking an endgame aimed at halting Gadhafi’s bloody onslaught against Libya’s people.
Although the NATO-led airstrikes on Gadhafi’s forces that began March 19 aren’t aimed at toppling him, dozens of nations agreed in the talks that Libya’s future does not include the dictator at the helm.
“Gadhafi has lost the legitimacy to lead, so we believe he must go. We’re working with the international community to try to achieve that outcome,” Clinton told reporters.
As she spoke, U.S. officials announced that American ships and submarines in the Mediterranean had unleashed a barrage of cruise missiles at Libyan missile storage facilities in the Tripoli area late Monday and early Tuesday — the heaviest attack in days.
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle echoed Clinton’s point.
“One thing is quite clear and has to be made very clear to Gadhafi: His time is over. He must go,” Westerwelle said. “We must destroy his illusion that there is a way back to business as usual if he manages to cling to power.” [4]
The London Conference on Libya, however, not only deals solely with Libya, but holds the blue prints to a new imperialist re-division of the entire Africa continent. Libya, which became a holdout when Qaddafi changed his mind, will be used to complete the “Union of the Mediterranean” and as a new bridgehead into Africa. This is the start of major steps that will be taken by the U.S. and the E.U. to purge the growing Chinese presence from Africa.
A New Imperial Re-Division of Africa: “Operation Odyssey Dawn”
The name “Operation Odyssey Dawn” is very revealing. It identifies the strategic intent and direction of the war against Libya.

The Odyssey is an ancient Greek epic by the poet Homer which recounts the voyage and trails of the hero Odysseus of Ithaca on his way home. The main theme here is the “return home.”
The U.S. and the imperialist powers are on their own odyssey of “return” into Africa.

This project is also intimately related to the broader military agenda in Southwest Asia and the drive into Eurasia, which ultimately targets Russia, China, and Central Asia.

Washington’s military agenda pertains to the African and the Eurasian landmass, namely a supercontinent known as the “World-Island.” It is control of the World-Island that is the object of U.S. strategies.
The U.S. and NATO have triggered a civil war in Libya, as their pretext for longstanding plans of military aggression. A systematic media disinformation campaign, similar to the one used against Iraq from 1991 to 2003, has been launched.

In fact, the media has led the way for the war in Libya as it did in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The U.S. and its cohorts have also used the atmosphere of popular revolt in the Arab World as a cloud to insert and support their own agenda in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
The Libyan Prize of the Mediterranean
There is an old Libyan proverb that says “if your pocket becomes empty, your faults will be many.” In this context, Libyan internal tensions are not dominated by breadbasket issues. This sets Libya apart from Arab countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, and Jordan. [5] In Libya, the lack of freedom as well as rampant corruption has created opposition to the regime, which has been used by the U.S. and its allies as a pretext to justify foreign intervention.
Libya has come a long way since 1951 when it became an independent country. In 1975, the political scientist Henri Habib described these conditions:
When Libya was granted its independence by the United Nations on December 24, 1951, it was described as one of the poorest and most backward nations of the world. The population at the time was not more than 1.5 million, was over 90% illiterate, and had no political experience or knowhow. There were no universities, and only a limited number of high schools which had been established seven years before independence. [6]
According to Habib the state of poverty in Libya was the result of the yoke of Ottoman domination followed by an era of European imperialism in Libya. [7] Habib explains: “Every effort was made to keep the Arab inhabitants [of Libya] in a servile position rendering them unable to make any progress for themselves or their nation.” [8] He also explains:
The climax of this oppression came during the Italian administration (1911 – 1943) when the Libyans were not only oppressed by the [foreign] authorities, but were also subjected to the loss and deprivation of their most fertile land which went to colonists brought in from Italy. The British and French who replaced the Italians in 1943 attempted to entrench themselves in [Libya] by various divisive ways, ultimately to fail through a combination of political events and circumstances beyond the control of any one nation. [9]
Despite political mismanagement and corruption, Libya’s oil reserves (discovered in 1959) were used to improve the standard of living for its population. Libya has the highest standards of living in Africa.

In addion to its energy reserves, the Libyan state played an important role. Libyan energy reserves were nationalized after the 1969 coup against the Libyan monarchy. It should be noted that these Libyan energy reserves are a source of wealth in Libya that if fully privatized would be a lucrative spoil of war.
To a certain extent, the isolation of Libya in the past as a pariah state has also played a role in insulating Libya. As most of the world has become globalized from an economic standpoint, Libyan integration into the global economy has in a sense been delayed.

Despite having vast sums of money stolen and squandered by Qaddafi’s family and their officials, social services and benefits, such as government housing, are also available in Libya. It has to be cautioned too that none of this means that neo-liberal restructuring and poverty are not afoot in Libya, because they very much are.
Until the conflict in 2011 ignited, there was a huge foreign work force in Libya. Thousands of foreign workers from every corner of the globe went to Libya for employment. This included nationals from Turkey, China, sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, the European Union, Russia, Ukraine, and the Arab World.
Neo-Liberalism and the New Libya: Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi and Rapprochement
From 2001 to 2003, a process of rapprochement began between Libya and the U.S. and its E.U. partners. What changed? Colonel Qaddafi did not stop being a dictator or change his behaviour. Rapprochement brought an end to Tripoli’s defiance to its former colonial masters. Libya had bowed to U.S. and E.U. pressures and a modus vivandi came into effect.
Qaddafi’s credentials as a democrat or a dictator were never an issue. Nor was the use of brute force. Subservience was the real issue.

The force used against the riots in 2006 and 2008 did not even faze the E.U. and Washington, which continued their “business as usual” with Tripoli. Even U.S. government sources implied that economic interests should not be jeopardized by issues of international law or justice; for example, BP pressured the British government in 2007 to move forward with a prisoner exchange with Libya so that a Libyan oil contract could be protected. [10]
Almost overnight, Libya became a new business bonanza for U.S. and E.U. corporations, especially in the energy sectors. These lucrative contracts also included military contracts of the order of $482 million (U.S.) in military hardware, training, and software from E.U. members (including chemical and biological agents). [11]

Yet, two more things were demanded by Washington, namely the imposition of an imperial tribute as well as the the opening up of the Libyan military and intelligence apparatus to U.S. influence. As a result Libya ended all support for the Palestinians and handed the U.S. government its dossiers on resistance groups opposed to Washington, London, Tel Aviv and their allies. This turned Libya into a so-called “partner” in the “Global War on Terrorism.” Washington would get involved in all aspects of Libyan state security:
Although U.S. sanctions on Libya were lifted in 2004 and terrorism-related restrictions on foreign assistance were rescinded in 2006, Congress acted to limit the Bush Administration’s ability to provide foreign assistance to Libya as a means of pressuring the Administration and the Libyan government to resolve outstanding terrorism claims. The Bush Administration’s October 2008 certification [...] ended standing restrictions on the provision of U.S. foreign assistance contained in appropriations legislation for FY2008 and FY2009. Assistance requests submitted by the Bush and Obama Administrations for FY2009 and FY2010 included funding for programs to reengage with Libyan security forces after “a 35-year break in contact” with their U.S. counterparts and to support Libyan efforts to improve security capabilities in areas of common concern, such as border control, counterterrorism, and export/import monitoring. [12]
Libya has also become active in global banking and finance. The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank of New York even made 73 loans to the Arab Banking Corporation (ABC), which is a bank mostly owned by the Central Bank of Libya, totalling an amount of $35 billion (U.S.). [13] According to Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont in a complaint to U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Benjamin Bernanke, the mostly Libyan-owned bank received over $26 billion (U.S.) in near zero interest rate loans from the U.S. Federal Reserve that it has been lending back to the U.S. Treasury at a higher interest rate. [14] The Arab Banking Corporation is currently exempted from sanctions on Libya and may serve in creating a fiscal link between Wall Street and Benghazi.
Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi was vital in this process of opening up Libya to trade with Washington and the European Union. In 2000 Saif Al-Islam graduated from a university in Austria and became heavily tied to foreign associates who became his policy advisors and friends.

Prince Andrew of Britain reportedly became a close friend of Said Al-Islam: so close that Chris Bryant, a senior Labour Party politician, demanded in the British House of Commons that Prince Andrew be removed from his position as special trade envoy at the start of the conflict with Libya. [15]

Western advisors to Tripoli played an important role in shaping Libyan policy. A “New Libya” started to emerge under Saif Al-Islam, who pushed for the adoption of IMF-style neo-liberal economic reforms.

Starting in 2005-2006, significant social and income disparities started to emerge in Libya. The Libyan Revolutionary Committees Movement was in large part disbanded by Saif Al-Islam. Had the Committees Movement remained, they would most probably have sought to prevent the present conflict from escalating.

Moreover, Saif Al-Islam went to London and established ties in Britain with Noman Benotman, a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). [16] He became friends with Benotman.

Supported by Saif Al-Islam, Benotman and Ali Al-Sallabi, a Libyan citizen based in Qatar (who was on Tripoli’s terrorist list), negotiated a truce between the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and the Libyan government.

