Revolution and Anti-Revolution in Libya

Written By: Comrade Ashraf Dehghani

March 2011

The NATO attacks on Libya, otherwise the invasion of that country by imperialist forces under the guise of "humanitarian invasion" has necessitated a thorough examination of the events for political organizations. Without a doubt in order to understand the truth and the real objectives of this attack one cannot rely on mainstream media and what they have to claim. To do this the objective reality needs to be considered. Only an analysis that relies on the dialectical method can make any sense. Only in this way can the truth be extracted from the multitudes of realities and demonstrated to the people.

Today, through the analyses related to the recent military manoeuvres by western capitalism, we are faced with two types of claims, none of which makes any objective sense. The first claim originating from the sources usually affiliated with imperialism and its demagogic apparatus, explains the attack to "rescue" the people of Libya from the hands of a dictator. Clearly the conscious people of the world who have been deceived twice with attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq will not buy into this deception and demagoguery once again. They have experienced such lies through everyday experience becoming aware of the deceptions.

The denigration of transnational capitalists is so clear that not even their own sources of news can refer to such actions without mentioning the words "deceptive" and "underhanded" while analyzing the attacks. This is true especially when social movements in the region are growing on a daily basis questioning their governments. Imperialist forces are not able to explain to the people of the world that if the predominant issue is "human rights" and "humanitarianism" then why they have turned a blind eye to the same repressive forces that exist in Syria killing protesters on a daily basis. Why does their humanitarianism not blossom in Yemen and Bahrain? Why is it that in the Summer of 2008, when the people of Iran rebelled against the Islamic Republic and were severely repressed, incarcerated, and tortured in the streets, they did not move a finger to stop the regime and no human rights mattered? How are they expressing their feelings of humanitarianism about mass executions conducted by the Islamic Republic today?

The second claim has to do with the war in Libya, calling Ghaddafi "autonomous" and "nationalist" and "rogue" in relations to his imperialist masters. Unfortunately, many groups and organizations, even those within the people’s movement, use this same unfounded argument about an autonomous Libya to analyze the recent attacks. What has contributed to this analysis is the propaganda put forth about Ghaddafi since the inception of his government. This analysis was disseminated by different sources and groups about Ghaddafi (1970), and then it was constructed years later about Khomeini (1979) when he came to power in Iran. Those who took over state power with concessions made with Imperialists were made to look anti-imperialist.

By accepting the above, the argument is put forth that the U.S. has no economic interests in this and nor does it influence the Libyan military in any shape or form. This is done under conditions where a military invasion by the U.S. and its western allies in Libya is portrayed to be part of the revolutionary struggle of the people there, and other parts of the Arab world. According to this analysis, it is for these reasons that the U.S. did not conduct its policies in Libya the way it did in Egypt by asking Ghaddafi to abdicate and leave matters in the hands of the military. None of these claims have real basis in the truth.

Once unfounded claims about Ghaddafi are cast aside and the obvious truth is considered, and once he is analyzed by what he has done to profit international capitalism, we can clearly see that this dictator has done nothing short of what others have done to ensure the interests of world capital. It has been merely four years since Ghaddafi implemented certain neoliberal policies, at the cost of further poverty and misery for the people of Libya, imposed upon Libya by U.S., Britain, and France. It is well known to most people that before the uprising of the people in Libya, Ghaddafi was a favourite of the west; Sarkozy accommodated him by red carpet receptions, and American officials extended their kindness to him.

Despite these facts there is still a misunderstanding among a few; that since the U.S. and its allies do not have complete influence in Libya their response there has been quite different than the way they responded to Egypt. It is misconstrued to expect imperialism to use the exact same tactics to defeat the people’s movement in every single country. By all accounts the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt and the rapid development of movements in the region has forced U.S. politicians to respond to peoples struggle through a variety of tactics in order to ensure their strategic interest. For these reasons, it is not a surprise that the revolutionary movement in Libya has been treated differently.

Realities mentioned above demonstrate that the reason to initiate war in Libya under the guise of a rogue Ghaddafi, or his independence vis-a-vis international capitalism do not sufficiently explain the recent developments. To analyze this we must examine the interests of such states and the new necessities of the region, both in Libya and throughout the Middle East. The following will consider just that. But before doing so, let us review a brief history of Libya preceding the attacks.

The Tactic of Repressing Revolution in Libya

As we have come to know the Libyan people's movement had not yet fully started and people were not yet fully present in the streets when we learned of the "peoples" armed struggle against the Ghaddafi regime. It was initiated mainly in the eastern cities--where most of the oil resources reside (according to different sources 80 percent of the known oil reserves exists in the gulf of Sidra on the east side of Libya). Apparently with the first moves made by the people against Ghaddafi's regime, the military, which was for years the protector and the main suppressor of the people in Libya, abruptly collapsed and was so thoroughly torn apart which allowed some of its factions to join the people’s revolutionary movement while maintaining its main internal structure.

In the western regions, people's struggle was suppressed and Ghaddafi remained in power by claiming that the people of Libya still "love" him. But in the eastern regions people's armed struggle against the regime was fruitful and managed to free a few of the cities. By relying on these seemingly popular armed groups it was pronounced to have organized "The Transitional Libyan National Council"(1). In this manner by forming the first resistant movement of the Libyan people suddenly the political structure fell apart and a civil war was initiated. On the one side of this war were Ghaddafi’s repressive forces and on the other armed groups led by "The Transitional Libyan National Council" otherwise known as the "National Council."

Certainly the collapse of a military that for decades played its role of an anti-revolutionary force in such short period of time by the first signs of street protests will make any intelligent person wonder how. Had it been the case that the Libyan military was rotten or corrupted from within, why did we not see any signs of it before? Were there any discrete individuals involved in this; where in the case of uprisings in the Arab world and Libya they would create such conditions? In plain, did any organized units of the military in Libya split with the permission given by someone with more power than Ghaddafi? Under the order of an American with plenty of power like Heiser. The same American General who is well known by the people of Iran through his own confessions and other documents. Iranians know too well how during the uprising in 1979, how Heiser without the knowledge of the Shah landed in Tehran airport and held a talk with senior military officials in Iran and gave them new commands forwarded by the U.S.

Furthermore, people witnessed, during the transition period from Shah's regime to the new Islamic regime how the same military force which called itself the "king's military" was given the new role by the U.S. It suddenly abandoned the Shah and in an about-face defended and served Islam and Khomeini. Such experience cannot be forgotten by the people of Iran while they encounter similar situations in the region. However, besides this experience one other thing needs to be clarified. The question is: what is the nature of the new National Council in Libya? Can this council be considered an ally of the people merely because of its claim of conducting an armed struggle against Ghaddafi? Do the characteristics and traits of a popular group which fights for the political and economic demands of the people exist within this council? The answer to all these questions is an emphatic no.

The truth is that due to severe repressive conditions and its enduring dictatorship, people in Libya have been deprived of popular organizations. Therefore, they lack the revolutionary organizations. There are no popular groups in Libya that would represent the true demands of the people. Under such conditions the joining of organized groups of the military with the population has no other meaning than a distraction from the real demands of the people. On the contrary they have appointed themselves at leadership positions and taken on the role of leaders of the opposition.

From the inception of the civil war in Libya there has been evidence of other forces at play trying to divert the revolutionary movement from its true path. According to western mainstream media, namely New York Times, immediately after the start of the civil war it was revealed that CIA agents (who were present in Libya with Ghaddafi's consent) have been in contact with the so called insurgents and are directly involved with the ongoing war. It was also revealed that the U.S. has immediately dispatched additional agents to Libya in order to organize the "insurgency." Especially mentioned by the media (CNN, for example), was a man named Khalif Haftar who for many years was in contact with the CIA living close to their headquarters. Following the uprisings in Libya he was immediately sent there and is now one of the leaders of the rebels. There is no doubt that had the "rebels" and the "National Council" been really a popular movement the CIA would never have established such close relationships with them. The armed struggle in Kurdistan and how the U.S. dealt with revolutionary organizations as its enemy is an example. This is while the U.S. constantly claimed the Islamic regime as its enemy and Khomeini constantly blamed the U.S. for all of the problems in Iran and the Middle East.

The official recognition of "National Council" by France is another indication that the council is not really made up of true revolutionaries whose expansion has been due to joining of a faction of the army. But it is the same repressive military that is favoured by imperialist forces. Clearly if the insurgents or the said council had any substantive inclinations toward the demands of the people in Libya they would not only be rejected by the U.S. and the CIA, but they would also receive the same kind of treatment that real people’s organizations receive throughout the rest of the world.

With a bit of contemplation about this mentioned realities, one can decipher many similarities between how the people's struggle was stifled and diverted by the U.S. and its global allies in Egypt with what went on in Libya. In order extinguish the flames of revolution in Egypt the military was asked to halt the protection of Mubarak's regime and to begin to run the state. In Libya this duty, through mechanisms that do not pertain to our subject for now, was left up to two splitting factions within the military. One faction of the military in Libya is suppressing the people under the leadership of Ghaddafi, and the other faction which is now called "Libyan insurgency" and "National Council" is busy controlling and harnessing the people’s movement. Therefore, on the one hand, the civil war is to manipulate the peoples struggle and to squander revolutionary forces (the same way the Iran-Iraq war was used by the new regime of the Islamic Republic to manipulate the revolutionary potential of the Iranian people). On the other hand, not throwing Ghaddafi out of power, just like Mubarak, and propaganda about him being a rogue and despotic leader, laid the foundation for a military attack by the U.S. and NATO forces. Considering the direct role of the U.S. in starting the civil war in the country, the actual imperialist war in Libya commenced before the NATO attack.

Currently Ghaddafi's crimes against the people of Libya have become an escape goat for the U.S. to become involved in starting a war and intruding in the country’s domestic affairs. It is important to note that the conflict between imperialists and their dictators does not indicate any kind of independence or the ability to manage an autonomous state. Imperialists or global capitalists through intense exploitation and plunder of natural resources in the countries under their domination made extremely high profits. In order to keep their domination in these countries and maintaining the extraction of profits they will get into wars against their pawns. This is what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. So what is taking place in Libya is not entirely new. Essentially, in order to maintain their dominance in these countries imperialists will never link their destiny with the destiny of their appointed dictators. This is the lesson learned by the people of Tunisia and Egypt through their struggle against imperialism. The same way it was demonstrated in Iran in 1979 (in order to defeat the peoples struggle in Iran, imperialists, through a consensus in the Guadalupe Conference, sacrificed the Shah and discarded him from the political scene). It was also the case in encountering Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

What Are Imperialist Forces Trying to Achieve in Attacking Libya?

The objectives to this war should be considered through an understanding of the interest of world capitalism in a region that carries both its oil reserves and an important geopolitical weight. American interests should also be considered under the same criteria. Therefore, there is no doubt that Libya is not the only reason for this recent war.

The reason for this war could not be only limited to the suppression of the people of Libya. As we have come to know the Libyan military started its suppression from the very start of the uprising and continues to this date to accomplish exactly that through the reactionary civil war. Considering this reality and the level of popular organizations in Libya, other parameters not existing, there was no need for a direct military intervention. Obama and his allies could have easily taken the same position they took when the people of Iran took on the regime. They could have acted in the same manner despite the suppression by the Islamic regime in Iran. This strategy could have been adopted in Libya by dismissing it as a domestic affair.

It becomes a bit complicated when we turn our attention to the oil. The rich oil wells in Libya were in the hands of transnational corporations of many countries, from American to French, British, Italian, and Canadian. Neither the U.S. nor any other countries had a problem with extracting the oil riches from Ghaddafi and Libya. Despite this, when uprisings occur in the Middle East, where it is the main artery for extracting the profits, and such uprisings threaten this profitable endeavour, the existence of Libyan oil which is among the easiest to extract, becomes one of the most important parameters in the NATO attack. Oil is a factor whose significance is more influenced by the geopolitical position of Libya.

Situated by the Mediterranean, Libya has the shortest distance to the oil market in Europe, and also functions as the "gateway" for importing western goods into northern Africa.

Nonetheless, understanding the importance of oil in relation to the current war has a lot to do with the recent American strategy in the region. In reality, only through understanding this strategy and what such strategy necessitates is how we can come up with a political analysis of the war. But how is related to the oil? On the one hand the increasing contradiction between global capitalists and the deepening of the current economic crisis, and on the other hand, revolutions and mass uprisings of the masses in the Middle East and the Arab world, has put world capitalism in an unprecedented predicament. Amidst these conditions we can hear the knells of the corrupt and rancid system of capitalism.

The said strategy which was put forth toward the end of the Clinton Administration was based on a few pretexts. They include: the increasing growth of the economic crisis in the U.S., the economic decline of the U.S. vis-a-vis other imperialist competitors despite American military prevalence, and finally, the increase in economic power of other imperialist nations and competition among them. New strategies were designed around these issues in order to maintain the role of American power as the most prevalent in the world which sought to establish their desirable plans through direct military intervention in the dominated countries.

Of course the old days of colonialism are gone and no imperialist power is able to establish those relations once again. Under those conditions a foreign power was able to dominate and rule another nation for a long time. Furthermore, the Iraq and Afghanistan experience has demonstrated that they are not capable of direct ruling and have to establish a local government under their command. Considering that the strategic policies of the U.S. follows a line of constructing its hegemony within these countries, it has been able to ground its military forces within the Middle East building military basis and militarizing the region.

The capitalist system has reached its final stage; imperialism. Nations, their natural resources, and their markets change hands between imperialist forces and are divided and re-divided among them. Today, while capitalism has reached the most remote corners of the world, capitalist relations have been established. We witness a variety of divisions in the market and natural resources among global capitalists. Not so long ago countries were plundered and exploited by single imperialist countries and surplus (this surplus is different from the surplus value extracted from workers within their own country, e.g. workers in U.S.) was extracted by each imperialist country and appropriated according to their own policies. Today, imperialist forces act through their transnational corporations in collusion to plunder the resources in dominant nations. Under these conditions whatever appears to be the practice of a bellicose and reactionary U.S. is mainly done for one purpose. U.S. imperialism is trying to deconstruct the old contracts and divisions to the detriment of its old partners.

Considering different aspects of the new American policy in general, and in the Middle East, in particular, its strategic policy is two-fold. On the one hand by inciting and maintaining wars it seeks to resolve its irresolvable crisis--which foments military production and ensures profit-making--and on the other hand, by relying on its military power the U.S. is trying to not only exploit more of this region's natural resources but to ensure its continued influence in the region. Furthermore, by relying on war and military superiority and the construction of military basis in the region, the U.S. is seeking to maintain and perpetuate its hegemony in relation to its competitors. Clearly, control and domination of the population and the suppression of their struggles is among this strategic policy. And due to this same reason the control and suppression of peoples struggle becomes much more important when it reaches its full potential.

The attacks of NATO-- a military organization led by the U.S.--on Libya takes place precisely due to the same strategic policy. Through this invasion the U.S. endeavours to reduce its economic crisis, to get a bigger share of exploiting the natural resources and labour especially in oil producing nations, and to get to a bigger market to export its goods as opposed to other imperialist countries, and finally to repress people’s revolutionary movements. These are all reasons why the U.S. insists on war and direct involvement in the Middle East. It is important to mention why it was France which initiated the first attack and bombings.

