Ending Civil War in Libya – Preventing Civil War in Syria

From the Desk of Reuven Kaminer May 16, 2011

Ending Civil War in Libya – Preventing Civil War in Syria

Just two long months ago, in the early stage of the Libyan crisis, advocates of UN intervention justified their position with the claim that Gadaffi was determined to slaughter thousands of his own citizens. There is no way of knowing whether that horrendous scenario was indeed going to materialize. Let us accept, for the sake of productive discussion in the left that the danger was real. Of course, this factor certainly influenced the public debate regarding intervention. It is understandable that many sincere people on the left supported the USNATO intervention because they did not want the blood of the citizens of Benghazi and other cities on humanity’s conscience. Two months later, the potential bloodbath in Benghazi, has been supplanted by a new dangerous reality, by the ongoing, real, undeniable bloodbath of civil war. Months of war and destruction are descending on Libya. Libyans, mobilized in two warring camps are killing each other daily.

We would like to assume that many friends on the left who supported intervention out of humanitarian considerations are not locked into irreversible support for the continuation of USNATO intervention and remain willing to analyze the situation as it unfolds. The humanitarian instinct, at the outset of the Libyan crisis, sought a particular solution for a specific drastic situation. Moreover, approval extended to the USNATO expedition by some on the left rarely, if ever, could be construed as to include a vote of confidence or any expression of confidence in the political-military leadership of the war against Gaddafi. One cannot be certain regarding motivations, but as far as we understood the bitter debate in the left, it appears that most pro-intervention sentiment was based on the assumption that the mission could be accomplished with speed and accuracy and if the intervention proved that Gadaffi had absolutely no support – his elimination from the political equation would be all for the better.

We know sincere people on the left who are increasingly aware that the UN mandate has been so distorted as to include regime change and even targeted assassination. This is not “mission creep,” but mission revision. And there is more to come.

It would seem that enough has happened – much of it unexpected -to renew the discussion in the left regarding this stage of development on a different level. There may still be some highly imaginative people on the left who are willing to stick with the intervention until victory, laboring under the illusion that with the final conclusive victory over Gadaffi, the revolution will reemerge in all its glory, thank the leaders of the free world for their assistance and relieve them of the keys of the kingdom. But the facts on the ground are quite clear and suggest the absence of any revolutionary perspective. The rebels are split into competing factions vying for USNATO backing and there is absolutely no reason to expect the emergence of anything progressive in the new regime when and if it is installed by Cameron and Sarkozy with Obama lurking in the wings.

It may appear a bit strange, but it is increasingly clear that USNATO is willing to cut any deal in Libya, if you can promise them Gadaffi’s head on a platter. It is not coincidental that the recent bombardment of command and control posts in Tripoli seems unmistakably similar to the targeted assassination techniques perfected by the IDF and learned by the U.S. Seals. There are many signs that the UN command is toying with the possibility of Gadaffi’s ‘accidental’ death. The USNATO stubborn insistence on death for Gadaffi is the kind of material that might well build a legend around him and the Libyan state-sponsored resistance. There is no reason to be certain that if Gadaffi is rubbed out he will not leave a camp of admirers who will continue the fight onwards. Real friends of Libya cannot be indifferent to the historical impact of the war that might cause irreparable damage to the very existence of Libyan society.

If there is an alternative path to stop the killing why would any progressive reject it out of hand? In diplomatic quarters, it is understood that the leadership of the West will suffer a serious blow to their prestige if Gadaffi survives. But, it would seem that no one on the left should be concerned with the danger to the crumbling prestige of the USNATO project, which needs Gadaffi dead to satisfy the appetite for his blood that they have nurtured in the Western media. The situation today in Libya is that the victory of any of the fighting sides might well be the occasion for bloody reprisals and massive revenge. The political will and the humanitarian instincts of people on the left should lead them – supporters and opponents of the intervention alike - to support the same demand today – immediate talks on a cease fire and a political solution.

Of course, there are “advisors” on the USNATO side calling for more and more military force for victory over Gadaffi. Is it conceivable that the left, humanitarian or otherwise, throw in its lot with the hawkish wing of the interventionists, who are calling for increased, more widespread bombing with bigger and more destructive bombs? Can there be a progressive position that calls for the USNATO to spill rivers of blood in Libya in order to end the mess that they have created?

