Friday, April 01, 2011

Libyan Interim Government – Agents of Imperialism

Written by Fred Weston
Friday, 01 April 2011


USS Bataan sailors and marines prepare for action in Libya. US Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Erin Lea Boyce

What started as a genuine revolution against Gaddafi, has been taken over by reactionary bourgeois elements. In the Interim Council, and now the newly formed Interim Government, direct representatives of imperialist interests have been promoted to leading positions.

Read the rest here



RENEGADE EYE

22 comments:

sonia said...

What started as a genuine revolution against Gaddafi, has been taken over by reactionary bourgeois elements.

I assume that in Fred Weston's twisted mind, a "genuine revolution" means a leftist, Marxist and socialist revolution.

There was never any indiations that the counter-revolution to overthrow Gadhafi's leftist, Marxist and socialist revolutionary dictatorship was either leftist or Marxist or socialist.

Leftist, Marxist and socialist revolutionaries usually wave red flags (with hammers, sickles, and other dangerous objects, like in case of Mozambique, an AK-47). People waving old flags of Libyan monarchy don't deserve to be smeared with a name of "revolutionary", tarnished by such mass-murderers as Robespierre, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot. Instead, they deserve to be called by the noble name of "counter-revolutionary", like the Chouans, Charlotte Corday, Fannie Kaplan, Denikin, Wrangel, Savinkov, Polish Solidarity movement, Chang Kai-Chek and other great heroes.

The Pagan Temple said...

Sonia-Just so you know, in case you really somehow don't, Washington and the Federalists hated Robespierre. It was Jefferson and the Anti-Federalist (precursors of the modern Demoncrap Party) who were his admirers. You unfairly paint all American revolutionaries with the same broad brush.

Leave Qaddafi the fuck alone. He dismantled his nuclear programs, he promised support in the war against terror, etc. Obama, Clinton, and McCain are trying to reshape the Middle East in an image that has no chance of existing, let alone succeeding.

Leave Arabs with the dictators they deserve. If they had their own druthers, that's what they'd have anyway, only they'd be clerical dictators as opposed to the relatively benign secular ones who at least don't kill women for showing their ankles.

Stop being stupid.

Jack Crow said...

RE,

I wonder if the latest information suggests Western collusion from the start. I don't entirely trust it, since it's getting play in various corporate news outlets. But, it could just be that we're at the point where the Obama Administration just doesn't care what the public does or does not think.

On a personal note, I don't accept that every uprising is automatically revolutionary. Or that all elements of it can or ought to be considered as such.

[You sure do seem to attract the most reactionary and regressive commentariat. Is your karma good? :)]

Renegade Eye said...

Sonia: The Libyan opposition discouraged youth and workers.

The revolution question is more than socialism. Egypt and Tunisia provided a model that could have won, but was discouraged. Going into military mode is a losing strategy.

FW doesn't support Gaddafy. Nobody called for his victory.

Pagan: Your position is the US position. They are for stability, not regime change.

Jack: I go by Trotsky's definition of a revolution. A revolution doesn't always win, or always progressive.

I think imperialism is reacting to events, not causing them. The US is getting whipped in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I must have some responsibility for rightists at my blog. I do like to see feedback.

I don't care who comments, as long as they don't troll.

sonia said...

JC,

You sure do seem to attract the most reactionary and regressive commentariat

Ren and I agree almost 100% about what is happening in the World, we just choose opposite sides. We both predicted back in 2008 that Obama would continue Bush's policies. And that's why I supported Obama and Ren opposed him.

Needless to say, for me, "reactionary" and "regressive" are wonderful compliments.

Pagan,

Leave Arabs with the dictators they deserve.

That had been US policy until George W. Bush and it ended rather disastrously on September 11...

Ren,

Going into military mode is a losing strategy.

In Libya, the rebels had no choice. Peaceful protesters were machine-gunned by the thousands.

The Sentinel said...

Renegade Eye:

“Your position is the US position. They are for stability, not regime change.”

Clinton wants to arm the ‘rebels.’

Sonia:

“Peaceful protesters were machine-gunned by the thousands”

I despise Gadhafi, but that is just spoon feed media propaganda.

These people were never ‘peaceful’ protesters, but well armed insurgents, drawing heavily from the pool of East Libyans who trekked to Iraq and Afghanistan to murder and maim British and American soldiers – and plenty of foreign Jihadists amongst them too.

In fact so many, that even NATO has been forced to admit their presence, but mollify the numbers – this is a dangerous, expensive folly: Far from protecting civilian lives, these air strikes are taking lots of them, but then it was never about that in the first place. It is so transparent all it really serves to do is educate the remaining sheeple in the duplicitous, hypocritical ways of the western ‘leaders.’

A no-fly zone turns into attacking tanks and troops from one side and now into arming rebels and maybe even an intervention force. I love Clinton’s line about ‘we interpret’ resolution 1973 to mean that they can arm insurgents! In fact all of it is all against the UN charter, as they are not permitted to side in a civil war. Again, all of this illegal.