It is also worth noting that all the ministers and ambassadors who defected or left Libya were chosen by Saif Al-Islam.
As in the case of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the neo-liberal reforms applied in Libya created social and income disparities which in turn contributed to political instability.
Rapprochement with Tripoli and Imperial Extortion
In late-2008, the U.S. government got Tripoli to pay what was tantamount to an “imperial tribute.” Libya capitulated and agreed to an uneven reparation agreement with Washington. The agreement is called the “Claims Settlement Agreement between the United States of America and the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab.” Under the agreement Libya would concede $1.3 billion U.S. dollars to Washington, while Washington would give the Libyans $300 million U.S. dollars. Article 4 of the agreement’s annex states:
Once contributions to the Fund Account reach the amount of U.S. $1.8 billion (one billion eight hundred million U.S. dollars), the amount of U.S. $1.5 billion (one billion five hundred million U.S. dollars) shall be deposited into Account A [the U.S. account] and the amount of U.S. $300 million (three hundred million U.S. dollars) shall be deposited into Account B [Libya’s account], which in both cases shall constitute the receipt of resources under Article III (2) of the Agreement. [17]
Despite all this, Libya has remained a relatively wealthy country. In 2010, Tripoli even made an offer to buy a portion of British Petroleum (BP), one of the world’s largest corporations. [18] The National Oil Company of Libya also remains one of the largest oil companies in the world.
Even with the lucrative business deals that resulted from the rapprochement, the U.S. and the E.U. have always had an objective of furthering their gains and control. The E.U. powers and Washington merely waited for the right opportunity. Plans for taking over and controlling Libya and the Libyan energy sector were never abandoned. Nor could Washington and Western Europe accept anything less than a full-fledged puppet government in Libya.
Upheaval and Qaddafi’s Response
Even with the rapprochement with Tripoli, the U.S. and its E.U. partners continued to cultivated ties to so-called “opposition” figures and organizations with a view to implementing regime change at some future date. This is why the National Salvation Front of Libya has been mostly active in Washington. In the words of a timely Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (February 18, 2011):
The National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (an umbrella organization of opposition groups headed by the National Libyan Salvation Front (NLSF) [...]) and Internet-based organizers called for a “day of rage” to take place on February 17. Similar events had been organized by anti-government groups in many other countries in the Middle East and North Africa over the previous month. On February 17, [2011] hundreds of protestors took to the streets in Benghazi and in other cities in its vicinity. [19]
Colonel Qaddafi has ruled Libya under a harsh dictatorship that has systematically used violence and fear. Yet, the level of violence that has put Libya in a state of upheaval has been distorted. [20] Many of the initial reports coming out of Libya in early-2011 were also unverified and in many cases misleading. These reports have to be studied very carefully. According to the same CRS report prepared for the U.S. Congress, initial reports all came from “local [Libyan] media accounts, amateur video footage and anecdotes, and reports from human rights organizations and opposition groups in exile.” [21]
Qaddafi’s objectives are to preserve his regime and not to undo it. After Qaddafi became aware of the growing foreign threat directed towards his regime, the use of force was on the whole restrained. The regime in Tripoli did not want to give further excuses to the U.S., the E.U., and NATO for military intervention in Libya.
Qaddafi had exercised restraint for the sake of preserving his dictatorship. The Libyan regime knew very well that a bloody civil war would be used as a justification for intervention under a humanitarian pretext. That is why Qaddafi opted to try to negotiate where he could instead of using force. The use of violence is not to the favour of the Libyan regime or Libya, but rather works in the favour of the U.S. and the E.U. states.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
NOTES
1 Christopher M. Blanchard and James Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S. Relations,” Congressional Research Service February 18, 2011, p.12; the source quoted are as follows: Joseph T. Stanik, El Dorado Canyon: Reagan’s Undeclared War with Qaddafi, (Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2003); Bernard Gwertzman, “Shultz Advocates U.S. Covert Programs to Depose Qaddafi,” The New York Times, April 28, 1986; and Clifford Krauss, “Failed Anti-Qaddafi Effort Leaves U.S. Picking Up the Pieces,” The New York Times, March 12, 1991.
2 Muammar Qaddafi, Speech at the Twentieth Arab League Summit in Damascus (Address, Twentieth Arab League Summit, Damascus, Syria: March 29, 2008).
3 David Stringer, “Top envoys agree Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi must step down but don’t discuss arming rebels,” Associated Press (AP), March 29, 2011.
4 Ibid.
5 This does not mean that the issues in these Arab countries are exclusively breadbasket issues, because personal freedom and corrupt rule are also major motivations for public anger in the respective Arab societies of the mentioned states. What this means is that the issue of economic livelihood is an important factor in these other protests. Also, the 2008 Libyan protests were reported to be also be tied to unemployment, but economic issues are not the driving force in the events taking place in Libya.
6 Henri Pierre Habib, Politics and Government of Revolutionary Libya (Montmagny, Québec: Le Cercle de Livre de France Ltée, 1975) p.1.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Blanchard and Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S.,” Op. cit., pp.12-13.
11 European Union, “Twelfth Annual Report According to Article 8(2) of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP Defining Common Rules Governing Control of Exports of Military Technology and Equipment,” Official Journal of the European Union, vol. 24 (C9) (February 13, 2011): pp.160-162; This is about 344 million euros. The conversation rate used to present the value of these contracts is 1 euro equals 1.40279 U.S. dollars (based on the exchange rate on March 8, 2011).
12 Blanchard and Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S.,” Op. cit., pp.13-14.
13 Donal Griffin and Robert Ivry, “Libya-Owned Arab Banking Corp. Drew at Least $5 Billion From Fed in Crisis,” Bloomberg, April 1, 2011.
14 Bernard Sandards, Letter to Ben S. Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, and John Walsh, March 31, 2011: .
15 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News, “Duke of York must lose trade job, says Labour MP,” February 29, 2011.
16 It would be Noman Benotman who would arrange for Musa Al-Kusa’s defection to Britain.
17 Claims Settlement Agreement between the United States of America and the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, August 14, 2008, p.4; the CRS report being cited herein also mentions this, but makes a mistake about the amount being given to Libyan and asserts that it is “$300 billion.”
18 Andrew England and Simeon Kerr, “Libya hints at taking stake in BP,” Financial Times, July 5, 2010.
19 Blanchard and Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S.,” Op. cit., p.5; it is worthy to note that the two researchers quote the Saudi-owned Asharq Al-Awsat (the specific article cited is as follows: Khaled Mahmoud, “Gaddafi ready for Libya’s ‘Day of Rage,’” Asharq Al-Awsat, February 9, 2011) which interestingly enough makes a link between previous Libyan protests on February 17, 2006 about the offensive cartoons published in Denmark about the Prophet Mohammed that transformed into anti-Qaddafi protests.
20 This fact in no way justifies any of the state violence in Libya, but has to be examined. The context of the violence in Libya has to also be looked over too.
21 Blanchard and Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S.,” Op. cit., p.5.

