Libya And The Varieties Of Anti-Imperialism

toni solo

Everything comes in varieties. The colonial aggression against Libya by the blow-insurrection by renegade contract sponsored by the governments of NATO has put many things clear. Above all, we must highlight the strong resistance of the Libyan Jamahiriya and international solidarity that has awakened against the barbarism of NATO and its creature, the CNT failed.

Within that international solidarity is a range of positions. These run from the emphatic support to the Libyan leadership and Muammar Al Ghaddafi to the determined insistence on a negotiated peace for all and all Libyans. The principles underpinning this block of international solidarity are enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, non-aggression and self-determination of peoples.

This block is an international network of solidarity with the Libyan people against their attackers. It recognizes the puppets of NATO, the CNT. Opposed to this block is the group consisting of all countries to recognize the NTC at the UN in September, and even some who did not, for example, Saudi Arabia. This block consists of the left view otanista.

But it is not only the NATO countries and their regional allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, but also decidedly anti-imperialist governments in countries like Iran, Syria and Lebanon. This clarifies that there are varieties of anti-imperialism based opportunistic realpolitik. These are positions that serve to justify collaboration with the destruction of a sister with dark, Machiavellian purposes.

And it is not only the recognition of the NTC that these imperialist governments have in common with their enemies, the NATO governments. The means associated with these states, eg IRNA Iran or Al-Manar in Lebanon, used the same terminology as the means of NATO and Gulf allies in their psychological warfare against Libya. It is instructive to read the media to get an idea of ​​what they can certain varieties of anti-imperialism.

The Syrian government’s position is less cynical than Iran and Lebanon. At least recognizes the principle of non-aggression, “In response to a question about the position of Syria during the Arab League meeting about the situation in Libya, the minister noted that from the beginning Syria rejects foreign military intervention in the countries of the region, and that does not mean that this position is in favor of one party against the other, but our experience with military intervention is negative, bitter and dangerous, giving the example of Iraq, Sudan, Lebanon and Gaza. “Sana, 16 March 2011 ( http://208.43.232.81/print.html?sid=336923&newlang=spa ). However, in September, Syria recognized the NTC as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people in the UN.

Instead, the Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour Lebanon, the dominant bloc in the Lebanese government led by Hezbollah, has participated in the NATO-sponsored meetings to share the spoils of the Libyan people and support the puppet government of CNT. Hezbollah apologists try to hide their complicity in this outrage. As if the organization can topple the government of Saad Hariri and restrain its military strength with any challenge of his political enemies were not the decisive force in the coalition led by the current Prime Minister Matiki. Adnan Mansur addition, Amal, is a close associate of Hezbollah.

For its part, the government of Iran supports the NTC positively. It is absurd to argue that Iranian support for CNT is due to Iran’s support for a social revolution in Libya. It has been clear from the start of the conflict in Libya that a majority of the Libyan people support their Libyan. And it is obvious that the CNT depends on NATO to prevail in some of Libyan territory has mastered. The CNT can not control Tripoli and faces fierce opposition from the Libyan forces in cities where supposedly has more support, Benghazi and Misrata.

Iran and Lebanon actively supporting an illegitimate regime that depends on NATO to survive. It is a clearly racist regime guilty of countless crimes against humanity inflicted on his own people. However, Hezbollah and Iran apologists try to argue that those who criticize those countries for their support to make a mistake CNT geopolitical analysis. This argument suggests that NATO is irrelevant and that is the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran really is in the foreground.

This type of approach is both provocative, original and awkward. It makes no sense to look at a diverse country like Libya and North African basis of the contradictions of the Arab world and Iran regarding eg Palestine, Bahrain and Yemen. Possible short-term benefits are not going to protect Iran and its regional allies in the aftermath of concrete have set a precedent in Libya for the “responsibility to protect” as a pretext for imperialist military aggression and denial of the right of peoples to self-determination.

Only a variety of anti-imperialism based cynical realpolitik could recognize a child as the legitimate government of NATO as well endorse the CNT and the military invasion of a sovereign country by foreign troops from different countries. Moreover, Hezbollah’s media and Iran used the same terminology as the corporate media of NATO. They speak respectfully of CNT as “provisional government” or “interim government”. They speak of “fugitive” Gaddafi. They speak of “support” from NATO to CNT when they receive their orders from NATO governments, when their military forces are armed and led by NATO and its allies.

The media silence Hezbollah and Iran published in European languages ​​are also the same or worse than those of NATO assets. Callan on lynchings and pogroms of CNT against black skinned people in Libya. Callan on rape, murder and torture committed by wholesale renegades of CNT.

Callan genocidal attacks on Sirte and Bani Walid. Do not mention the war crimes, schools and hospitals destroyed by NATO and the renegades. Callan when the renegade Mustafa Abdul Jalil said that the country was better under Italian colonialism since the 1969 revolution.
http://www.agi.it/in-primo-piano/notizie/201110081814-ipp-rt10070-libia_

Such Machiavellian cynicism is not surprising. It is typical of the drift towards the realpolitik of many governments and movements opposed to the historic imperialist powers. On Libya, those governments and movements have failed to uphold the principles of non-aggression and self-determination of peoples – fundamentals achieved following the sacrifice of countless millions of people in history, from colonial times to today open. Now, too late, China, Russia, Iran and its allies try to defend those principles with respect to Syria.