In the face of this senseless killing, the idea of a cease fire has become compelling. Left wing supporters of the intervention are supporting the National Transition Council’s offer for negotiations after Gadaffi is removed. Now, the anti-imperialist left is called on to support the endless continuation of a civil war because the interventionist camp cannot negotiate until Gadaffi is eliminated from the picture. Here is another “anti-imperialist-pro intervention” position that just happens to fulfill the needs of imperial politics. Really.

Just one last comment on the dispute on the left. At this stage a lot of energy on both sides of the dispute is devoted to picking up and relaying particular news items that seem to have a bearing on who is right regarding the meaning of the intervention. The “dogmatists’ have been vilified for coming out automatically against the imperial initiative, though the anti-interventionist camp has massed sufficient evidence to fully prove the hypocrisy behind the whole attack.

Now, when each side to the argument on the left regarding the intervention is busy looking for quotations, it might be a good idea to ask who should carry the burden of proof. Do the anti-interventionists have to labor to show that it is silly if not worse to present the US-UK-French aggressors as disinterested volunteers in the cause of freedom? Even when the evidence regarding the mendacious nature of the NATO is plentiful, do we on the left have to labor to prove the wisdom of the principle that imperialist intervention is not and cannot be a vehicle of progress. Are we impartial regarding the loyal heirs of Bush and Blair?

Assad’s Last Chance

We remain unwilling to bow to the current fashion which refuses to see any difference, whatsoever, between the Assad regime, on one hand, and that of Mubarek in Egypt and Ben Ali in Tunisia. As a matter of fact all the Arab regimes have been dictatorships as far back as we can remember. All dictatorships fight against the opposition with no holds barred. The level of brutality and repression usually varies in direct proportion to the danger. This world and its mode of operation have been dictated in large by the needs and demands of the imperial masters of the region. The real chances for a democratic opening involve disabling the military, economic and political control of the region from USNATO domination. Support for the intervention in Libya is support for USNATO domination in the region.

It seems quite clear that the Syrian dictatorship did not hesitate to resort to brute force in order to squelch the rising flames of genuine and legitimate protest. This is inexcusable, and those responsible for this kind of response must be brought before the bar of justice. This having been said without any further qualification, more has to be said on other aspects of the Syrian question. Syria’s defense of its sovereignty over the years and its refusal to play the US game in the region regarding Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian issue were and remain an important contribution to restraining US-Israeli aggression. Justified criticism of Syria by the left cannot ignore these positive elements in the picture because of justified concern for the rights of the Syrian people and clear opposition to the brutal repression we have witnessed for weeks.

The first reports regarding the repression in Syria appeared at a time of the intensive debate regarding USNATO intervention in Libya and there was reason to fear that confirmation of the repression in Syria would appear to support intervention in Syria.

Intervention, it turned out, is not for the moment on the agenda in Syria. Importantly, there are still no signs of any credible political opposition. The opposition in the streets to the Assad regime is based for the most part on different and even competing sectarian and ethnic groups. Moreover, some of the regimes traditional enemies appear to have exploited the opportunity to initiate armed action. The strength and the cohesion of the regime, which is trying to deflect mass opposition by the promise of serious reforms, have restricted the USNATO scope of action. But, let there be no doubt that the USNATO operation is looking for weak spots in Syria and hoping for an opening that might make intervention a more feasible option.

It is certainly for the good that the Libya intervention has reminded Obama, Cameron and Sarkozi that there are no easy interventions.

In Syria there are serious calls from the left and many popular organizations for dialogue and genuine reform. There are differing opinions regarding the sincerity or lack thereof of the Assad reform program. Window dressing and empty slogans will make things worse. The neo-liberal policies of the regime have completely alienated natural allies among the workers and peasants. Assad must change course or crash and if he relies on massive force and repression to save him, no one on the left will be sorry to see his regime go down in flames.

Israel Sics Dogs on Workers

I generally shy away from covering the atrocities and more disgusting aspects of the Israeli rule over the occupied Palestinian territories. This unpleasant but necessary mission is performed by many devoted groups and non-governmental organizations. But the following piece of information has to be shouted from the rooftops in the hope of shaming the perpetrators of this latest bit of pure ugliness. The courageous journalist, Gideon Levy, tells of the latest IDF technical upgrade in punishing workers who try to get into Israel to earn their daily bread. Haaretz Friday May 13, 2011. http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/israel-s-dogs-of-war-1.361449

The soldiers lay in wait on the border in the very early hours of the morning before dawn and sic the dogs on laborers trying to get into Israel for a few days work. The IDF explains that if not dogs, they would have to employ more severe measures. Iron logic and poison in the soul.

Danger!

Meir Degan, recently retired from his “distinguished career” as Mossad chief, came out openly against the idiotic idea of attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities. There is only one single explanation for Dagan’s speaking out. Just one: he has reason to fear that this option is being seriously considered by the Israeli leadership – here and now.

Intervention in the Name of Stability

Intervention in the Name of Stability

Professor Noam Chomsky recently delivered an important address in Amsterdam entitled “Contours of the World Order.”(1)

A large part of the speech was devoted to the role of the US in defending its area of absolute hegemony. According to Chomsky’s excellent analysis, the United States relates to all countries with a simple rule of behavior. They must honor obligations stemming from US control and domination and governments which refuse to behave according to this universal principle will be the objects of US reprisals up to and including direct military threat to their very existence. Chomsky sums it up with his characteristic incisiveness. If you are on the US team, then you are part of the stability that must be treasured above all else. If you challenge US hegemony, you are an enemy of stability.

It is necessary to understand that this US policy has nothing to do with the internal nature of the given regime. Iraq was attacked, as we suspected, because it challenged US dictates regarding its use of its own oil. The nature of Sadaam Hussein’s regime or the scope of his repression against the people of Iraq was totally irrelevant when the US decided that he was getting out of line.

Regarding Iran, Chomsky explains that no military or security danger emanates from the Islamic Republic. The simple truth is that the carefully cultivated US-Israeli hysteria build-up stems from Iran’s success in the diplomatic and political field.

Apologetics for USNATO Intervention

It is almost a full time job following the intensive debate in large sections of the left regarding the USNATO intervention in Libya. The pro-interventionist current has an important spokesperson in the highly respected person of Prof. Gilbert Achcar, a theoretician close to the radical left. Achcar, who speaks for a minority of the left, supported UN intervention, and the “no fly” zone, but did criticize the interpretation of the UNSC 1973 which allowed for bombing the country. Achcar holds to the position that the USNATO intervention was justified by the danger to Benghazi which would have fallen to the merciless Gadaffi. In his most recent comments on events in Libya, Achcar warns against foreign “boots on the ground” but sticks to his support for the rebels National Transitional Council, and calls for massive arms shipments to the rebels.(2)

This position appears to your humble correspondent to be seriously flawed. Senator John McCain was in Benghazi this week also calling for arms for the rebels. At this point in the debate we have thoroughly examined all the theoretical approaches to the question and have entered the world of practical politics. A war is going on in Libya sponsored, administered and conducted by USNATO. The purpose of this war at this stage is to effect regime change without which USNATO will suffer a humiliating disgrace. One might argue that Gadaffi was guilty of attempts to snuff out the democratic elements in Libya which had raised the flag of the Arab democratic revolution and who should have received full support from the left.

However, by centering our whole analysis on the crimes of Gadaffi, we encounter a serious difficulty. This is the same difficulty that we encountered regarding the drive for intervention against a long list of unsavory characters, including the likes of Sadaam Hussein, the Taliban, or even El Qaida. Experience provides ample evidence that confrontation between the US, acting in its imperial interests, and the local tyrants, reactionaries and fundamentalists enables the most reactionary sections of society to present themselves as the legitimate voices of authentic identity and patriotism. This dynamic, which develops intensely, at the heart of almost all interventions, actually prevents the growth and development of the social forces that carry the seed of genuine emancipation and reform.

The pro-independence, pro-democracy forces in Libyan society, even if they were as originally influential at the beginning of the crisis, as some believe, could not have conceivably survived as a significant force when the fight against the Gaddafi forces was taken over, subverted and recast as a battle to impose the will of the USNATO coalition in order “to save civilization and the free world.” The world has seen just how this kind of subversion ends. By virtue of its results, the US is still in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues the frenzied establishment of additional new military bases all over the globe. The name of this game is the right of intervention versus the right of self determination.

Syria in Crisis

As reports of large scale military and police attacks on peaceful demonstrating Syrian civilians are verified from objective sources, it will be the obligation of all democrats to call on the Asad regime to cease and desist immediately from such practices. Even so, we do not live in a romantic pseudo-democratic wonderland and we cannot be indifferent to the nature of the opposition in Syria, especially since it known that Syria is composed of a complex patch work of ethnic and sectarian entities. The empirical evidence of US involvement in the past so-called “velvet-color” revolutions will, as has happened invariably in the past, also surface here at a later stage regarding the crisis Syria.

There are unkind souls who will insist that all those who warn of US subversion and CIA provocations are claiming that the demonstrations and the protests in Syria are the work of the CIA. This is, of course, a gross falsification. The principles of the anti interventionist position is clear. There is every reason to believe that the mass protests in Syria reflect serious, genuine defects and weaknesses in the Asad regime. But, the crisis in Syria activates the hope in Washington for a pro-US regime in Damascus. And if this is not possible, the US and its faithful supporters might well prefer the disintegration of Syria into an ethnic-sectarian hodgepodge.

Up till now, the Syrian government has defended, over the years, its sovereignty and its independence against US pressures. It has acted with a modicum of solidarity and sensitivity to the Palestinian cause, when dictators such as Mubarek were openly conspiring with the US and Israel against the rights of the Palestinian people.

The survival of the Syrian government depends, in the final analysis, on its deserving the confidence and the support of the Syrian masses. Syria does have enemies but this is good reason for it not to become its own worst enemy.

1)[http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175382/tomgram%3A_noam_chomsky%2C_who_owns_the_world/]

(2) http://www.zcommunications.org/the-libyan-insurrection-between-gaddafis-hammer-natos-anvil-and-the-lefts-confusion-results-and-prospects-by-gilbert-achcar

Unity Vs. Intervention

Dear friends,

Last week I sent out a note in Hebrew in which I condemned the Gadaffi regime in no uncertain terms. However, I found Castro’s fears that the anti-Gadaffi campaign being run by the US and the EU is, in essence, preparation for armed intervention. My sense is that anyone in the left should oppose, in principle, intervention by the US and its allies.* This applies, in addition to the negation armed invasion, to the full range of techniques and methods designed both to aid the rebels and to infiltrate and manipulate the anti-Gadaffi camp. I can understand and even support denunciations of Gaddafi and Gadaffi’s vicious response to mass struggle against his regime. But I cannot understand the vilification of the Castro-Chavez position. Indeed, the entire left shares with them and many others, the need to warn, above everything else, against US intervention in Libya. Indeed we may still have to meet, all of us, in mass action, under the unifying slogan: No to US intervention in Libya.

Friends, who are attacking Castro and Chavez on the Libyan issue, might ask themselves a rather simple but important question. What are the reasons behind the Castro-Chavez position? Is it possible that their experience affords a special vantage point? One might imagine that the direct responsibility for protecting the sovereignty and the rights on one’s own people and country, under constant threat, develops deeper insight into the dangers involved. For many who are examining the probability of an attack, this is a purely academic question. For Castro and Chavez, and indeed for all the forces arraigned against the US empire and battling it, the question is literally one of life or death.

My understanding is that It is precisely those who live in the sights of imperial threat and confrontation are the first to recognize the operation of mechanism by which remote, distant local conflicts morph into wider ones, especially when imperialism desires to expand its role on the ground.

The reality of US intervention covers an infinite amount of techniques and methods of varying intensity. Direct military intervention is usually the last stage of what often seems like rather innocuous interest and desire to help, of course, on a humanitarian basis. But most important for taking the temperature of US interventionist fever are the specific circumstances in which it appears.

A gigantic tidal wave of protest and reform is shaking the very foundations of United States interests in a region vital for it. And presently, the US feels itself being sidelined in its own bailiwick. The US, therefore, maneuvers to demonstrate that it is still relevant. For it, the game is not over and it must get into the thick of things as quickly as possible. For this very purpose, it has no difficulty in paying lip service to the Arab rebellion of 2011. And when Washington senses an opportunity to join the fray, it doesn’t hesitate to sacrifice Gadaffi, a mere pawn of a pro-Western tyrant, in order to insert itself, somehow, into the unfolding events.

Will US-Nato Intervene?

As we have noted, there is a full range of techniques and methods to intervene in budding civil war short of direct armed intervention. Usually, these can all be implemented while, simultaneously, many on the left explain why it is clear the US will not intervene. They mean direct invasion but meanwhile the intervention activity has already moved into high gear. Here we have a partial list: 1) supply of money and credit lines 2) information – current surveillance, tracking and espionage 3) bribery 4) dispelling propaganda and disinformation 5) jamming and blocking enemy communication 6) providing intelligence 7) making military material available 8) military advisors 9) making essential civilian material available, denying the same to enemy 10) threats and maneuvers that either require deployment of enemy forces or affect strategic lines 11) training troops

There must be more, but I do not have any personal experience in the field. One can rest assured that Washington and its various nefarious agencies are active in Libya from the first days of the crisis.

My First “Intervention”

I thought for a while I could continue to nurse my temporary writers block deepened by a perennial bout of sloth. But then I got this sinking feeling that the Yankees are up to something while everybody was busy talking almost exclusively about the extant of Gaddafi’s malevolence. I confess that Fidel’s first article convinced me that the main issue was and is the danger of US-Nato intervention.

Several Comments on the Libyan Issue

Reuven Kaminer

There is a basis for the accusation that the Gadaffi regime used brutal indiscriminate violence against demonstrators in his country when they were demanding a change in Libya, similar to that which occurred in Tunisia and Egypt. The Gadaffi people deny this. It is therefore vital that the accusation be clarified before an impartial body.

Gadaffi is only one of the more than a dozen tyrants in the region who enjoy the military, economic and political support of the US.

The US sensed that mobilizing support for the Libyan rebellion, perfectly justified in and by itself, offered a golden opportunity to intervene in Lybia. From that point, it did everything possible to transform the justified rebellion in Lybia into a confrontation between the USA, acting as the defender of democracy and the Gadaffi regime.

The US sought after and soon found among Gadaffi’s opponents, tribal chiefs, high level officers and ranking opportunists who held office in the Gadaffi government. These opponents of Gadaffi joined the battle in order to settle accounts with him and to advance their own agenda which is distinctively different from that of the mass uprising within the general Arab revolution.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the experience and the insight of the leaders of the countries of the Boliverian revolution, such as Castro and Chavez. They know, from their own experience, Washington’s strategy and the aims. They understood immediately that the US was ready to sacrifice the pawn, Gadaffi, (though friendly to the US) in order to gain some standing as an active participant in the Arab revolution.

The US and its allies faked an analysis to the effect that the Gadaffi regime was falling apart. On that background, they encouraged the Libyan opposition to organize a military campaign in order to achieve a quick military victory built on US political backing and military might.

Castro was right when he warned that the US was intervening

In Lybia in order to convince the popular movements in the Middle East that the US still has power and influence. But if we want to identify with battle of millions for freedom and democracy, it is vital to neutralize US influence in order to break up it’s regional hegemony. This hegemony operates through a chain of tyrants just like Gadaffi. Castro’s analysis is not simply one of a insightful observer. Castro expresses the sensitivities and the political instincts of an entire continent. The masses in Latin America have a wealth of experience of how the neighbor to the north uses power and money in order to lay down a smokescreen in preparation for aggressive action.

The demonization of Gadaffi deserves a special comment since even demonization has its limits. The media love to have a personality who can symbolize total evil in a single person. By intention or not, it happens that other actors in the drama such as Obama and Clinton, appear as nice, honorable people. Observers of the international crisis around Libya are led to concentrate their whole attention on Gadaffi’a weird behavior, to the point that they ignore all the elements of the entire picture. In this respect, one should not forget the role of the demonization of Sadaam Hussein in developments leading to the war in Iraq. Saadan was indeed a ruthless killer. But his demonization was an integral element in a successful propaganda campaign which led to a terrible catastrophe for the people of Iraq, which continues to this very day. And indeed, Gadaffi is a weird and disgusting character ready to use any means to defend his rule. But Gadaffi’s weird character is insufficient to justify intervention in Libya. Nor can we take comfort in the fact that the US operatives preparing for launch deadly military action are well groomed and well dressed. (End of my article)

I received a good many favorable comments on the article. Even so, it is necessary to reveal that there were those who wanted to know when I turned into a Gadaffi lover. Moreover, my detractors insisted that I was deceitfully hiding the fact that Castro and Chavez had expressed full approval of the Gaddafi regime.

Since Castro’s two letters on Libya were available on the net, I took the liberty of sending them to my readers. It is clear that the text dispel any doubts as to Castro’s intellectual capacity. It is also clear that Castro did not give full support to the Gadaffi regime.

Castro may be right or he may be wrong but senile he is not!

I was to discover after sending out the Castro texts that there are indeed people a few people on the left who consider support for Cuba pure Stalinism and wish to inform me that Cuba is not that different than Libya.

To all who approved of my written comments on Libya and even to those who suggested that I was suffering from some Stalinist recidivism, I suggest that we might still agree on our joint opposition to US-NATO intervention in Libya. And that, my friends, is the real issue.