Libya: Neither Gaddafi nor the 'rebels'

Libya: Neither Gaddafi nor the ‘rebels’ -- Saroj Giri

Libya is no Vietnam but it might be instructive to recall the approach of one of the architects of that historic anti-imperialist resistance. General Vo Nguyen Giap did not waste much time in moral condemnation of US imperialist aggression as murderous and immoral and so on. That was taken as understood, since imperialism could not be expected to be anything else. Instead, powerful and militarily superior though the US is, the General saw writing in the late sixties that strategically the invasion would eventually favour the Vietnamese resistance – yet his sound strategy of war was not a realpolitik approach but one which was seeped in a radical political imaginary.

Giap does not get overwhelmed and immobilized by the enormity of the US imperialist onslaught on the small nation. In a piece characteristically titled, ‘Once Again We Will Win’, Giap points out the consequences of US aggression with great clarity: “At this point, the more open is the United States aggression, the more isolated and weak the puppet army and administration, and the sharper the contradictions between the United States imperialists and their placemen. Those people in the puppet army and administration who still have some national feeling will become more conscious of the real situation, and the number of those who cross over to the people's side will increase.” He focuses on the shift in the balance of forces: “Consequently, the introduction of more United States troops, far from retrieving the predicament of the puppet army and administration, aggravates the mercenary army's destruction and disintegration, and the puppet administration's collapse in the face of our people's resistance. When the American imperialists' crack troops are defeated by our people, the disintegration and collapse of the puppet army and administration will be all the more inevitable” (‘Once Again We Will Win’, January, 1966).

Unlike large sections of the left today, General Giap does not imagine a world where the subjective intentions of imperialists are the sole determining factor – nor does he find anti-imperialist agency in ossified power structures like say the Gaddafi regime in Libya today. In fact in Vietnam those intentions were routinely frustrated as the balance of power shifted in favour of the anti-imperialist forces, in spite of the overwhelming military power of the US. He presents US imperialism as weak: “The strong points of the United States imperialists are limited, whereas their weak points are basic ones. As the aggressive war goes on, the latter will become more visible and more serious and will surely lead the American imperialists to ignominious failure.” Ok Libya is no Vietnam, so it would be stupid to let the present intervention take place arguing imperialism is basically weak. It can be suicidal to argue that ‘let the US-NATO come in with all its force and we will still win with ‘right strategy’’. Indeed such a position would be no different than one supporting invasion a la Bush in Iraq!

But it will be dangerous too to argue that, thanks to UN-NATO intervention (even while denouncing ‘imperialist intervention’), the balance of forces have shifted so that one way or another Gaddafi appears anti-imperialist. That is, while it is right not to treat the imperialists as the sole arbiters and only agency, the point is to be able to not lapse into a purely power game in the name of anti-imperialist agency.James Petras opposes the imperialist intervention and engages in a much needed strategic thinking but seems unable to resist the temptation of giving in to realpolitik. He argue that “Western imperialist intervention has heightened national consciousness among the Libyan people, who now view their confrontation with the anti-Gaddafi ‘rebels’ as a fight to defend their homeland from foreign air and sea power and puppet land troops – a powerful incentive for any people or army. The opposite is true for the ‘rebels’, whose leaders have surrendered their national identity…” (‘Libya and Obama’s Defense of the ‘Rebel Uprising’’, April 4 2011, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&...). Petras hints at the consolidation of some kind of anti-imperialist consciousness and forces as a fall-out of the intervention and its aftermath. As strategic thinking this is good and welcome and it is better than mere denunciations of imperialism without seeing the situation in its unfolding, allowing for tactical alliances and so on. But one finds Petras inching towards seeing Gaddafi and his regime as anti-imperialist – which is not convincing.

Petras’ strategic thinking moves away from a radical political imaginary and instead becomes realpolitik, no longer immune to big power machinations. The challenge which comes from Giap is to engage in ‘realpolitik’, taking account of actual forces on the ground even if they are not ‘true revolutionaries’, and yet be able to posit a radical emancipatory ideal.