Out of interest though, how do you think the ‘west’ would react to ‘protests’ of this nature?

Assuming of course, anyone would be allowed to protest anywhere near the seat of government; in the UK for instance, protest is banned to 1km away from parliament.

In fact, you can see for yourself just how the British police deal with peaceful, middle class countryside protesters:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1170404/ROBERT-HARDMAN-Why-Left-silent-riot-squads-inflicted-terrible-injuries-peaceful-country-folk-2004.html

sonia said...

Sentinel,

Out of interest though, how do you think the ‘west’ would react to ‘protests’ of this nature?

Apples and oranges. Gadhafi was never elected, so the question is moot.

Being elected gives you a mandate to deal with protesters. If protests are violent, you have a mandate to deal with them violently (like France did with Arab protesters in France in 1961).

If you are not elected, you have no mandate to pass traffic-control laws, much less deal with protesters, violent or otherwise.

I despise Gadhafi

I would never guess that from your comment. In fact, this is the second-most pro-Gadhafi comment I have ever seen (after Hugo Chavez's)...

The Sentinel said...

Sonia:

“Apples and oranges. Gadhafi was never elected, so the question is moot.”

Libya has never had democracy, and neither have any of the other Arab states in any reality, so I think your point is moot really.

And given that Cameron only gained 36.1% of the vote in the General Election, the majority of the British people didn’t elect him either – not very democratic after all.

“Being elected gives you a mandate to deal with protesters … If protests are violent, you have a mandate to deal with them violently”

Not really, and never in the case of non-violent protests. People dont have the right to protest?

And the protesters who had their heads smashed open by the Met Police in those photos were all peaceful, middle-class, country dwelling folks. Was that OK?

It actually broke laws passed in a supposedly democratic parliament Sonia, but not one of these laws were enforced in respect of these state agents – again not very democratic or lawful after all.

So basically what you are saying is that if Gadhafi was elected, he could have done whatever he wanted in your eyes. It would be have been fine?

Hitler was elected too.

“If you are not elected, you have no mandate to pass traffic-control laws”

Except if you don’t want democracy maybe. Should democracy be imposed upon states that have no inclination towards it?

Out of interest Sonia, considering democracy has only been around for a relatively short time in human history, are you saying that all regimes and laws prior to democracy were illegitimate? If so, based upon what mandate?

“I would never guess that from your comment … In fact, this is the second-most pro-Gadhafi comment I have ever seen”

A few posts back I listed why I despised Gadhafi, and it amounts to the fact that unlike pretty much every bloodthirsty commentator I have ever read, I have direct experience not only of the actual realties of war but also I also have direct experience of Gadhafi’s malicious provisioning of terrorists having been on the business end of Libyan supplied IRA weapons and PE.

I couldn’t give a toss about Gadhafi and I hope he gets what’s coming.

What I care about is the truth being trampled over; more international laws being breached (why bother to have them?) and moreover more British lives being risked for this low life piece of filth in a yet another duplicitous, propaganda-laden illegal conflict that is likely to only help the very people shooting and bombing British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan in the recent past – and their supporters.

And you know how the British government shows it appreciates their risks? By making redundant some of the service people involved in this action over the next two months.

This civil war has no British interest; it should have no British service personnel involved. It breaches the military covenant – and that is why they always use the banner of outside agencies such as the UN and NATO to bypass it.

sonia said...

Sentinel,

what you are saying is that if Gadhafi was elected, he could have done whatever he wanted in your eyes. It would be have been fine?

Your question is a perfect non sequitur, like asking "what you are saying is that if Gadhafi was a vegetarian, he could have eaten meat. It would be have been fine? Hitler was elected too. "

I don't think you fully understand what "being elected" actually means. Most of Gadhafi's crimes were committed against political rivals and opponents inside Libya. If there was democracy in Libya, Gadhafi couldn't have committed those crimes.

Out of interest Sonia, considering democracy has only been around for a relatively short time in human history, are you saying that all regimes and laws prior to democracy were illegitimate? If so, based upon what mandate?,

Morally, the difference between an unelected dictator firing on protesters and an elected leader fring on protestes, is exactly like the difference between a murderer killing a person and a executioner carrying a death sentence on a legally convicted felon.

The Pagan Temple said...

That depends on the nature of the protesters and what and why they are protesting. For example, people wanting to be free from the tyranny of an insane, inbred monarch would be perfectly within their rights to use force to try to achieve their freedom. A group of ignorant seventh century savages have no right to complain about a set of circumstances they themselves would in all probability gladly impose on others.

Renegade Eye said...

Sonia: The Libyan Interim Council doesn't want to change the economy or change from Gaddafy's relationship with imperialism. In effect you are supporting Gaddafy's policies without Gaddafy.

They isolated the revolutionaries. They moved from revolution to a useless civil war.

Sentinel: Clinton is more vocal in support of that clique. For the most part they are led by ex-Gaddafy bureaucrats.

