The Arab Spring uprising has changed the face of world politics.
The old categories of right and left are floundering.
In the case of Libya, the non-interventionist Left finds itself sharing a skanky Tracy Emin-type bed with right wing ranters like Kelvin MacKenzie and the Israeli Government, who, surprisingly, have historic ties with Ghaddafi. Israel backed Mubarrak, and seems to think it has an interest in surrounding itself with amenable (to them) dictators, seeing democracy as a threat that could bring Islamicist parties into, or near, power. This Israeli mis-perception, expressed in the Washington lobbies, may be one reason that the Obama has been so slow to come in on the side of the Libyan freedom fighters. Fearing an Arab outcry if he intervenes, he finds that he is under increasingly strong criticism for his reluctance to intervene.
The failure of the Left to see that if Ghaddafi wins, democratic movements everywhere (including in the West) are more exposed to lethal violence from dictatorial states, is remarkable. It is a triumph of narrow political ideology over humanitarian and democratic aspirations across the world. It seems that in their view, since Ghaddafi preaches some kind of socialism, and is a friend of Chavez of Venezuela, there is no case for Libyan people to experience freedom and self-determination. This is not rational thinking.
What is socialism for, if it does not stand for the interests of people against repressive, corrupt and brutal regimes?
Another mental short-circuit exists over the West. Because the US and UK have acted illegally and foolishly in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is reasoned that they must never intervene, even to stop massacres. It is a short circuit, because it is thinking in absolutist, not operational categories. The West has acted wrongly, therefore it will always act wrongly. This is the same mistake that parents can make, in saying "You are a bad child" rather than "That action was a mistake".
The Arab Uprising is a game changer. It is an uprising of youth, often suffering a high rate of unemployment, but well educated, and in communication with youth across the world through social media. Amazingly, they are demonstrating non-violently, at least initially, before force is used against them. Tunisia and Egypt show that so long as the Army is not deployed against the demonstrators, peaceful demonstrations can overcome brutal dictatorships, and this is a great cause for hope.
The outcome of these democratic changes depends almost entirely on the post-revolution economics. If countries persist with the old, quasi-free-market economics, unemployment will persist, and the revolution will sink back into the quagmire of political and economic stagnation, leading to general disorder and a return of dictatorship.
If, on the other hand, the new countries develop a new economics aimed at stabilising access to basic resources like water, food and renewable energy, unemployment will be a forgotten nightmare, and the world can set off towards a new, peaceful and sustainable future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
You simplify the position of the 'Left': there are as many varieties of Left opinion as there are varieties of 'Green' opinion.
When the complexities of each position is examined it soon becomes apparent that 'left' is never simply 'left', thus: floudering categories. But of course, I suspect you know this, but acknowledgment of such complexity would diminish the punchiness of your denouncement.
The situation with the interventionists is equally complex.
U.K. France and USA(via UN) may intervene in support of the Libyan freedom fighters but, at the same time, they (the West) are already intervening in Saudi, Bahrain and in Yemen (where the murderous Saleh remains a key U.S. ally) in support of the oppressors - the arming of these dictatorial oppressive states continues apace.
Be assured, Richard, this display of double standards by the West will not be lost on the Arab Street. Nor will it be accepted as an example of the irrationality you associate with non-interventionist position; it will, by some at least, be seen as indicating an undeclared strategy.
It is caution regarding a motivating undeclared strategy that causes some on the left to oppose all intervention, including the already existing, long term intervention that has allowed the brutal dictators to become so, wealthy, entrenched and well armed.
Hello neighbour
I take your point that there is a spectrum of opinion on the Left. My opinion is based on the opinions of those I know who declare their leftness, and on things that I have read from the Left.
Is it a denouncement? I’d want it to be a critique – not of the left per se (after all, I am a leftie myself any time I’m taking to a rightie). If left means accepting the truth of the proposition that humans are social animals, then I am on the left.
NSB: The situation with the interventionists is equally complex. Arms sales &c.
RL: Yes. This is the point that Caroline Lucas made very forcefully yesterday, and it is very true.
But hypocrisy and double-standards are endemic in politics.
"Wouldn't start from here" is not a policy.
What would the critics actually do if they were in power?
What is their reasoning? What would they do to stop a massacre?
The fact that we denounce the sale of arms to Ghaddafi & Co does nothing to save the lives of the citizens of Benghazi. Indeed, our selling of arms obliges us to stop those arms being used to kill peaceful protesters.
NSB: Be assured, Richard, this display of double standards by the West will not be lost on the Arab Street.
RL: The many Arabs I have been following are pretty unanimous that they want a NFZ. But we shall have to wait and see.
NSB:It is caution regarding a motivating undeclared strategy that causes some on the left to oppose all intervention, including the already existing, long term intervention that has allowed the brutal dictators to become so, wealthy, entrenched and well armed.
RL: Sorry, you’ve lost me: what undeclared strategy? You mean keeping ourselves on Libya’s oil export books?
I am not looking for a fight here. Greens and the left have much in common, not least our opposition to Osbornomics. But the Left is not right because it is left. Its decisions and reasoning must be open to scrutiny.