Libya in Face of Humanitarian Imperialism

Further to my last posting on development in West Asian region, I would like to share with you an interview with Jean Bricmont, a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Louvain, Belgium and member of the Brussels Tribunal. He is well known for the book he wrote entitled Humanitarian Imperialism. He is also the author of Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science (with Alan Sokal) and other political and scientific publications.
In the interview, he tells us why the right to interfere is incompatible with world peace, and that it goes against humanitarian principles. Unless, of course, those principles are just an excuse. Bricmont points out how counter-productive these intercessions prove in advancing ordinary standards of human rights. Much of the material here is likely familiar to students of US foreign policy.
Contrary to the myth that the Arab League endorsed Obama's intervention in Libya, half of its members abstained. The members that did vote for it were disproportionately in Saudi Arabia's sphere of influence. Obama got the vote he wanted because the Saudis called their chits in. The Asia Times reported on April 2 that Saudi Arabia engineered an Arab League voting bloc to approve the American intervention in Libya, in return for Obama giving the Saudis a free hand to intervene in Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement -- so troubling to the conservative monarchies of the Gulf -- in that country.

Libya in Face of Humanitarian Imperialism.
By Gregoire Lalieu
April 22, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- An interview with Jean Bricmont.
Can you remind us of what humanitarian imperialism consists of?
Jean Bricmont: It is an ideology which aims to justify military interference against sovereign countries in the name of democracy and Human Rights. The motive is always the same : a population is the victim of a dictator, so we must act. Then all the usual references are trotted out : the Second World War, the war with Spain, and so on. The aim being to sell the argument that an armed intervention is necessary. This is what happened in Kosovo, Iraq or Afghanistan.
And now comes Libya’ s turn.
There is a difference here because a United Nations Security Council resolution makes it possible. But this resolution was passed against the principles of the Charter of the United Nations themselves. Indeed, I see no external threat in the Libyan conflict. Although the notion of the “responsibility to protect” populations had been evoked, many short cuts were taken. Besides, there is no proof that Gaddafi massacres his people just for the sole purpose of slaughtering them. It is a bit more complicated than that : it is an armed insurrection, and I know not of any government that would not repress an insurrection of this kind. Of course, there are collateral damage and civilian casualties. But if the United States knows a way to avoid such damage, then it should go and tell the Israelis about it, and apply it themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is also no doubt that coalition bombings arecausing cause civilian casualties.
From a strictly legal point of view, I think the U.N.S.C. resolution is questionable. It is, in fact, the result of years of lobbying for the recognition of the right to interfere, which proves here to be legitimized.
And yet, many - even among the parties of the left - deemed it necessary to intervene in Libya in order to stop the massacre. Do you think it is an error of judgment?
Yes, I do, and for several reasons. First of all, this campaign ushers in the reign of the arbitrary. Indeed, the Libyan conflict is not exceptional. There are many other conflicts anywhere in the world whether it may be in Gaza, in Bahrain, or in the Congo, which happened some years ago. As for the latter, it occurred within a context of foreign aggression on the part of Rwanda and Burundi. The enforcement of the international law would have saved millions of lives but it was not done. Why not ?
Besides, if we apply the underlying principles of interference behind the aggression against Libya, it means that anyone can intervene anywhere they want to. Imagine that the Russians intervene in Bahrain or the Chinese in Yemen : the world would be a general and ongoing war. Therefore one major feature of the right to interfere is the infringement of standard international law. And if we had to change international law to new laws justifying the right to interfere, it would result in a war of all against all. This is an argument to which the advocates of the right to interfere never give an answer.
And lastly, such interventions strengthen what I call the “barricade effect”: all the countries in the sights of the United States will start to feel threatened and will seek to increase their armaments. We all remember what happened with Saddam. Moreover, Gaddafi had said to the Arab League : “We have just lost a member state of the league and none of you have done anything. But it can happen to you too, because even though you are all U.S. allies, so was Saddam in the past.” Now the same thing is repeating itself with Gaddafi and the threat which hangs over many states is likely to relaunch the arms race. Russia, which is not an unarmed country, has already announced that it would reinforce its troops. But it can go even further : if Libya had the nuclear weapon, it would have never been attacked. Actually, this is why North Korea is untouchable. Therefore, the left which supports the intervention in Libya should definitely realize that humanitarian interference is inevitably going to relaunch the arms race and lead to long-term wars.
And yet, wouldn’t the armed intervention against Gaddafi be a lesser evil?
One has to consider the consequences. Now that the Western forces are involved, they will obviously have to go all the way, overthrow Gaddafi and bring the rebels to power. Then what is going to happen ? Libya seems to be divided. Is the West going to occupy the country and embark on an endless war similar to the ones in Iraq or in Afghanistan ?
Be that as it may, let us suppose that all goes well : the members of the coalition remove Gaddafi in a few days, the rebels take power, and the Libyan people is united. Everyone is happy and then what ? I do not think the West will go : “Well, we did it because we are nice people and fond of Human Rights. Now you can do whatever you please.” What is going to happen if the new Libyan government is too Muslim-like or does not properly limit migration flows ? Do you think the West will let them do ? It is obvious that after the intervention, the new Libyan government will be caught up in the interests of the West.