On the other hand, are large sections of the left today suffering from ‘loss of strategy’, engaging in mostly a moral denunciation and hysterical condemnation of imperialism. They seem utterly radical since they totally reject both Gaddafi and the Libyan rebels and denounce US-NATO intervention – however in failing to posit any anti-imperialist agency, they end up blowing up imperialism’s power and agency beyond all proportions. They might also fail to see the ongoing ‘civil war’ in terms of an unfolding process of a changing balance of forces. In Giap’s approach, imperialist intervention in Libya, for example, is to be condemned but since no amount of moral condemnation is going to stop it anyways, your attitude to it must be strategically decided on the basis of its impact on the overall balance of forces. You do not oppose imperialism by erecting it as this almost invincible immoral edifice of power against which we can only protest and expose on moral grounds but we cannot really do much beyond that. This is what for example someone like Tariq Ali does – imperialism as the sole agency which will destroy and act in its narrow self-interest, hence we must oppose this outright. But Gilbert Achar, in supporting the intervention, too shares the same approach, differently inflected – imperialism as the sole agency which can save and protect civilian lives.

What we learn from Giap is that it is totally a defeatist approach to oppose Western intervention on such grounds, for it involves a left politics so invested in denouncing the designs of the imperialists and the destruction they will unleash that it secretly inflates their powers no end and fails to even conceive of any real anti-imperialist resistance which is crucial to Giap. It is true that the Libyan resistance today is nowhere placed to frustrate and resist the machinations of big powers so at this point exposing their hidden economic self-interest and aggression seems as anti-imperialist as the international left can get. However one cannot allow the limitations of left forces on the ground today to narrow down the very imaginary of left politics as a whole. For our inability to put up a resistance might make us too habituated to then specialize in taking succour in moral denunciations of imperialism – increasingly in that process appearing as conscience-keepers and do-gooders of the world.

Highlighting the destructive power of Western powers through campaigns and exposes is of course crucially important particularly if it can impair their ‘democratic legitimacy’ and lessen the miseries of the people and open up space for radical assertion. However this can easily slip into building a scenario in which good can come about only through preventing or precluding big powers (through shaming them as being un-democratic) rather than by actively resisting them and, more importantly, possibly defeating them. The point then is, not just ‘dare to struggle’ but also ‘dare to win’. ‘Dare to win’ is not to be understood as dropping all principles and somehow aim for a power-grab. We are not talking about some realpolitik approach, relying on the given (oppressive) structures of power like the Gaddafi regime or the West-backed Libyan ‘rebels’ in order to ‘win’. It is not just about choosing the lesser evil, nor is it about attenuating the excesses of imperialism and capitalism through exposes and democratic campaigning but of positing a new better order.

Thus today there is no iron necessity that UN-NATO intervention will necessarily fulfil the desire of the big powers to contain democratic wave in the Arab world. While Petras might be misplaced in putting hopes on Gaddafi his analysis of the emergence of national consciousness and the alienation of big power influence is a sharp reading which does not scare away anti-imperialist politics by over-inflating the power and might of the imperialist powers. The moral left however is so immobilized in its denunciation and condemnations that it suggests no progressive way out of the present situation. Such denunciations will appear most credible and function better if the Arab democratic wave is indeed contained and crushed – so it is as though such containment is secretly wished for so that the denunciations do not seem that hysterical and appear well-founded!

Perhaps therefore we must today revisit Marxist lessons on strategy and tactics. Let me end with an anecdote. This is a leftist meeting in New Delhi in solidarity with the Maoist rebels’ struggle in Nepal in the face of Indian and US imperialist designs to crush it (an armed intervention by India was feared but never happened). One speaker expresses his anti-imperialist solidarity by saying that we must campaign against the arms supplied by India and the US to the Nepalese army. The Maoist leader however surprises the audience by saying, ‘Don’t worry comrades about the arms supply; let it come, for they will soon land up in our hands!’ How should one respond?

Email: saroj_giri@yahoo.com