The decision to leave Benghazi to Ghaddafi’s tender mercies because the West has done bad things in the past and might be up to no good now does not impress me. A city was about to be devastated. We had to assume the whole place would be put to the sword. And a Ghaddafi victory would have led other dictators to ape his methods. That is the bedrock of the intervention, and it is pretty solid based on the UN R2P, and on our common humanity.
It is this avoidance of the massacre question that I disagree with.
That and the fact that none (afaik) of those who opposed the NFZ have helped to try to get a ban on Ghaddafi’s TV stations. That really hurts.
So. I hope that peace will soon settle over North Somerset (?Shipham?) and the whole world.
Thanks for commenting
Richard
Oh, and the other thing is that Left assert the right of financial mega-corporations to have a monopoly on the right to create money.
That one really really baffles me.
What undeclared strategy?
Well, assuming that the West is not behaving irrationally, then the one that supposedly motivates the West to support oppressors and freedom fighters simultaneously - Saudi forces (supported by the West) may operate in support of Libyan freedom fighters while, at the same time, acting against Bahraini freedom fighters, yet both sets of freedom fighters share the same objectives. Cameron & co have not even acknowledged this contradiction, as far as I know.
Personally I am in favour of principled and careful intervention, though the NFZ is inconsequential, Gaddafi, who seems to possess a significant social base (unlike dictators in Tunisia and Egypt), doesn't need to get his planes up to put the uprising down.
Hilary Clinton has already met with representatives of the Libyan rebels, I doubt if plans for a post-Gaddafi future included the need for a redistribution of wealth, social justice and sustainable development.
In my view, the best forms of intervention will leave Libyan sovereignty intact, this offers the best chance of there being something left over at the end of it all for the Libyan people to govern.
NSB: Well, assuming that the West is not behaving irrationally, then the one that supposedly motivates the West to support oppressors and freedom fighters simultaneously - Saudi forces (supported by the West) may operate in support of Libyan freedom fighters while, at the same time, acting against Bahraini freedom fighters, yet both sets of freedom fighters share the same objectives. Cameron & co have not even acknowledged this contradiction, as far as I know.
RL: Yes, there is a contradiction there. Yemen, Bahrein, Syria &c will need attention soon. At the moment the Libyan crisis is paramount.
NSB: Personally I am in favour of principled and careful intervention,
RL: Good
NSB: the NFZ is inconsequential,
RL: You wouldn't say that if you were cowering every time a Ghaddafi jet came over.
NSB: Gaddafi, ...seems to possess a significant social base (unlike dictators in Tunisia and Egypt)
RL: NO!!! You are misinformed. All dictators will have a social base, namely their officials, employees, police&c. and the people who are suckered by the State TV. Which needs blocking. Do you agree?
It is very clear that the country has rejected him. The people have spoken. They have fought and died.
You are a socialist, supposedly should have solidarity with the people, yet you are speaking up for the dictator.
WTF?
NSB: Hilary Clinton has already met with representatives of the Libyan rebels, I doubt if plans for a post-Gaddafi future included the need for a redistribution of wealth, social justice and sustainable development.
RL: No, nor an NHS, nor cycle tracks, nor recycling schemes. Shameful.
NSB: In my view, the best forms of intervention will leave Libyan sovereignty intact, this offers the best chance of there being something left over at the end of it all for the Libyan people to govern.
RL: In short, the Kelvin MacKenzie option: leave them to fight it out, which = leave Ghaddafi (and all other dictators) to massacre all opposition, ad lib. No solidarity. Laissez faire.
I'm not impressed with your analysis. I believe in an interconnected world that needs a vision of at least a peppering of a society of nations, rather than the old fashioned view of nations as supreme sovereign individuals. In short I am an internationalist.
RL: Yemen, Bahrain, Syria &co will need attention soon. At the moment the Libyan crisis is paramount.
NSB: Tell that to the dozens of Yemeni freedom fighters executed yesterday by their own government.
Clearly, your 'internationalism' only extends to the projects authorised by the Clinton, Cameron, Clegg and co.
I suppose your intention is to present an interconnected international 'analysis' though your selectivity re intervention cannot be reconciled to an internationalist approach and your tendency to surrender to crass caricatures and sectarianism ("the other thing the Left assert" etc. - surely we can agree that the 'Left' are not uniform in opinion?) is very disappointing and does not lead to fruitful discussion.
Lazy thinking, Richard. I'm sure you can do better.
Again, NSB's comment has not appeared here, only in my email feed. I post it here:
NSB has left a new comment on your post "Arab Spring confounds old Left/Right political cat...":
RL: Yemen, Bahrain, Syria &co will need attention soon. At the moment the Libyan crisis is paramount.
NSB: Tell that to the dozens of Yemeni freedom fighters executed yesterday by their own government.
Clearly, your 'internationalism' only extends to the projects authorised by the Clinton, Cameron, Clegg and co.
I suppose your intention is to present an interconnected international 'analysis' though your selectivity re intervention cannot be reconciled to an internationalist approach and your tendency to surrender to crass caricatures and sectarianism ("the other thing the Left assert" etc. - surely we can agree that the 'Left' are not uniform in opinion?) is very disappointing and does not lead to fruitful discussion.
