- As written by Christopher Landau
Of the many conversations with leftist friends in recent weeks and months, many have focused on the extraordinary and developing situation in the Middle-East. The popular character of the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Morocco and Syria is undeniable and easy to 'support'. However in recent days I found a widespread assumption that the revolutionaries in Libya needed to be supported militarily - and by a U.S led military intervention if necessary. What surprised me most about this was not only the lack of historical knowledge of the region, but also an ignorance of the long and sordid history of Western interventions more generally. Instead a simple and reductive moral choice was offered to me. To paraphrase a recent interlocutor: 'if we [the west] don't intervene, there will be a massacre in Benghazi. Therefore we must intervene.’ However, if we do take a quick look at the history of Western Interventionism, it quickly becomes clear that 'intervene or be responsible for a massacre' is simply a false choice.
This is not a piece written to defend the Gaddafi regime, nor demean the noble and incredibly brave actions of the Libyan revolutionaries. But if people of the 'left' are using the same imperialist language as our leaders, it’s a cause for concern. An injection of history and scepticism into a debate light on facts and heavy on assumptions is therefore essential.
As I have written before on this blog, journalists tend not to be great readers of history, but it seems supposed leftists are just as guilty. Happy to regurgitate the same Imperialist bile used to justify previous disastrous interventions in Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan - without even a cursory glance at the history of lies, duplicity and of course - Empire - that has directly led to over half a century of chaos, bloodshed and dictatorship in the Middle-East.
Thus I claim that any 'conclusions' reached by the assorted ranks of armchair generals, lining up so bravely to sacrifice the lives of other peoples children - are not only ignorant but immoral. To base a prescription for intervention solely on the recent corporate press coverage of Libya is sheer folly. Advocating war based on emotion, assumptions and leftist dogma is no way to approach a decision with potentially severe ramifications for the people of Libya. If we allow the political, media and intellectual elites to bang the drum for war yet again, free of critical challenge -I fear the left is well and truly dead.
Of course it goes without saying that the motivations, methods and ideologies of the revolutionary movements exploding across the Arab world are diverse and distinct. However, in a Newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman last week, Noam Chomsky emphasised repeatedly that: 'Libya is a special case', later adding: 'it is a civil war'. According to Chomsky there are many comparative examples to the events transpiring in Libya, where according to: ‘a standard game plan that they've used over and over, Marcos in the Philippines, Duvalier in Haiti, Chun in South Korea, Suharto in Indonesia -there comes a point when you cannot support your favourite dictator any longer.’ He later adds: ‘The same thing happens every time; support them as long as possible, when the judgment is it cannot be done anymore... come out with ringing declarations about love of democracy and how you're on the side of the people'
The bravery and doggedness of the Libyan revolutionaries efforts to overthrow Gaddafi have been met with appalling brutality; ranging from 'shoot-to-kill' policies to the indiscriminate use of artillery and snipers against unarmed civilians. Into its fourth week the Libyan uprising was reaching a critical point. With Gaddafi's armour massed on the outskirts of Benghazi and other rebel held towns, a massacre looked imminent (although on what scale will never be known). The Arab league and some Libyan opposition leaders called tentatively for a severely limited U.N backed intervention in the form of a no fly zone; this request was put before the U.N; and resolution 1973 shortly followed. The appearance of foreign warplanes over Tripoli and Benghazi within hours was greeted with thunderous cheers and shouts of 'Merci Sarkozy!' by rebel forces; and as the first night of bombing obliterated Gaddafi's aging fleet of Russian tanks, morale increased exponentially. However, this rosy picture is far from complete.
The forgotten mistakes of the past metamorphose before our eyes into bitter ironies - ironies that one might think a descending horde of journalists would be interested in. Thus my first objection to this intervention (and certainly the weakest) is the sheer hypocrisy of it all. What motivates the revolutionaries of Libya today are the same demands for equality, democracy and justice that motivated the revolutionaries of the 1969 ‘Green’ revolution that installed Gaddafi in the first place - on a wave of popular support I might add. It is the degeneration of the 69 revolution into the inevitable crony capitalism of dictatorship, that brings us here to the 2011 revolution - as the same greedy and powerful Western interests that first attacked (killing his adopted daughter) and then supported the Gaddafi regime are now free to destroy him – whilst one assumes - leftists cross their fingers very tightly and hope for the best.
Two, more serious objections to the events taking place in Libya are the historical record of Western intervention and the vested interests of the states involved. This view is shared by Asli Ü. Bâli, professor of law at UCLA who noted in Aljazeera yesterday that: 'The desire to act in solidarity with the Libyan people demands that we assess the available options against the core principle of legitimacy that any intervention must satisfy: Do no harm (that is, do not do more harm on balance by intervening).' Bâli argues that the likelihood of a 'coercive' intervention satisfying this principle is: 'severely constrained when evaluated against the historical record, logistical realities, and the incentives and interests of the states in a position to serve as the would-be external interveners'.
The Historical Record
As per the Washington Consensus, launching supposedly altruistic and humanist missions of peace and liberation in order to conceal wars of conquest and exploitation is nothing new. Of course we can never know the true motivations of the political classes in any specific case, but what we can know is that the plight of the Libyan people is always going to be low down their list of priorities – secondary always to protection of petroleum reserves, continued ‘stability’ and the interests of the domestic (i.e. Western) population – in that order.