What is surprising is the ease with which the anti-imperialist realpolitik adopt a language almost identical to that of their enemies and oppressors. They speak of the “dictatorship” of Muammar Al Ghaddafi. Clearly referring to the suppression of threats to the state, torture, political prisoners, a lack of political participation and the rule of a small elite. These are the characteristics of a dictatorship. Now, let’s see:

As opposed to other Western Bloc countries, Libya has been the target of terrorist actions from the 1969 revolution until the coup-contract insurrection February 2011. Authorities’ response to this threat has been identical to the UK’s response to the threat of the IRA, the government of Spain to the ETA, the MLK Iran among others, and Hezbollah threats to their integrity as organization. The Libyan government measures against threats to the Libyan state have been mild compared to what has been implemented in the United States.

It is ridiculous to describe Libya as a dictatorship based on the response of the authorities to the threats to the state. It is even more ridiculous describe Libya as a dictatorship in contrast to the false Western democracy. If it comes to political pluralism, will be difficult to find a closed political system, which offers less serious options to their populations than those prevailing in the United States or Europe.

All political parties able to generate the money required to participate in elections advocate corporate consumer capitalism with different nuances. There are no other viable options. Experiences like those of the Greens in Germany or Ireland, to give just two examples confirm this truth. The reality of Western democracy has been exposed with its financial and economic crisis. It has been shown that the elites are in charge.

There has been a huge transfer of wealth from the majority to the elite facilitated by closed political systems of Western capitalism. The elites impose cuts to social programs while imposing foreign wars that preclude reduce their fiscal deficits, which are themselves mere pretexts to set the limits of social policies. It is clear that the configuration of the power groups is more democratic in Western countries than it has been in a country like Libya, which also has a tribal society very diverse and very different.

The Libyan democracy made it possible for the people of Libya enjoy the best standard of living in Africa while avoiding government debt and sovereign funds held over two billion dollars. They ignore facts like this to confound attempts to understand reality in Libya. A typical example of how the Libyan government reviews evade reality is the very accusation that Libyan government official figure showed an unemployment rate of 30%.

This was true in 2004. In 2009 the figure had fallen to 21%. Anyway, in the best style of psychological warfare this figure is presented without context. In the best tradition of psychological warfare this figure is presented without context. It explains the situation during the period in question and the statistical basis for comparison fair, or other factors such as the level of participation of the population in the labor force. One only has to read the bulletins of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States to see the different ways to manipulate the global figures of employment.

Nor put that data in the context of advanced welfare state for Libyans who allowed a guaranteed adequate income despite being out of work. And it explains the phenomenon of hundreds of thousands of foreign workers in Libya, around the world, but especially in African countries. Not surprisingly, the anti-imperialist realpolitik eliminate the complexities and further weakening their superficial arguments.

Similarly, the anti-imperialist realpolitik sawing the floor below the heroic resistance of the Libyan Jamahiriya to NATO and its CNT puppets. Conjure up old ghosts and new sectarian dishonest double standards. Muammar Ghaddafi Criticized by the period in the 1990s when Libya expelled the 30,000 Palestinian refugees in the country.

But ignore that this measure was a response to the disastrous Oslo accords. In the span of a month measure was reversed. They also criticize Muammar Ghaddafi has advocated for a single state solution for the peoples of Israel and Palestine. However, there is a large block of international opinion calling for the same thing, even of Palestinian opinion. At the time of the coup-revolt by contract in February 2011 there were more than 60,000 Palestinians in Libya.

If Iran and Hezbollah are able to recognize a creature of NATO and the CNT, some questions arise. Why not recognize the Zionist entity which is also recognized by most UN member countries? If acceptable to them the genocidal destruction of Sirte, why not accept the genocidal destruction of Gaza? The contradictions are obvious.

The hypocrisy of the anti-imperialists who want to discredit Muammar Ghaddafi also clearly seen in its criticism of the western approach to the Libyan government in exchange for the lifting of Western sanctions. Libya has the same sovereign right to accommodate whatever the Western system that Russia, China, India or Brazil, for example, or like Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. In Libya it is clear that there has been much discussion of these policies, arguments and disagreements that remained at the time of the coup-February uprising contract.

In summary, there is strong contrast between the categorical rejection by the CNT ALBA governments as representative of the Libyan people and the position of the governments of China, Russia and Iran and their allies. These positions of anti-imperialism of anti-imperialism realpolitik and the solidarity of the ALBA governments highlights the humanistic superiority imperialist vision of ALBA. This superiority is based not on a stingy interpretation of national interests but a fierce defense of the fundamental principles of non-aggression and self-determination.

Advertisements