If military intervention is not the solution, then what is?
It would have been better if we had honestly attempted all peaceful solutions. It might not have worked but here, there is a blatant intention to reject these solutions. And by the way, this is an abiding feature of humanitarian wars. Concerning Kosovo, there were very detailed propositions on the part of Serbia in order to come to a peaceful solution but they were rejected. The West has even imposed conditions that made any negotiations impossible, such as the occupation of Serbia by N.A.T.O. forces. In Afghanistan, the Taliban proposed to try Bin Laden by an international court if they are provided with evidence of his involvement in the W.T.C. attacks. The U.S. refused it and bombed the country. In Iraq, Saddam had accepted the return of the United Nations inspectors as well as many extremely restrictive conditions. But it was never enough. In Libya, Gaddafi accepted a cease-fire and proposed to have international observers sent out there. The observers were not sent and it was said that Gaddafi did not respect the cease fire. The West also rejected Chavez’s offer to mediate in Libya, even though it was backed up by many Latino countries and the Organization of African Unity as well.
In that connection, I am angry when I hear left-wingers in Europe denounce the horrible Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas which supports dictator Gaddafi. They got it all wrong ! The leaders in power in Latin America have important responsibilities. They are not just small leftists chattering in their corner. And the major issue for these leaders is the interference of the U.S. : the less it can do whatever it pleases, wherever it pleases, the better it will be for all those countries which try to free themselves from tutelage by state power, and also for the whole world.
Does the systematic rejection of peaceful solutions mean that humanitarian interference is an excuse?
Yes it does, but if it works well with the intellectuals, I am more doubtful about the reaction of the peoples of Europe. Will they support their leaders during the aggression against Gaddafi ? People consider the wars for security to be the most legitimate ones : for instance, if there is a threat against our populations or our way of life, etc. But in the context of an overall climate of islamophobia (that I disapprove, but it does exist) here and in France, you try explaining that we are fighting in Cyrenaica for rebels whom we see screaming “Allah U Akbar”. This is contradictor!
At the political level, most parties support the intervention, even the parties of the left. The most moderate ones only supported the implementation of a no-fly zone, but if Gaddafi sends his tanks to Benghazi, what are we to do? During the Second World War, the Germans lost quite quickly control of air space but they held out for several years yet. Insofar as the objective is to overthrow Gaddafi, the moderates should have suspected that it would go even further than the establishment of a no-fly zone.
Unable to take genuine and alternative stands, the left finds itself trapped by the logic of humanitarian interference and is compelled to support Sarkozy. If the war goes well and quickly, the position of the French President will undoubtedly be secure for the 2012 presidential elections, thanks to the left which would have contributed to it. The left, unable to assume a coherent attitude against wars, is compelled to tag along behind the interventionist policy.
And what if the war does not go well?
It is regrettable, but the only French party that set against the intervention in Libya as regards French interests is the National Front. It particularly alluded to human migration flows and took occasion to distinguish itself from Sarkozy’s U.M.P (Union for a Popular Movement) or the S.P. (Socialist Party) by claiming that it had never collaborated with Gaddafi. If the war in Libya does not go according to plan, it will benefit the National Front for the French presidential elections in 2012.
If humanitarian interference is just an excuse, then what is the objective of this war?
The uprisings in the Arab world surprised the Westerners, which were not well informed enough about what was happening in North Africa and the Middle-East. I do not dispute that there are good experts on the issue, but they are seldom listened to at some level of the government, and by the way, they are complaining about it. So now, the new governments in Egypt and Tunisia might not align themselves with the interests of the West any longer, and consequently become hostile to Israel.
To take control of the area and protect Tel Aviv, the West is likely willing to get rid of governments that are already hostile to Israel and the West. The three main ones are Iran, Syria and Libya. The latter, since it is the weaker one, is attacked first.
Can it work ?
The West longed to rule the world but we can see since 2003 with the Iraq fiasco that it cannot. In the past, the United States took the liberty to overthrow rulers that it had brought to power, such as Ngô Dinh Diêm in South Vietnam in the 1960s. But nowadays, Washington cannot do that any longer. In Kosovo, the United States and Europe have to compromise with a Mafia-like regime. In Afghanistan, people say that Karzai is corrupt, but they have no other option. In Iraq, they also have to accept a government they are far from being fully pleased with.
The problem will certainly arise in Libya too. An Iraqi once told me : “In this part of the world, there are no liberals in the Western sense of the word, apart from a few rather isolated intellectuals.” Since the West cannot rely on rulers who share its ideas and who fully defend its interests, it tries to impose dictators through force. But it obviously creates a discrepancy with people’s desires.
Besides, this approach proves to be a failure and people should not be fooled by what is occurring.
The West, which thought it could be in control of the Arab world with puppets such as Ben Ali and Mubarak, would suddenly think : “We had it all wrong, now we are going to support democracy in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.”
Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium and is a member of the Brussels Tribunal.