There are two recent examples of ‘no fly zones’ in action, though it seems politicians are loathe to discuss the details. A fact evidenced in Prime minister’s questions yesterday when Ming Campbell [former leader of the Lib Dems] stood up to praise Cameron’s ‘necessary and moral’ actions, with an unchallenged reference to the ‘successful’ Bosnian intervention that he claimed was an example of a 'successful no fly zone that saved thousands of lives'. This is a gross misreading of history; when we look at the facts rather than the rhetoric we see that not only did the most savage and brutal atrocities on Bosnia occur after the NATO bombing and imposition of the no fly zone, many atrocities were motivated by the widespread civilian casualties inflicted by NATO in the first place.
The second, more relevant example of a failed no-fly zone was imposed on Iraq for almost 12 years (1992 – 2003). The main objective in Iraq was much the same as in Libya; the destruction of a brutal dictators ability to use air power to achieve his goals in suppressing domestic dissent (In Iraq this meant Kurdish forces in the North, Shia groups in the South). Unfortunately for the Kurdish resistance fighters and Shia militia- men, a no fly zone is pretty much useless when your enemy can still muster significant ground forces. These brave fighters who, like their Libyan counterparts, welcomed Western intervention with open arms – died in their droves, buried to this day in unmarked mass graves. Further still, the no-fly zone served as a predicate for the subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq: 'insofar as the ongoing use of this coercive measure against the regime from 1991 until 2003 was cited in support of the argument that there was "implied authorisation" to forcibly topple the regime.'(3)
If we want to move beyond a no-fly zone however (which looks increasingly certain as Gaddafi and his now polarised forces entrench themselves deeper into the population centres of Tripoli)the moral hazard increases. Put simply - coercive external intervention to alter the balance of power on the ground in Libya in favour of the anti-Gaddafi revolt is likely to backfire badly.
Of course we must remember that the costs of this intervention are borne not by those who call for it here, but by the Libyan people with whom we hope to show solidarity. Embracing the Libyan call for solidarity thus demands of us a realistic understanding and analysis of the interventionist option - exactly because the attendant risks will be borne by Libyan civilians.
Vested interests
At no time has a well informed debate on this subject been needed more urgently. Yet in the media and the house of commons yesterday there was widespread consensus. At a time of ideological crisis for advocates of the Washington Consensus , the Neo-Liberal project and indeed NATO itself, we cannot underestimate the hubris of the political class. I would not be surprised in the least to learn that many pledges of support from Western leaders were motivated more by the opportunity to resurrect a useful narrative than a concern for Libyan civilians.
Whilst the questionable motives of the intervening countries does not necessarily invalidate intervention, it should remind us that the fluffy rhetoric heard in recent days is just that. It also remains far from clear what kind of regime will emerge to fill the political and bureaucratic vacuum (police states tend to be heavy on bureaucracy) left once/if Gaddaffi is removed - again if history tells us anything -temper your optimism.
There is probably no need to repeat any more history here since the failure of such past interventions to advance the humanitarian welfare or political aspirations of local populations is well-established. But bizarrely intervention is being touted in leftist circles as not only the obvious solution but the only one. I haven’t even heard one mention of the possibility of using AU (African Union) and AL (Arab League) forces to intervene instead.
To quote Bâli again: ‘While humanitarian considerations are often invoked in defense of intervention, humanitarianism is far from the only issue on the table. Other reasons that have been adduced in favour of intervention in Libya include vindicating international norms, re-establishing the leadership of the US in the region, preventing spill-over of the refugee crisis into Europe, and the stabilisation of world oil markets. The Libyan people are struggling to change their regime on their own terms and there is no reason to presume an overlap between these various logics of intervention and their interests.’
The historical record demonstrates clearly that any notion of an external intervention based on mixed motives - even when accompanied with the usual claims of humanitarianism – places the strategic and economic interests of the interveners first: ‘Indeed, the discord currently evidenced among Western powers concerning intervention in Libya is precisely based in their doubts as to whether their strategic interests are adequately served by such a course.’
'In the final analysis, if we are to support an external intervention in Libya it requires that the motives of those executing the policy are clearly aligned with the interests of Libyan civilians.' This is clearly not the case. Thus it seems probable that more bloodshed, not less, will result. Some of the responsibility for this must lie with those so happy to advocate intervention from the comfort of their own living rooms. As the bombing enters it's fourth night, spare a thought for the Libyan people, most of whom don't call themselves revolutionaries, as they must now endure not only 'shock and awe', but a far from certain future.
In that same Newnight interview with Paxman, when asked about the prospects of western military intervention in Libya, Chomsky replied simply: 'you've got to remember, the West is hated for good reason'. C
Bibliography
(1) If you’re interested in Bosnia I recommend you read Robert Fisk’s ‘The Great War for Civilisation’ (his dispatches from Sarajevo are award winning)and Noam Chomsky’s ‘The New Military Humanism’(Where not only does he examine the Western PR campaign to re-write the history of the Bosnian intervention - and demonstrate the hawkish position adopted by a certain Mr A. Blair - in a review of the Dayton Accords explains how, in the appendices of these agreements, American military officials wrote the Constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina themselves, and how, with no popular base, this Constitution imposed a colonial government by handing the reins of the economy over to the West)
(2) Chomsky interview part one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oMslFIYaVk
(3) http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132093458329910.html
