3

Jeffrey Blankfort highlights the hypocrisy of some leftists in Europe and the USA who, in the struggles they wage from their armchairs or behind their computers against the bogeyman of US imperialism, are happy to treat Libyan civilians as expendables and to support murderous Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi – as long as he appeared to be opposed by the West.

By Jeffrey Blankfort /  Redress Information and Analysis

The Battle for Libya

While the odds are that this so-called “humanitarian intervention” will end badly for the people of Libya, one factor that has been studiously ignored by its opponents and that effectively was used to justify the intervention in the first place was the repeated threats by both Muammar Gaddafi and his playboy son Saif al-Islam to carry out a door to door bloodbath against the people of Benghazi. Dictator and son declared them to be foreigners in the pay of Al-Qaeda, and Libyan tanks and armored personnel carriers were on the road to Benghazi to carry out their threats when they were attacked by French aircraft and destroyed.

Whether they would actually have carried out what they promised we will never know – neither Gaddafi nor his offspring are known for their mercy. But it must be understood that their threat to carry out a bloody massacre of major proportions was the equivalent of an engraved invitation to the Western countries to intervene in the name of, but not for, humanitarian reasons.

The belief that any country, and I mean any country, ever bases its foreign policy on humanitarian principles is belied by history and, in this instance, the records of the US, UK and France are certainly proof of that.

France’s Nicolas Sarkozy acted quickly because he stood to be embarrassed by the close relationship he had with both the colonel and his son which reportedly included the latter contributing considerable sums to his election victory. British ties to the Gaddafi regime also included payoffs to important Britons and the report that part of the deal to allow BP to obtain a lucrative exploration contract with Libya was the release from a Scottish prison of the man convicted, probably wrongly, of the Lockerbie bombing.

There is strong evidence that this intervention was not something the Obama administration wanted or needed at this time, just as he was taking off on a long-postponed trip to Latin America and his party was engaged in a major budget fight with the Republicans. Moreover, it was Defence/War Secretary Robert Gates who first publicly objected to the no-fly zone because it could not be enforced without taking out Libya’ air defences, which would be an act of war. The French and British positions, however, made it difficult for Washington not to participate and in a major way.

Over the years Gaddafi and his sons have not only spread their oil revenues throughout Africa, buying support through various projects, including funding the military force of the African Union, but they have also hosted a number of well known American activists. Like those who travelled to the Soviet Union and its East bloc satellites in past decades, these saw the equivalent of Libya’s Potemkin villages and came away sincerely believing that he was a progressive “socialist” while ignoring the fact that he was a dictator who tolerated no political dissent.

Once one commits oneself to the belief that certain individuals are beyond criticism, as we saw first with Stalin when otherwise intelligent people set aside their critical thinking faculties, it should not be surprising that there has been no mention by those defending Gaddafi of his collaboration and that of his intelligence services with the CIA in Bush’s and now Obama’s so-called “war on terror”, and of reports that Libya was part of Bush’s “extraordinary rendition” network.

Nor have we heard about his ordering the murder of 1,200 prisoners in Benghazi in 1996.

This sad state of events exposes a glaring problem that has characterized a significant segment of the US and Western left going back to the days of Stalin, and that is its tendency to see everything in black and white terms.

For this segment, which has been out in full force on this issue, the only criterion necessary to judge a dictatorship or a dictatorial central committee is where it stands in respect to US and Western imperialism.

If it is opposed by the US and its allies, it must be defended, regardless of the fact that it might be a police state which denies to its peoples the right to dissent politically from official government policies and practices and to organize opposition to that government – that is, free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of association. How different, in the end, are the double standards of that segment of the left from those wielding power in Washington? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent statements to the contrary, the White House doesn’t care about what the dictators who collaborate with the US do to their people. As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said of the Nicaraguan dictator, Anastasio Somoza, “he may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch!”

The double standards of that segment of the left was, without a doubt, one of the reasons the peoples of the former Soviet satellites, all of which were police states, when they were struggling for their liberation, turned to the likes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher who opportunistically reached out to them and not to the left in the US and the West that had shown them their backs as they are doing to the people of Libya today.

To add to this, well before the Libyan situation developed, numerous websites and many bloggers, most of whom know next to nothing about the region, stated, as if it were fact, that the uprisings throughout North Africa and the Middle East have all been orchestrated by, take your pick, (1) the US through the National Endowment for Democracy and a handful of non-governmental organizations or (2) George Soros, through his Open Society programmes or, if you wish, both.

I suspect that if these movements had avowed what these “experts” considered to be a “socialist” or “anti-imperialist” agenda instead of making demands for such bourgeois concepts as free speech, freedom of the press and the right to organize politically, they might have considered their uprisings indigenous and legitimate. Since they didn’t, they obviously must be manipulated by nefarious outside forces.

Let’s face it. The Libyan situation provides us with no easy answers, and perhaps, with no answers at all. Human problems are not mathematical problems and, more often than not, there are no good attainable solutions – emphasis being on the word, attainable.

The die on Libya has been cast. Now we will just have to see how it plays out.

Jeffrey Blankfort is an American photojournalist, radio producer and Middle East analyst. He currently hosts radio programs on KZYX in Mendocino, CA and KPOO in San Francisco. Blankfort was formerly the editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin and co-founder of the Labor Committee of the Middle East. In February 2002, he won a lawsuit against the Zionist organization Anti-Defamation League (ADL) which was found to have been spying on the American citizens critical of Israel and its expansionistic policies.


3 Comments

  1. Solon on the 30. Mar, 2011 remarked #

    1. Erdogan attempted to negotiate with Qaddafi. Just as Erdogan’s efforts to negotiate with Iran were derided by the US because it challenged US hegemony, so other bids to resolve the Libya conflict were pushed aside.

    2. Obama “pivoted” from the Feb 26 UN Res 1970, to refer Qaddafi to the International Criminal Court, to military intervention with Saudi Arabia in the mix in UN Res 1973 on Mar 17.

    What changed between Feb 26 and Mar 17?
    Fukishimi changed, that’s what.
    I suggest that Japan called its notes to the US, demanding their conversion to yen to pay for Japanese reconstruction. Obama and Clinton “rented” the US military to Saudi Arabia, and viewed Libya as an opportune and marketable venue for delivering the goods.

    Why is it that Obama is not breaking a sweat about paying for the bombs he’s dropping on Libya? Because the US is not footing the bill, that’s why.

    Sitting back and watching events play out, and people get killed,* is NOT an option, Mr. Blankfort. In a nation governed BY the people, the people have an obligation to rise up against a government that is exceeding the moral bonds of its charter.

    *If the US is not ‘taking sides’ in a civil war, then any Libyan killed violates US “humanitarian” purposes.

  2. Diana Gwinn on the 31. Mar, 2011 remarked #

    I agree with Jeffrey that politics are not either black nor white. i also don’t think any leader or politician is above criticism. i do take exception to the last paragraph, “Let’s face it. The Libyan situation provides us with no easy answers…

    I offer, if we had a REAL, viable peace movement in this country, we would be demanding an absolute end to these imperialist wars of aggression & that is an attainable solution.

    Waiting to see how it plays out is nothing more than weak capitulation. but perhaps he’s right– we on the left seem, in fact, to have given up….

  3. ????? on the 22. May, 2011 remarked #

    So you consign the Libyan people to american/nato bombing because you don’t like their leader, and damn those who realistically saw what was coming? Worse than that, you used already debunked msm disinformation to support this rubbish. The israelis couldn’t have asked for more. Neither could their american and eu puppets.

    You’ve lost the plot, Blankfort, and you have also lost my respect.

Leave a Comment