Samstag, 23. April 2011

Why are ignorant western pseudoleftists against #Ghaddafi ? #Libya #NATO #OperationUnifiedProtector #Feb17 #FreeLibya

The Left against Gaddafi.

By Dr. Gumer Isaev, (editor-in-chief of the Saint Petersburg Center for the Study of the Contemporary Middle East. Translated by Muhammad Abu Nasr)

11 April 2011

Because of their absurdity, the accusations that Gaddafi has mistreated the rebels, which constitute the principal argument of the liberals, hardly deserve any comment. It is a much more serious matter to look at the accusations against Gaddafi made by some leftists that have been repeatedly voiced in recent weeks, but for some reason have not received any serious critical commentary.

The essence of "claims against Gaddafi" according to the left can be reduced to the fact that the Libyan leader himself betrayed his own ideas, abandoned the socialist project, and at the turn of the century bypassed all his former positions, becoming friends with the "imperialist West," inviting representatives of the world bourgeoisie to Libyan territory. And then there is nothing surprising in the fact that Gaddafi was then "thrown aside" by his former cronies, among them Berlusconi and Sarkozy.

Indeed, with the beginning of the twenty-first century. Libya changed its foreign policy, abandoning confrontation with the West. The exchange of "pleasantries" followed: Gaddafi renounced WMD development and renounced support for the national liberation movements, which the West iconsiders terrorist. In addition, Libya paid compensation for the bulk of the attacks, which the west attributed to her. In response, the West forgave Gaddafi and lifted sanctions in October 2004, opening a new era in the life of Libya. That same era that leftists of various orientations have been quick to call "a betrayal."

To start with, let's ask ourselves - what was the reason for such behavior by Gaddafi? Were the colonel and his sons seeking to have a well-fed and carefree life? Did they betray their former ideals for the sake of a good position with those damned imperialist regimes? At first glance - why not think so? After all, such things have happened more than once ... a revolutionary regime sooner or later undergoing such a metamorphosis.

However, the reason for the change in the behavior of Gaddafi should be sought not in the internal degradation of the colonel and his beliefs. Quite different reasons impelled Gaddafi to change his old course. To understand how this came about, consider the actions of the American administration after the 11 September 2001 events that marked the beginning of a new period of American foreign policy - the expansion into the Middle East. Bush's promise to settle accounts with sponsors of terrorism, Libya's permanent presence in the "black list" of the White House, the West's arrival in Afghanistan, the victorious U.S. war against another rogue state - Iraq - all these factors had a major impact on the Libyan leader. In circumstances where there was only one superpower and no one there to stop it, Gaddafi had no choice. The next victim of the American struggle for "democracy" was to be Libya. Going to a forced friendship with the West - especially the Europeans, Qaddafi understood that this was almost the only way to save their country from a seemingly inevitable punishment.

Those of our compatriots who are willing to blame Gadhafi for such stances should remember a much more serious surrender - the surrender of the Soviet Union, which took place at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s. This event had signed the death warrant for those regimes in the world that had tried to build alternative ways of development and looked to the Soviet Union as a defender. But it's easier today to accuse al-Gaddafi, who has not attacked anyone in the world but simply tried to save his people.

Gaddafi was betrayed by the leaders of the dying Soviet Union. Sanctions against Libya were supported by the new Russian leadership, and entered into force in 1992 and like the sanctions imposed on Iraq, they contributed to the degradation of the economy. In October 1996, Libya declared that UN sanctions have led to tragic results, causing the deaths of more than 20,000 people and causing material damage worth 19 billion dollars to the country. Most of the sanctions affected agriculture - losses were estimated at $ 5.9 billion (International Herald Tribunte, 14 October 1995). Gaddafi well understood that the main purpose of sanctions was to weaken Libya. A many-year embargo on arms purchases rendered the Libyan army helpless. The U.S. had no difficulty finishing off Iraq, which was much more powerful than Libya, after it had been exhausted by sanctions for more than 10 years. Therefore Gaddafi aimed - at any price - to normalize relations with the West. This was not a betrayal of socialist ideals of the past for the sake of a comfortable life, but a pragmatic attempt to avoid the fate of Iraq.

The U.S. responded to Muammar Gaddafi's initiative. Yes, the U.S. was bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now Libya simply slipped itself into its hands, demonstratively repentant. Is it possible to think that the sole superpower was pleased by Gadhafi gestures. In 2004, Bush lifted economic sanctions, while welcoming the launch of American business in Libya. And finally, on May 16, 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced with her own mouth the resumption of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Libya in the near future. The Secretary of State explained the reason for this noble gesture from the U.S.: "Today's statements are the tangible consequences of the Libyan leadership's historic decision in 2003 to renounce terrorism and turn away from the program of development of weapons of mass destruction."

Yes, Qaddafi was bought off. The colonel was conscious of these measures, recognizing the need to adapt to the circumstances. He did not act as a revolutionary but as a wise strategist, focused not on abstract ideas, but on the interests of the state. It so happens that many of the ideals of his youth were shattered - both socialism and pan-Arabism. The once ardent unionist - a supporter of the unity of the Arabs, he repeatedly appealed to Arab countries with different integration projects. But when Libya was in danger, the Arab brethren turned against al-Gaddafi. Bitter disappointment in Arab unity manifested itself in Gaddafi's threats to leave the League of Arab States and in his active pan-African policy, which replaced that of pan-Arabism.

The Libyan kind of socialism, which was being built in a community that had not even attained feudalism, was the brainchild of Gaddafi, who had read a lot and absorbed the ideas of various philosophers and political figures. For all the shortcomings of Libyan society, the country has achieved significant success in the social sphere and made giant strides in development and modernization. Isn't this what should be important to "leftists" when evaluating the activities of the Libyan leader? I think that it makes no sense to try to deny the figures that indicate a high standard of living in Libya, especially in comparison with other African countries. Health, education, social support - all those remain at a high level in Libya after the "betrayal" of Gaddafi, which in the opinion of the Left has happened quite a while ago.

Freed from the sanctions and withdrawn from the "Axis of Evil" blacklist, Libya has actively developed. But the plans to modernize Libya's economy and transform the country into a serious regional leader were hardly suitable to the West. In fact, Qaddafi was not "fixed" – He did not privatize the national oil company NOC, he continued to pursue his pan-African activities, he sought to proclaim the establishment of a single monetary zone in Africa. U.S. companies actually received very little in Libya. Neither could things be turned around by the French and the British. Libya handed out contracts to Koreans, Chinese, Russians, Brazilians. Gadhafi was not afraid to dictate his own terms, he really kept his independence. In this he proved to be particularly dangerous for the West. And why have the NATO countries so zealously attacked Libya, taking advantage of a momentary weakness of Gaddafi, who was faced with an armed rebellion in Cyrenaeica?

Libya with the help of bombs and missiles will be thrown back to the deplorable state of siege. If Gaddafi should fall, Libya is poised to repeat the fate of Iraq and Somalia and is guaranteed to lose all the social benefits that have been gained over the past decade.

Russian original:

1 Kommentar: