Check out the interview with Samir Amin on MRZine (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/amin110811.html). He has some things to say that I agree with, and some not. No big surprise there.
The interview conducted by Hassane Zerrouky originally appeared in L’Humanité, the one-time CP newspaper.
I was of course pleased to hear Amin say “there is deep, spontaneous sympathy between young people and the parties of the radical Marxist Left, that is to say the parties that come from the socialist and communist tradition.” Now if there was only some way to unite these parties…
Amin describes Syria this way:
The Ba’ath regime, which enjoyed legitimacy for a long time, is no longer what it was at all: it has become more and more autocratic, increasingly a police state, and, at the same time, in substance, it has made a gigantic concession to economic liberalism. I don’t believe that this regime can transform itself into a democratic regime.
I have no way of knowing whether he reads MRZine (but am relatively confident that he reads Monthly Review), but I wonder what he would make of the fact that it circulates pro-Baathist propaganda on practically a daily basis.
I of course was very interested to hear what he has to say about Libya, another country that is seen alongside Syria as part of the “axis of good” by certain elements of the left. Amin would deny membership to Qaddafi in this axis, it would seem:
Neither side in Libya is better than the other. The president of the Transitional National Council (TNC) — Mustafa Abdel-Jalil — is a very curious democrat: he was the judge who sentenced Bulgarian nurses to death before being promoted to the Minister of Justice by Gaddafi. The TNC is a bloc of ultra-reactionary forces.
One wonders why someone as benign as Qaddafi would have promoted such an individual to run the Ministry of Justice. Maybe he was having an off day.
Amin also shoots down the idea that this was a war over oil: “As for the United States, it’s not oil that they are after — they already have that.” Exactly.
But in presenting an alternative analysis, Amin disappoints:
Their goal is to put Libya under their tutelage in order to establish Africom (US military command for Africa) — which is now based in Stuttgart in Germany, since the African countries, no matter what you think about them, have rejected their establishment in Africa — in the country.
Now I would be the first person to admit that I was wrong, especially if the person contradicting me was as esteemed as Samir Amin, but I can’t abide by this AFRICOM business. Among the 57 varieties of ex post facto attempts to explain imperialist intervention in Libya, this one struck me as the most improbable. To be more exact, fictitious.
In a June 18th post titled “Was Libya attacked because of its attitude toward AFRICOM?” (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/was-libya-attacked-because-of-its-attitude-toward-africom/), I found no evidence for this. I alluded to an article from the AFRICOM website that stated:
STUTTGART, Germany,
Sep 28, 2009 — A delegation of three senior Libyan military officers visited U.S. Africa Command headquarters as part of an orientation program to explain the command’s mission, Sept. 21-24, 2009, as the two countries continue to build their military relationship.
The officers held meetings with senior staff members to discuss the command’s programs and activities, met General William E. ward and his two deputies, and traveled to Ramstein Air Base to meet Major General Ron Ladnier, the U.S. Air Force Africa commander, and his staff.
The command hosts African military delegations frequently, but “certainly with regard to Libya, it is quite historic,” said Kenneth Fidler, Africa Command Public Affairs Office, which hosted the Libyan team.
Two of the officers in the delegation write for the official magazine of the Libyan armed forces, called Al-Musallh. Colonel Mohamed Algale is the chief editor, and Colonel Abdelgane Mohamed is the space and aviation editor. The third member of the party, Colonel Mustafa Washahi, represented the Libyan Ministry of Defense.
The officers also toured AFN-Europe studios in Mannheim, Germany, and met with editors of the European Stars and Stripes in Kaiserslautern, Germany.
“They (Africa Command officials) clarified everything,” Abdelgane said in an interview with AFN-Europe. “And they are making our mission easier … to rise up the level of understanding between the militaries … and to move for further cooperation to the benefit of both countries.”
In January 2009, Libya and the United States signed a defense cooperation memorandum of understanding, which provides the framework for a military-to-military relationship and cooperation on programs of mutual interest.
After the signing of the MOU, a forum called the Council of Colonels met for the fourth time since 2007. These meetings set the tone for Libya-U.S. military relations and is the primary venue for discussing potential security cooperation opportunities, such as ship visits and information exchange programs.
Now, somebody—anybody—help me out here. I would be happy to admit that I am wrong. I could find no evidence that Libya was drawing some kind of line in the sand over AFRICOM. Maybe there’s an article that appeared in a newspaper not in the Lexis-Nexis database that documents this clash between Libya and the U.S. I will award $100 to the leftist cause of choice for the person who turns something up. Any takers?
What is happening in Libya is extremely strange, even with the standards of post-Iraq. You have senior country members of NATO engaging in what is becoming a was of attrition, taking clear side in at least what looks now like a civil war, regardless of its beginning; and the “world” just looks on, even with the blanket of silence over Yemen and Bahrain. Unless we accept Gilbert Achcar’s thesis that the intervention was due to fear of the US and Western Europe’s public outrage of a possible massacre in the scale of Hama (which I don’t accept since the Western public thinks what, in C.F. Kane’s words, the corporate media wants it to think), then it is a “mystery” why this has been going on for as long as it has? My own theory is that it was the best way to actually derail Arab Spring. It was Disaster Imperialism, to paraphrase Naomi Klein; in other word re-establish the traditional patterns in the Arab world, and take advantage of the chaos to get rid of some of your old foes, say Gazzafi, Assad and Iran. Imploding countries like Syria and Iran from within and establishing protectorates like Northern Iraq with grateful puppets like Talebani, is also not a bad idea. Note the recent push in US Congress to remove Mujahedin-e Khalgh from the designated terrorist group. If this isn’t a repeat of the Libya situation, I don’t what is. All said, I’m not implying all hands on board to defend, bankrupt dictators but let’s be clear about what is going on.
Comment by Mazdak — August 12, 2011 @ 3:59 pm
My own opinion on Libya the NATO affair there is no conspiracy for oil or AfriCom domination but a genuinely, albeit misguided, attempt at imitating Hollywood movies and swooping in to save the day, you know, humanitarian intervention. We often look for rational reasons why people do things. I believe, however, that fantasy can be just as motivating as reason. Many people think of the violence of their own side as the “power of appearing” like in the cartoons or the end of a western when the US Cavalry appears. Not much suffering is caused, if any, but the appearance of the “good guys” in both image and swelling soundtrack overwhelm the antagonists who shrink from view.
Anyone running for president or anyone making or writing presidential addresses swims through these fantasies every waking hour. Is it a mistake to see them and their entourage as merely cynical operators who do one thing but believe another? If we don’t consider this group self-esteem seeking fantasy life, could the limits of a Marxist interpretation of ruling class actions analogous to the limits of liberal interpretations of Stalinism, as explored here by Zizek in his Living in the End Times:
Comment by Brian Gallagher — August 12, 2011 @ 6:00 pm
Jesus Christ, Louis. The Verizon strike! The Verizon strike! Or is it too Leninist to pay attention to the Verizon strike? Hey, I see a lot of movies too. Sometimes reality intrudes.
Comment by Jeff — August 12, 2011 @ 6:25 pm
@3: The url’s you seek are http://www.counterpunch.org and/or http://www.zcommunications.org/znet.
Comment by louisproyect — August 12, 2011 @ 6:28 pm
“My own theory is that it was the best way to actually derail Arab Spring. It was Disaster Imperialism, to paraphrase Naomi Klein”
That still overstates the extent to which this was a pre-planned event. Uprisings broke out across the whole region, including in Libya, and subsequently imperial powers began reacting and devising strategies. The strategies themselves appear ad hoc, because they are.
Comment by PatrickSMcNally — August 12, 2011 @ 8:40 pm
To me it’s a straightforward matter: In a civil war between two factions in a country subordinate to imperialism. where one side is working with the imperialists and the other side is being attacked by same, our task is to work for the defeat of the imperialists and of the side that is working with the imperialists.
Comment by Roger Aarons — August 13, 2011 @ 12:22 am
I love how people show up here making Zimmerwaldist type speeches when the entire focus here is not whether the left should support NATO or the Benghazi elite, but on bogus explanations for the imperialist intervention. I guess that Roger is too stupid to take me up on my challenge to find backing for the AFRICOM “cause”. If he could have found evidence that Qaddafi opposition to AFRICOM bases led to war, I would have donated $100 to his favorite cause. I wonder what that would be? A month’s rent for the Enver Hoxha Society’s headquarters in Nottingham?
Comment by louisproyect — August 13, 2011 @ 12:29 am
LP finds all leftist explanations of the NATO Libyan adventure wanting. Louis, who is stopping you from writing your own? What are you, some kind of Marxist consumer who whines when what passes for Marxism isn’t palatable to you? Why don’t you write your own based on Lexis-Nexis? Why did the UK and France attack? Why is The USA lukewarm? Why was Germany initially opposed? Why was Italy, Gaddafi’s closest comrade in arms, as the Stalinists used to say, talked into attacking him? Why were the Castro, Chavez and African Union peace initiatives wrong in practice and or principle? Last but not least, How is the Libyan working class faring in this war?
Comment by lextheimpaler — August 13, 2011 @ 6:17 am
I think that imperialism invaded because it sought a client state that could serve its interests in the region in the guise of supporting the Arab Spring. I am sure that it will regret its decision. It should have paid closer attention to Wesley Clark:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR2011031103244.html
Gen. Wesley Clark says Libya doesn’t meet the test for U.S. military action
By Wesley K. Clark
Friday, March 11, 2011; 8:00 PM
In March of 1974, when I was a young Army captain, I was sitting in a conference on civil-military relations at Brown University. Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.) was onstage expounding on the lessons from Vietnam about military interventions. He then stopped and looked right at me and the four West Point cadets at my side. “You, the young officer and cadets sitting there – never in your lifetimes will you see us intervene abroad,” I recall him saying. “We’ve learned that lesson.”
For all his brilliance, Aspin couldn’t have been more wrong.
We have launched many military interventions since then. And today, as Moammar Gaddafi looks vulnerable and Libya descends into violence, familiar voices are shouting, once again: “Quick, intervene, do something!” It could be a low-cost win for democracy in the region. But before we aid the Libyan rebels or establish a no-fly zone, let’s review what we’ve learned about intervening since we pulled out of Vietnam.
The past 37 years have been replete with U.S. interventions. Some have succeeded, such as our actions in Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), the Persian Gulf War (1991) and the Balkans (1995-2000). Some were awful blunders, such as the attempted hostage rescue in Iran (1980), landing the Marines in Lebanon (1982) or the Somalia intervention (1992-94).
Some worked in the short run, but not the longer term – such as the occupation of Haiti in 1994. Others still hang in the balance, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, consuming hundreds of billions of dollars and wrecking thousands of American lives. Along the way, we’ve bombed a few tyrants such as Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi himself, operated through proxies in Central America, and stood ready with fly-overs, deployments, mobility exercises and sail-bys across the globe.
I’ve thought about military interventions for a long time – from before my service in Vietnam to writing a master’s thesis at Fort Leavenworth to leading NATO forces in the Kosovo war. In considering Libya, I find myself returning to the guidelines for intervention laid out by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in 1984. The world has changed a great deal since then, so I’ve adapted and updated his vision to develop my own rules for when the United States should deploy its blood and treasure in operations far from home.
(clip)
Comment by louisproyect — August 13, 2011 @ 12:05 pm
The U.S. feared it would lose a historic opportunity to influence Libyan politics if Bengazi fell and stepped in before Qaddafi could reassert control. They were happy from the get-go to either have a partitioned Libya or one free of Qaddafi. They put themselves in a win-win situation by not opting for an Iraq-style invasion that would’ve been costly and politically untenable.
The political weaknesses of the rebellion allowed former regime elements to take a leading role in shaping it, its demands, and its strategy; calling for NATO’s aid flowed logically from their class politics. Unfortunately, that logic also led to the end of the revolutionary dynamic from below that nearly toppled Qaddafi.
Proyect deserves credit for going after the borderline idiotic explanations for U.S. intervention in Libya.
Comment by Binh — August 15, 2011 @ 3:15 pm
“Proyect deserves credit for going after the borderline idiotic explanations for U.S. intervention in Libya.”
I agree. But that type of -idiot- pales in effect and does less damage to the anti-imperialist movements than the -political weaknesses- of the Left that supported or did not oppose the US/Nato intervention.
Comment by Rick Tudor — August 17, 2011 @ 8:57 pm
Proyect is a mass murderer of straw men, he deserves no credit. He spent a great deal of time on nonsense such as how dictatorial the Libyan regime is, whether it opposed imperialist powers, and so on. Meanwhile he had nothing serious to say about the worrying signs of disunity between the imperialist powers on display in this adventure.”I think that imperialism invaded because it sought a client state that could serve its interests in the region in the guise of supporting the Arab Spring.” This quote from Proyect betrays a lack of seriousness. Are U.S., British,French,Italian and German imperialism the same thing? History tells us that they fought two bloody world wars. What does Proyect know that allows him to claim that these countries now have a unified imperialist policy? Clark’s article was just a rehash of the Vietnam syndrome argument made by countless establishment types since the1970′s. Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama buried that argument with their military interventions. Where was Proyect while U.S. imperialism was running amok?
Comment by lextheimpaler — August 18, 2011 @ 6:48 pm
Are U.S., British,French,Italian and German imperialism the same thing? History tells us that they fought two bloody world wars.
—
Hmmm. Maybe Ali G. wasn’t kidding when he asked Brent Snowcroft why not nuke Canada?
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e4c1aa0b8c/ali-g-with-brent-scowcroft-from-aligshow_fan
Comment by louisproyect — August 18, 2011 @ 6:59 pm