Translated from the French by Sheila Carby for Investig’Action

Is It Palestine’s Turn?

From time immemorial, West Asian region has not failed to disappoint mankind with its major socio-political events. The current turmoil reaffirms the tradition and will leave profound impact to the region and the rest of the world. 

The end of Mubarak regime in Egypt following the successful Tunisian uprising will change the geo-political map of the region. The political map of the region is still very fluid as Libya and Yemen are trying to cope with domestic instability, while Syria, Jordan and several other countries are showing flash points of uncertain political movements. Contrary to what is being portrayed, the opportunistic involvement of Western powers under whatever pretext may be, will would not serve the real and long term interest of the uprising. 

The Palestinian too may take lesson from these happenings to realise that even an iron fist can only maintain its grip for so long. How long can atrocities last. The dua of the oppressed will soon be realised, inshaAllah.

Is It Palestine’s Turn?

Samer Araabi | Posted: April 05, 2011

As revolutions erupted across Tunisia and Egypt, one of the first questions that arose in the West was the effect of the newly-energized Arab democratic movements on the state of Israel. The Washington establishment has generally accepted the view — promoted by the likes of Dennis Ross and Elliott Abrams — that the uprisings were solely based on domestic concerns and had no relation whatsoever to Israel or the United States. However, other observers who carefully monitored the protestors have gleaned a strong and persistent anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian position throughout the regional upheavals. There can be no question that the Arab Spring will have a considerable impact on Israeli regional calculations, including the viability of the occupation.

