Statement on Libya   from the website of the Committee for a Workers International

Another autocratic ruler, surrounded by his privileged family and cronies, has been overthrown.  If this had been purely the result of struggle by the Libyan working masses it would have been widely acclaimed but the direct involvement of imperialism casts a dark shadow over the revolution's future.  The continuing battles in Tripoli and elsewhere indicate the instability of the current situation in Libya and also how the revolution that began there last February has, in many ways, been thrown off course.   While many Libyans are celebrating, socialists have to be clear that, unlike the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt , the way in which Gaddafi has been removed means that a victory for the Libyan people was also a success for imperialism.

Without NATO acting as the rebels' air force or the soldiers, weapons, organisation and training that NATO and some other countries like the feudal Qatar autocracy supplied, Tripoli would not have fallen to the rebels in the way that it has.    Even the capture of the Bad al-Aziziya compound in central Tripoli was only achieved after a massive NATO aerial bombardment and an assault led by Qatari and other foreign special forces.    Now, despite their fears of exactly which way events in Libya will unfold, the imperialist powers are attempting to present Libya as a success for 'liberal interventionism', i.e. their right to intervene in other countries on 'humanitarian' or 'democratic' grounds.  Of course, this was always hypocritical as 'liberal interventionism' does not apply to imperialism's dictatorial friends and allies in Saudi Arabia , Yemen or elsewhere.

The NATO powers hope that, after the disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq , they can win justification for further interventions in defence of their own interests.

Despite the involvement of large numbers of Libyans in the fighting and the mass arming of the population, there are not, so far, any signs of Libyan workers, youth and poor establishing their own independent rule over society.    Imperialism has taken advantage of a spontaneous movement that knew what it was against but had no clear programme of its own.   Unfortunately, this overthrow of a dictator has not had the same character as the revolutions in Tunisia or Egypt, or even of the early days of the uprising in Benghazi when popular committees were established and briefly were the power in that city.   

The momentum of the Libyan revolution's early days was lost and, unlike Tunis or Cairo , Tripoli did not see one mass protest after another and strikes undermining the regime.   This was not simply due to the Gaddafi regime's brutal repression of the mid-February protests; repression has not immediately stopped the repeated demonstrations in Syria .    The Libyan regime's brutal reaction was not accidental; Gaddafi and his coterie feared the mass movements which were then developing in North Africa .    "Gaddafi's first reaction to this year's dramatic revolutionary events was to side with the dictatorial, corrupt autocrats.    "Just after Ben Ali fled from Tunisia , Gaddafi told Tunisians that they had 'suffered a great loss' because 'there is none better than Ben Ali to govern'.    "Perhaps revealing how he viewed his own future, Gaddafi added that he had hoped that Ben Ali would rule 'for life'." (Stop the bombing - No to foreign intervention!  23 March, 2011.)

The Transitional National Council

Gaddafi, learning from the overthrow of Ben Ali and Mubarak, launched a counter-offensive against Benghazi and other centres of the revolution.  These centres were certainly threatened but could have been defended by mass popular defence alongside a revolutionary appeal to workers, youth and the poor in the rest of Libya .  But the self-appointed leadership of the uprising would not do such a thing.   Dominated by a combination of defectors from the regime and openly pro-imperialist elements, the Transitional National Council (TNC), pushing aside the initial popular mood against any foreign intervention, looked to the imperialist powers and semi-feudal Arab states for support.

The main imperialist powers seized this opportunity to step in, justifying their intervention on 'humanitarian' grounds to save lives.    But these same powers adopted a mild approach to the Syrian regime's repression and maintained a virtual silence on the brutality of their close ally, the Bahraini regime.    This simply confirmed that the Libyan intervention was based on a cynical calculation. Some imperialist leaders, like Sarkozy in France , sought to gain advantages for themselves, but their general aims were to establish a more reliable, pro-imperialist regime in Libya , seize a more lucrative share of Libya 's oil and gas wealth and, above all, intervene to seek to control the revolutions sweeping North Africa and the Middle East .   This intervention by the big imperialist powers, mainly the US , Britain and France , changed the situation as they attempted to establish a client opposition leadership.

Under the false flag of protecting civilians, their aircraft carried out over 20,000 attacks on more than 4,000 targets in Libya .   NATO's intervention allowed Gaddafi to rally support against what some Libyans saw as an attempt by the US , Britain , France , and others to regain control over Libya 's assets.   Against this, there can be no doubt that widespread illusions were created that NATO was acting in the interests of the anti-Gaddafi revolution, an illusion that the major capitalist powers are now using as they attempt to control developments in Libya and secure the country for further exploitation.

The idea that there was 'no alternative' to NATO was already disproved in the magnificent Egyptian movement that led to Mubarak's ousting.  The imperialist powers intervened for their own reasons not in the interests of the Libyan working masses and youth.    But what will happen now is not clear.  The current situation indicates that there are elements, whether for political or tribal reasons, who are continuing to fight against the TNC.  At the same time, there is no real unity amongst the main elements that fought Gaddafi.   The population is also becoming heavily armed.  This poses the possibility, even if the current battles end, of further fighting in the future, including tribal, national or religious conflicts.   Partly in view of this, we now see, alongside the start of a scramble for contracts, the main imperialist countries stepping up their intervention, including increasing talk of a 'stabilisation force'.

This is why Libyan workers and youth should have no illusions in NATO or put any trust in the TNC which is, in essence, tied to imperialism.    This tie-up was illustrated in the TNC's draft Libyan constitution, first published by the British foreign ministry, which declares that "the interests and rights of foreign nationals and companies will be protected".     The dangers facing Libya now is that the combination of imperialist domination over the new government and the absence of a movement of the workers and poor leads to the possibility of regionalist, tribal or religious conflicts.

However, as Tunisia and Egypt have shown, the mass overthrow of dictators is not the end of a revolution as the working masses strive to achieve their demands and aspirations.   Although developments in Libya have taken a very different course, the demands of the masses have not gone away and in the struggle to win them lies the possible of building a socialist movement that can truly transform the country.

The contrast between NATO intervening in Libya while doing nothing to stop Israeli attacks on Gaza and being allies of the Saudi and other dictatorships is clear to many.

But a workers' movement in Libya, Tunisia or Egypt that challenged both the old order and imperialism would receive a wide echo, offering the possibility of revolutions that open the way to a socialist future.