I'm sure there is more political freedom in the UK, than Libya. This backward leadership comes from no civil society as political parties.

Overall I disagree with the extreme left and right, who think the US and NATO are doing much more than improvising. This war is senseless.

Pagan: You're embarrassing yourself.

sonia said...

Ren,

Gaddafy's relationship with imperialism. In effect you are supporting Gaddafy's policies without Gaddafy.

Gadhafi's policies were progressive enough to impress Hugo Chavez.

And as for Khadafi's relationship with "imperialism", it was "progressive" enough to provoke Ronald Reagan to bomb his sorry ass. Enough said.

You might also ask Switzerland about Khadafi's policies and relationships with "imperialism". After his son was arrested in Switzerland for beating his servants, Kadhafi pratically declared war on Switzerland and imprisoned Swiss businessmen stupid enough to set foot in Libya.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some kabal of Zurich bankers weren't behind arming the rebels.

sonia said...

Ren,

They isolated the revolutionaries.

And one more thing. Can you identify (by name) a single "revolutionary" that is being "isolated" by rebels in Libya ? There is lots of rivalries among various rebel factions, like between Haftar and Younis. Haftar is being sidelined right now, but is it because he is a "revolutionary" ? Haftar has been living in United States since 1988. His home was located five miles from Langley, Virginia.

In his article, Fred Weston identifies plenty of "counter-revolutionaries" by name. But he doesn't name a single "genuine revolutionary" (isolated or not). Maybe it's because the only "genuine revolutionary" in Libya is Kadhafi himself....

The Pagan Temple said...

Oh well, in that case, the American Revolutionaries were actually counter-revolutionaries, and King George was the revolutionary, because he illegally imposed taxation without representation.

I know now what people mean when they talk about word salad.

Renegade Eye said...

I'll reply later today.

sonia said...

Pagan,

taxation without representation.

Under King George III, the taxes were MUCH lower than under King Barack or King George W...

You fought your revolution to pay higher taxes.

The Pagan Temple said...

No, we fought our revolution so we'd have a say on how much tax we paid, and what we paid them for. That's what we were entitled to under the laws of the British Commonwealth, but King George disregarded the law and parliamentary procedure and imposed the tax anyway. The amount of tax was a secondary consideration.

The founding fathers were well within their legal, moral, and ethical rights to rebel. We did. We won. You'd better be glad we did. At any rate, get over it.

Renegade Eye said...

I don't know any revolutionary by name.

Libya's uprising started as Tunisia and Egypt, with similar demands.

Gaddafy's level of violence against protesters, was similar to the level of Bahrain and Yemen.

According to news reports, Gaddafy is now gaining ground.

The US has insisted on not leading it, and is trying to phase itself out. Goals are not stated, because there is none.

I differ with most of the left and right. They think the US is omnipotent, and acts according to great plans. I think this is pure improv.

sonia said...

Ren,

I don't know any revolutionary by name.

Then how can you be sure that they are "genuine" revolutionaries (and not "counter-revolutionaries") and that they are are being "isolated" by the rebel government ?

They think the US is omnipotent, and acts according to great plans. I think this is pure improv.

Nobody is omnipotent and, in politics, everybody is always improvising (including your revolutionaries, "genuine" or otherwise)...

Renegade Eye said...

Sonia: In the US, both the extreme left and right, believe in American exceptionalism. They both accept that the US has strategies, dealing with problems for decades to come.

I don't think there are many Leninists or monarchists in Libya.

Ross Wolfe said...

It's obvious that the forces of imperialism have mobilized in Libya, looking how to best exploit the current situation. If the Libyan uprising would have succeeded itself, it would not have to appeal to the U.S., or the European states.

This is the point at which the revolutionary aspect of the uprising degenerated into civil war, as the article said. It opened the door to international interventionism on the side of the rebels, such that these forces would be heavily indebted to the imperialist forces that gave them aid on their behalf. Any "autonomy" acquired by such means in a post-Gaddafi regime would thus be illusory.

However, with all that said, I still would not mind seeing Gaddafi go down in flames at the hands of the imperialist-backed rebels. It really depends on the outcome. I would prefer to see a quasi-bourgeois parliamentary democracy propped up by imperialist forces than a continuation of the brutal dictatorship the Libyans suffered under Gaddafi. Lenin wrote that imperialism is often more progressive than the governments in place in the more backward regions of the world.

I'm not encouraging any stagist view of history like the Mensheviks, whereby a country must go through a phase of bourgeois liberal democracy before attaining to socialism. "Stages" can be leaped, of course. But it is only advisable to make the leap directly into socialism if there is the prospect of it igniting revolution in the most advanced capitalist countries, i.e. Europe and North America. Since we are not living in a revolutionary moment in the first world, I would be pleased with simply a secular, non-militarist democracy emerging from the Libyan situation, whether it's aided by imperialist forces or not.

The Pagan Temple said...

The left does not believe in American exceptionalism, its anathema to them.