We have learned that before the approval of the U.N. resolution to justify the attack and to legalize the invasion, it was France which insisted emphatically on attacking Libya. The way it appeared for the public was that it was Sarkozy who insisted on the invasion and military attacks. However, once we consider the entire truth it becomes clear that it was the U.S. who had sent its personnel to Libya and had incited and led the insurgency. This was done by dispatching CIA and other operatives to Libya before the attack. It is important to note the chronology because France as a competitor of the U.S. in northern Africa could not have merely waited around for the outcome of the attack without playing an active role. This is mainly related to the way France was treated by the U.S. during the invasion of Iraq.

The aggressive attitude of France in Libya, a country that has benefited France tremendously, is two-fold. First, France in comparison to Britain and the U.S. is the main beneficiary of Libyan oil. Second, through the war and the invasion of Iraq the U.S. caused serious economic damage against France. Essentially, the American invasion of Iraq caused multitudes of military and economic contracts between Russia, and especially France and Iraq to become obsolete. France also lost its market in Iraq as a result of the invasion. Mainly due this reason France had to take the initiative in bombing Libya not allowing the U.S. to once again win the lion's share of the profits in this country. Otherwise, through its active role in this war France is trying to establish its hegemony in Libya halting other countries, namely the U.S., to take advantage of its military power which would leave France with no profitable gains.

Given this reality we can conclude a few points. In relation to the new American strategic plan dividing the oil and other resources in Libya is mainly the objective of these recent attacks. Undoubtedly, this war is to detriment of some imperialist forces, namely China which since 2009, has been involved in exploration and extraction of oil from Libya. China imports 5 percent of its oil from Libya. However, as mentioned before, the recent attacks in Libya are not merely because of oil profits for capitalists. One of the main objectives of this war, just like Iraq and Afghanistan, is the militarization of the region and the ever-presence of the U.S. and partially its European allies in opposition to Russian and Chinese imperialists.

Another main point is how the U.S. and global capitalists work to increase the forces against popular movements in the region. To harness mass revolutions in the Middle East in order to continue to plunder and exploit the natural resources, to continue to exploit workers in the region, and to maintain an imperialist hegemony in the region, are objectives being followed through this war.

But all capitalists and their governments know too well that the power of the revolutionary masses in the Middle East led by communist leadership will rise and resist imperialism in an all-out-war. In this fight they will turn the Middle East into a cemetery for capitalists. It is under such conditions where masses of people have risen that imperialists, more than ever, have sought their only solution in the creation of war and violence. Through their reactionary acts and policies once again they demonstrated that Lenin was right when he labelled imperialism as rotten and stated that the capitalist system is only affiliated with antagonism and reaction and has reached its demise. Today, the oppressed masses and all those who are concerned with human freedom and emancipation know more than ever that it will not be long before the capitalist system is destroyed and socialism is built upon its ruins, and a new world becomes possible for humanity.

1. Fars Press (in Iran) has introduced the organizers of this council as "revolutionaries." This council was "organized ten days after the start of the revolution on February 27th [2011]. The organizers were named by Fars Press which claimed: "based on agreements between emancipated cities on March 5th, "Mustafa Abdoljalil" the former Justice Minister of Ghaddafi's regime, and "Abdolhafiz Abdolghader Ghoogheh" were recognized respectively as president and spokesperson for the "Transitional Libyan National Council."

Members of the Transitional Council:

There are 30 members who met for the first time on March 5, 2011, in Benghazi, the second largest city in Libya. The most important members are:

1. Mustafa Abdoljalil, former minister of Justice, appointed as president

2. Abdolhafiz Abdolghader Ghoogheh, vice president and spokesperson

3. Ali al-Eesavi, former Libyan ambassador in India, and Mahmud Jebril, former chairman of Programming National Council, now appointed as foreign advisors of the Council.

4. Omar Al-Hariri, among officers involved in the 1969 revolution

5. Abdolrahman Shalgham, Libyan Ambassador at United Nations, appointed as the representative of the organization in other international institutions

6. Other members are Ahmad Al-Zabeer, who was incarcerated in Ghaddafi's prisons for 30 years, and Salavi Adghili, and attorney Fathi Tarbel who represented Abu Salim, and Fathi Baja, a political Science professor

The names of other members of the Council were not disclosed due to security measures.