While the ultimate impact of these developments will be difficult to determine for some time to come, one question in particular must be addressed to frame the potential long-term effects of the Arab revolutions on Middle East peace: what do these revolutions mean for Palestine? By and large, the effect on Israel is manifested mostly by the changing dynamic of its relationship to Palestinians, which formed the basis of Israeli policy toward its allied neighbor states of Jordan and Egypt, and its enmity to Syria. If the Arab revolutions empower Palestinians to build a mass movement for independence, and if the new Arab governments push Israel’s neighbors to play a more active role in the Palestinian struggle, then Israeli regional hegemony may well be significantly compromised.

The Revolution Comes Home

Palestinians are directly impacted by the recent regional upheaval in two important ways. The most widely discussed effect concerns the changing course of foreign policy adopted by newly installed governments in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as neighboring countries eager to placate their populaces. Arab populations have historically been significantly more disposed to help the Palestinian cause — and to reject normalization with Israel — than their leaders have been willing to oblige. But newly elected officials, suddenly accountable to their own constituencies, may well be forced to take a more pro-Palestinian approach, which could entail pushing for an end to the Gaza blockade, increasing aid, and advocating more regional pressure on Israel. As Israel loses allies in the region, it may lose important strategic leverage in solving its conflict with the Palestinians on its own terms.

Israel’s rightwing Likud-led government is understandably nervous — and, in contrast to many of its neoconservative allies in the United States — exceedingly wary of these democratic developments.[1] In a recent interview with Sky News, Defense Minister Ehud Barak tellingly remarked that “we should admit those moderate autocrats in the Arab world were extremely responsible regarding the peace process and stability and relationship with the West. … [Y]ou cannot expect the same responsibility and common sense from the public, the popular vote.”[2]

We have already begun to see a concerted shift in Arab foreign policy, particularly from Egypt. In February, hundreds of thousands of Egyptians chanted “today Egypt, tomorrow Palestine.”[3] Egypt’s new foreign minister has proclaimed that Egypt’s support of Israel’s Gaza policy is “incompatible with international humanitarian law,”[4] and in early March, an Israeli reporter in Cairo complained that no one would speak to her, telling her simply, “we don’t deal with the Zionist entity.”[5] Though these signs point clearly to a new Arab approach to the Israeli state, it carries great significance for the Palestinians as well.

The second and arguably more important effect of these uprisings is their impact on the Palestinians themselves. As MJ Rosenberg points out, “[Palestinians] are watching the revolutions with a combination of joy and humiliation. Other Arabs are freeing themselves from local tyrants while they remain under a foreign occupation that grows more onerous every day.”[6]

Many predicted that in the wake of the developments in Egypt and elsewhere, the Palestinian uprising would not be long in coming, and indeed, the week of March 14 was marked by massive protests in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[7] The target of their wrath was not simply Israel itself, but rather the collaborationist tendencies of the Palestinian Authority, and the disunited, fractured, and unrepresentative governments that ostensibly seek to “govern” the Palestinian people.[8] Though not directed primarily at Israel itself, the pressure on the Palestinian Authority may prove far more damaging in undermining Israel’s continued occupation.[9]

Egyptian Redux

As was the case with Mubarak, policymakers should be wary of assuming that Palestinian anger at their own government isn’t fundamentally tied to anger at the United States and Israel. Indeed, both the Egyptian regime and the Palestinian Authority are more the creations of American and Israeli policymakers than the products of their own ostensible constituents.[10]

Since its formation during the Oslo Accords, the PA has developed into a powerful quasi-state apparatus, built primarily under the tutelage and funding of western powers. Guided largely by the United States and Israel, the government under President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has rapidly increased construction and development in Ramallah, recruited and trained a highly effective security force, and courted significant foreign investment. The creation of this ersatz neo-liberal state was welcomed by a number of influential individuals and groups in the United States, including Jon Alterman of the Institute for Strategic and International Studies, Elliott Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Robert Satloff from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

In a recent workshop for freshmen members of Congress, Alterman was joined by Lt. General Keith Dayton, the U.S. official charged with training the PA security forces, for a panel discussion on “statebuilding and security” in the West Bank.[11] Both argued strongly for the strategic importance of building a “robust” Palestinian state apparatus as a precondition for peace with Israel.

This has been a common refrain in many Washington circles. David Pollock has repeatedly championed “enhancing the authority and effectiveness of the Palestinian Authority,”[12] while Martin Indyk recommended that the U.S. should focus on “Enhancing the PA's capabilities to enable its exercise of effective authority over all territories and factions under its control.”[13]

Although these goals appear reasonable, the emphasis on “control” and “authority” over goals such as “fairness” and “legitimacy” are telling. Cutting out the niceties and getting straight to the point, a recent WINEP report coauthored by J.D. Crouch II, Montgomery Meigs, and Walter Slocombe states: “The sine qua non of a durable peace agreement … remains the development of a Palestinian security system capable of not only enforcing law and order but combating terrorist networks and cells."[14]

The important factor for these analysts and organizations is not the establishment of a Palestinian state as such — which would of necessity include broad social provisions, checks and balances, transparency and accountability, and systems of representation and legitimacy — but rather the building of a highly capable internal Palestinian security apparatus that is capable of forcing the population to accept whatever peace agreement their government makes on their behalf.

