NATO’s colonial assault and the complacency of the international ‘left’
By Dr. Chris Harris and Kabir Joshi-Vijayan
Canada, the US, France and Great Britain have nearly succeeded in establishing permanent regime change in Libya; using local proxies, a campaign of economic strangulation and outright terrorism in the form of tens of thousands of NATO missiles. And they have been able to effectively pass off this violent and criminal agenda as a humanitarian mission. The widespread demonstrations, actions and organizations that formed around the world to oppose the invasion/occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s have been non-existent in the Libyan context. Even more disturbingly, many progressive forces have gone so far as to celebrate the overthrow of Qaddafi as some kind of revolution, parroting the corporate media in proclaiming it the latest victory in the “Arab Spring” of popular uprisings. An examination of Libya’s history and the details of this conflict reveal a very different reality – one that would demand an unwavering opposition to this latest colonial scheme.
On Sep 1, 1969, Qaddafi overthrew the monarchy of King Idris and brought in a popular regime that dramatically improved the living standards of the Libyan people by providing universal health care, education, employment and advancing the struggle for women’s equality. The country’s parasitic ties with Italy, Britain, and France were severed and instead mutual links of solidarity were extended south to other African nations. Today, Libyan women are the highest educated female population in the African and Arab world. And in this Muslim nation, women enjoy equalized social freedoms and choices denied to women in the U.S.-backed kingdoms in the Middle East. Prior to NATO’s assault Libyans had the highest life expectancy in Africa, and the second highest literacy rates at 89% (second only to imperialism’s other major obstacle in the region: Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.) Libya was also one of the only places in the developing world that avoided the sharp increase in food prices – a spark for the rebellions in Egypt and Tunisia last February. This is not to deny that systemic corruption and repression of dissent occurred under Qaddafi, or that Libya essentially remained a capitalist state with a gap between the rich and poor and other inequalities. While in the 1970s and ‘80s Qaddafi was defending revolutionary/anti-imperialist movements throughout the world, by 2003 the “Great Socialist Republic” had become an active collaborator in Bush’s war of terror. The aforementioned statistics however demonstrated an ongoing level of self-determination that was intolerable for the Western imperialists. Qaddafi’s leadership in the African Union allowed him to promote this autonomy and break from US and European domination throughout the continent. His vision of a United States of Africa, including establishing three Pan-African Banks and the creation of a single currency, is seen by many as a leading cause for NATO’s ongoing aggression.
On July 1st, 2011 over 1 million Libyan women, men, and children demonstrated in support of Qaddafi at Tripoli’s Green Square. In contrast, on August 21, 2011 a few thousand counter-revolutionary rebels celebrated the defeat of the Qaddafi regime in the same location they renamed “Martyr’s Square” to declare the victory of their “Revolution.” These rebels only reached the capital after a murderous weekend of NATO bombs to pave the way to Tripoli. In addition the country was suffocated by the freezing of $150 billion of Libya’s foreign assets and broad economic sanctions. On route, rebel forces of the “National Transitional Council” looted, burned and conducted summary executions of suspected Qaddafi loyalists. Since their establishment in the capital, countless reports have documented residents in constant fear of being rounded up for any public criticisms of the new regime. Most disturbingly, dark skinned Libyans and African migrant workers have been systemically lynched and tortured by the rebels, who have knowingly encouraged false rumors that they were used as mercenaries by Qaddafi. Nearly half of those now interned in Tripoli by the NTC are black.
Qaddafi’s forces were themselves responsible for atrocities throughout this conflict; including openly firing on unarmed demonstrators in eastern cities like Benghazi and Al Byda- actions that helped the rebels amass forces, and the west justify its intervention. However, when it came down to it the majority of Libyans seemed to side with Qaddafi when faced with the NATO-backed NTC. Some have also pointed to the fact that the free arms and basic weapons training that were offered in post-secondary education and other public institutions under the Qaddafi regime equipped the people with the skills to overthrow their regime far better than most other regimes in the region. Over a million Kalashnikovs were distributed by the former government in July in anticipation of the rebel’s assault on Tripoli. If there was a wide-spread will to rise up against a “hated dictator” no one could deny that Qaddafi had at least in some way given Libyans a means to do so. More importantly though, regardless of what kind of government was in place in Libya- we need to make it clear that Canada, or any other NATO member, has no right to selectively impose regime change on a country that stands in the way of its economic and geopolitical interests. The myth of the humanitarian intervention or “Responsibility to Protect” is nothing but a fig-leaf for outright predatory imperialism; one that has not only been deployed against actual popular governments (such as the U.S.-backed overthrow of the democratically elected Aristide government of Haiti in 2004), but establishes regimes and situations far worse and chaotic than their predecessors, (anyone remember the Taliban?) The fact that the occupation of Libya was accomplished under the “humanitarian mission” banner sets a dangerous precedent. The U.S. and E.U. are already making moves to repeat the operation in Syria, and nations like Venezuela and Bolivia have long been scoped out for this type of intervention.
The intervention also comes as the US, Canada and the EU attempt to, by any means, consolidate their domination of the African continent in response to the increasing influence of China. The ongoing genocide in the Congo, the recent “civil war” in Ivory Coast, plans for AFRICOM and military treaties between NATO and the African Union are all part of this; whereas Qaddafi’s vision of a politically and economically independent, unified Africa stood in sharp contrast to the American vision of Western imperialist domination.
Anti-imperialist forces and people’s movements in Canada must stand in complete opposition to the ongoing NATO bombing of Libya (extended for two weeks as of the writing of this article), and the puppet regime it has put in power. Qaddafi ‘loyalists’ retain control over several southern cities, and sporadic resistance to the NTC continues throughout the country. Meanwhile, the colonial vultures now descend to reap the benefits of the 7 months of carnage. Upon the re-opening of the US embassy, Obama’s new representative to the country spoke openly about accessing Libya’s vast oil wealth and bringing in American corporations as fast as possible. The World Bank has been invited to look into repairing and restoring the infrastructure destroyed by the NATO air strikes- many of which were formerly public institutions now most likely going to be privatized. The IMF, meanwhile, is slated to conduct budget preparation for the new regime, preparing Libya for the shackles of international debt, this in a nation that was itself investing tens of billions into other countries under the Qaddafi regime.
And all this, we are told, amounts to the Libyan “revolution”.
Related posts:
