By Immanuel Wallerstein
There is so much hypocrisy and so much confused analysis about what is going on in Libya that one hardly knows where to begin. The most neglected aspect of the situation is the deep division in the world left. Several left Latin American states, and most notably Venezuela, are fulsome in their support of Colonel Qaddafi. But the spokespersons of the world left in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Europe, and indeed North America, decidedly don’t agree.
Hugo Chavez’s analysis seems to focus primarily, indeed exclusively, on the fact that the United States and western Europe have been issuing threats and condemnations of the Qaddafi regime. Qaddafi, Chavez, and some others insist that the western world wishes to invade Libya and “steal” Libya’s oil. The whole analysis misses entirely what has been happening, and reflects badly on Chavez’s judgment – and indeed on his reputation with the rest of the world left.
First of all, for the last decade and up to a few weeks ago, Qaddafi had nothing but good press in the western world. He was trying in every way to prove that he was in no way a supporter of “terrorism” and wished only to be fully integrated into the geopolitical and world-economic mainstream. Libya and the western world have been entering into one profitable arrangement after another. It is hard for me to see Qaddafi as a hero of the world anti-imperialist movement, at least in the last decade. [... ]
This is what the left in the rest of the world sees, if some left governments in Latin America do not. As Samir Amin points out in his analysis of the Egyptian uprising, there were four distinct components among the protestors – the youth, the radical left, middle-class democrats, and Islamists. The radical left is composed of suppressed left parties and revitalized trade-union movements. There is no doubt a much, much smaller radical left in Libya, and a much weaker army (because of Qaddafi’s deliberate policy). The outcome there is therefore very uncertain.
The assembled leaders of the Arab League may condemn Qaddafi publicly, but many, even most, may be applauding him privately – and copying from him.
It might be useful to end with two pieces of testimony from the world left. Helena Sheehan, an Irish Marxist activist, well-known in Africa for her solidarity work there with the most radical movements, was invited by the Qaddafi regime to come to Libya to lecture at the university. She arrived as turmoil broke out. The lectures at the university were cancelled, and she was finally simply abandoned by her hosts, and had to make her way out by herself. She wrote a daily diary in which, on the last day, Mar. 8, she wrote: “Any ambivalence about that regime, gone, gone, gone. It is brutal, corrupt, deceitful, delusional.”
We might also see the statement of South Africa’s major trade-union federation and voice of the left, COSATU. After praising the social achievements of the Libyan regime, COSATU said: “COSATU does not accept however that these achievements in any way excuse the slaughter of those protesting against the oppressive dictatorship of Colonel Gaddafi and reaffirms its support for democracy and human rights in Libya and throughout the continent.”
Let us keep our eye on the ball. The key struggle worldwide right now is the second Arab revolt. It will be hard enough to obtain a truly radical outcome in this struggle. Qaddafi is a major obstacle for the Arab, and indeed the world, left. Perhaps we should all remember Simone de Beauvoir’s maxim: “Wanting to be free yourself means wanting that others be free.”
I am not completely comfortable with the Chavez connection here.
Firstly, Chavez is probably best described as a “populist” as opposed to a “leftist” (at least that is how various card carrying leftists I have encountered in other South American nations prefer to categorize him).
Secondly, the calculated attempt to draw Chavez into the Middle East mix, as being guilty as association when Caracas was announced by UK Secretary Hague and others as being Gaddafi’s sanctuary (a blatant fabrication they hoped would stick), suggests rightists and liberals have an agenda here. And it is the same agenda as when US President Bush and Secretary Rice programmed Venezuela business leader Pedro Carmona to overthrow President Chavez on April 11th, 2002. The United States was then busy picking off the Taliban in Afghanistan. A preferred appetizer to their soon flame broiled main course in Iraq was to have their own Chef in Caracas prepare lashings of sweet Venezuela crude at Gotham Restaurant Week prices.
The coup failed because the Venezuela Populist was actually popular, and sharper than your average kitchen knife. The reelected Venezuelan leader (and whether one likes him or not or thinks he is leftist or not is not relevant here) is now it seems being further incriminated for apparent statements made supporting Gaddafi.
Chavez had nothing to say about Gaddafi’s predicament initially, which is remarkable in itself (as he is notorious for running his mouth) and this despite “Chez Hugo” being bandied around like a Groupon. Subsequent statements I read from Chavez merely reflected the reality on the ground, such as during the early days of the Libyan and other Middle East uprisings (and I paraphrase here) ‘if this continues, there will be a Civil War in Libya’, though I noted at the time, such statements were widely misinterpreted and reported as being supportive of Gaddafi. (I will provide the link later.)
I have not seen any recent comments from Chavez since, save for a TV ticker snippet tonight, in which the term “Imperialism” was prominent in his description of the “coalition” air strikes. I would appreciate it if the author could provide links to the said quotes from Chavez and links to comments by other South American leaders lining up “fulsome” to support Gaddafi. I ask not because I don’t doubt the author or ultimately disagree with the gist of the argument here, but simply because I have not seen them.
I very much agree with the author’s suggestion that Gaddafi is an impediment for the ‘Arab and Global Left’, but he always has been. Sudanese leftists of the 1971 vintage know this better than anyone.
But as we consider revolutionary changes in the Middle East and comment on the interpretations of Imperialism in the Middle East by South Americans (who know the subject matter as good as anyone), we should remember South American nations are now speaking and acting for themselves in a way their North Americans overlords once would not have allowed. For example, Peru has just recognized Palestine. And Brazil has just become the first nation in the Americas to permit an Embassy of Palestine. In this context, and in the cauldron of recent events, certain South American statements and protocols may not seem prudent or can be construed as counter productive to progressive observers, particularly as Western Europe and the United States rush to forget to remember to protect Bahrainis, Eastern Province Arabians, and Yemenis.
We should never forget the price of bananas.
STOP PRESS – Last Night the UK parliament endorsed air strikes, absurdly voting retroactively to support the bombing campaign. There were 13 dissenters against the air strikes, 9 Labour, 2 SDLP, 1 Green, and 1 Tory.
An intriguing article this, presumably written before the ‘no fly zone’, which makes it feel dated and flawed. Is there such a thing as the ‘world left’? And is the left divided about Ghaddafi, with some supporting and some critical? Does Ghaddafi really have good press in the West? I doubt all this. Truth be told, the left has been critical about Ghaddafi and his works but equally critical about those in the West who have demonised and bombed him. Intervening in Libya will not necessarily strengthen the cause of the second Arab revolt. Indeed, with the insecure potentates of the Arab League and Gulf states leading the charge for intervention, the course and dynamic of the Arab uprising might be changed. Ghaddafi is not a major obstacle for the world left or the Arab revolt.
I assume, with ebele, that this must be a dated article. With American bombs and missiles overhead and liberals again embracing a cyncial “responsibility to protect” that abundantly only applies to civilians under threat from regimes the West doesn’t like (anybody heard Mr. Ban lecture the world on its resaponsibility to protect Palestnians from Israeli occupation? Afghans from US drones?) the task of anti-imperialists surely is to call Western aggression for what it is and demand its halt.
My bad. I should have stated upfront that the piece was written by Wallerstein before the West’s bombs started raining down on Libyans. I can’t speak for Wallerstein, but I doubt he supports Western aggression. Neither do I.
@Davy: Salute to Peru and Brazil’s governments for their decisions on Palestine.
There are serious arguments for and against the present intervention in Libya. Nonetheless, the left should clearly be on the side of democratic self determination against an autocrat, the principled mission creep, I am hoping for, http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/03/libya-and-the-mission-creep-i-hope-for/