The results thus far speak for themselves. The Palestinian economy has stagnated, the social conditions of most of the population have remained disastrously low, and the prospects for peace remain as distant as ever.[15] Meanwhile, the PA has become remarkably adept at stifling dissent and crushing any political opposition, complete with a security apparatus that boasts the staggering ratio of one police/security officer for every 80 Palestinians.[16] Since 2007, the PA security forces have arrested over 10,000 Hamas supporters, and have secured financing for 52 new prisons as security forces boast about having “more prisons than schools."[17]

A Third Intifadah?

The situation in the Palestinian territories would perhaps be less tragic if the PA were capable of negotiating a fair and comprehensive peace settlement that represented Palestinian national aspirations. However, the release of the Palestine Papers in January revealed what many Palestinians had long known: that Abbas and his team were willing to sacrifice almost everything — including, among others capitulations, sovereignty over Jerusalem, the right of return, and the elimination of settlements — in order to conclude the peace talks and stay in power.[18]

The Palestine Papers also affirmed that U.S. advisors under Keith Dayton were instrumental in training PA security officials in torture and interrogation, and have actively worked to purge Hamas sympathizers and other political opponents from the West Bank entirely.[19]

These revelations, combined with a newfound inspiration from their neighbors, spurred Palestinians to take to the streets, demanding an end to oppressive and divisive policies. In both the West Bank and Gaza, thousands called for a united government and a resumption of the electoral process, suspended since the elections of 2006 brought Hamas to power, precipitating violent takeovers of both the West Bank and Gaza by Fatah and Hamas respectively. Predictably, the governments of both territories responded to the peaceful demonstrations with the same violence and repression that have characterized the response of regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, and other countries in the region.[20]

Tensions have continued to worsen, especially in the wake of recent Israeli bombardments of both Gaza and the West Bank, which in turn sparked more recriminations, culminating in a bombing at a crowded Jerusalem bus stop. The characteristically disproportionate Israeli response led to further anger, and the situation currently appears to be spinning rapidly out of the control. Calls for a “Third Intifadah” have grown so loud that the Israeli government has officially petitioned Facebook to shut down the Facebook page organizing it.[21]

A number of prominent Israelis have joined the global call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against the Israeli occupation.[22] It is impossible to know where such calls for protest will lead, but the confluence of Israeli activism, Palestinian empowerment, and broader Arab sympathy could well imply that Palestine’s “Mubarak moment” may be very close at hand.

Lessons from Egypt

Though the protests currently raging in Palestine may have different objectives than those that toppled the Egyptian regime, the underlying causes of the two are remarkably similar. The Egyptians were fed up with repressive state tactics, an unrepresentative government, growing wealth inequality, and continued acquiescence to foreign diktats. And yet, even while Egyptians raged on the streets, western technocrats were busy building a parallel political structure in the West Bank, prioritizing a brutally efficient security system and concentrated foreign capital above political legitimacy and bottom-up development. In many ways, Mahmoud Abbas has been reduced to little more than a mini-Mubarak, holding the reigns of a long-discredited political base, propped up solely for the benefit of regional stability and commitment to peace with Israel.

The Palestinian people — and indeed the world at large — have begun to realize that even an iron fist can only maintain its grip for so long.  Long-term peace, security, and stability require the will and consent of the people. Though this may be significantly more difficult to engineer — and hardened students of realpolitik may balk at abstract notions of sovereignty, legitimacy, and popular will — recent developments have proven that there is little alternative. Popular consent may be a difficult objective, but its result is significantly more stable.

In her analysis of the Libyan coup d’étatin 1969, Ruth First notes that Arab regimes, unlike governments in other parts of the world, have no ownership outside of themselves.[23] They do not represent a distinct ethnicity, class, or political ideology; governments exist largely to serve and protect the government, and little else. Western powers have taken advantage of this self-interest to negotiate high-level stakes away from messy democratic processes. U.S. policy in Palestine — like U.S. policy in Egypt and the rest of the Arab world — has rested fundamentally on the proposition that we can beat, imprison, and intimidate people into accepting high-level decisions made on their behalf. The revolutions across the region have rendered this philosophy obsolete, and a new approach to the region is long overdue.

Samer Araabi is a contributor to Right Web and Foreign Policy in Focus.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/is_it_palestines_turn