Lazy thinking, Richard. I'm sure you can do better.
----
At this point, I will only say that NSB is totally wrong in writing "Clearly, your 'internationalism' only extends to the projects authorised by the Clinton, Cameron, Clegg and co."
I suggest you read about the Index of Human Rights.
Fuller answer later: i am engaged with the Fukushima incident at the moment.
NSB, tell me how NOT saving Benghazi is going to help the Yemenis?
The key point is that if Gaddafi wins, dictators everywhere will use his methods. If he loses, they will be forced to think twice. Not that they are much given to thinking.
I find your comment "Clearly, your 'internationalism' only extends to the projects authorised by the Clinton, Cameron, Clegg and co." just insulting. I am used to getting insults from the Right.
Make of that what you will.
Again, NSB's comment has not appeared here, only in my email feed.
Doc,
from Dashboard click on comments and then Spam. They are probaly there. If so, click on "not spam" and they are published.
Weggis
Astute and helpful bear. As Wol said. Except they're not there. Never mind.
Richard, you suggesting that I am in some way against saving Benghazi when I have stated I am in favour of principled and careful intervention, is dishonest.
Where have I proposed not saving Benghazi?
And you accuse me of speaking up for the dictator!
You're taking the biscuit. I may be in disagreement with you but this doesn't mean that I support everything you oppose or am in someway 'wrong' or am a perpetrator of monstrous crimes against humanity; I am simply in disagreement with you.
Grow up.
NSB
I apologise.
Please set out your plan to save the Libyan people from Gaddafi's tanks, planes, ships and mercenaries.
At the same time, please indicate whether you will take action to stop MGs propaganda on TV, and also to get the UN to recall the mercenaries - see today's post.
Please remember that you are a guest here. I do not have to tolerate abusive language from my guests.
A couple of things:
The West has acted wrongly, therefore it will always act wrongly. This is the same mistake that parents can make, in saying "You are a bad child" rather than "That action was a mistake".
This is NOT AT ALL the same mistake. The history of Western military campaigns suggests that the power-structures of Western capitalism are INHERENTLY malignant. My suspicion of the West's motives in attacking Libya are not, therefore, borne of absolutist ideology, but of a close study of history.
In contrast, I don't think there is such a thing as a bad child, and I would never use that phrase.
The outcome of these democratic changes depends almost entirely on the post-revolution economics. If countries persist with the old, quasi-free-market economics, unemployment will persist, and the revolution will sink back into the quagmire of political and economic stagnation, leading to general disorder and a return of dictatorship.
I entirely agree. And it is another reason why Western intervention spells disaster for the people of Libya. Do you honestly think that after the US, UK, France, etc have spent millions of pounds intervening in Libya's domestic politics, that they're going to stand by and watch the people of Libya build some kind of green oasis of sustainability and peace?? This is another instance where the Iraq situation is instructive. Since the Coalition invaded, Iraq has become a testament to the neoliberal religion; Iraq's political and economical environment was taken apart and re-engineered on free market hyper-capitalist principles. All this regardless, of course, of the express desires of the Iraqi population. (For more refer to Naomi Klein and others who have written extensively on this.)
The West is unlikely to have the same leverage in Libya as in Iraq, even accounting for their military involvement, but you can bet they'll be meddling every way they can.
Nickleberry,
You misunderstand. I am saying that West sometimes makes mistakes, sometimes not. We can discriminate between the two.
To believe "the power-structures of Western capitalism are INHERENTLY malignant" suggests the West is a BAD child, not a child that often makes mistakes.
Re the outcome, and the economic challenges facing MENA: I'm glad we agree on this. But again, your burden of "analysis" says it's all hopeless, it's all pre-determined.
We have a choice: either can sit down and theorise about what went wrong, what is going wrong, and what will inevitably go wrong in the future, or we can take action to bring about a positive outcome.
If you don't want to help in this, please at least don't hinder those that do.
Nickleberry,
Thanks for your timely warning:
"Since the Coalition invaded, Iraq has become a testament to the neoliberal religion; Iraq's political and economical environment was taken apart and re-engineered on free market hyper-capitalist principles."
This of course is not to say the situation is "all hopeless" or "all pre-determined", as in Richard's assessment of your contribution. Instead you provide a warning not to repeat previous mistakes.
It now appears the revolution could well be lost as it is no longer in possession of those who instigated it - NATO will soon become the custodians (you couldn't make it up!).
There's an interesting analysis here (sorry Richard, but analysis is important if we are to act coherently)which offers some detail of a complex and contradictory situation:
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/71785
Indeed, complexity has opened the door for military intervention (of the wrong sort, in my opinion)and has at the same time, diminished the likelihood of a progressive outcome.
It now seems that an occupation will soon commence as I don't think a long term NFZ will be acceptable to the interventionists - a rapid reaction force of Royal Marines are now on 24hr standby, according to radio reports - then the Iraq comparison will become all the more compelling.
NSB
OK, by all means let's analyse so long as we act too.
We all (do we not) want the conflict over in as short a time as possible, with victory to the people. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
We have an opportunity to help here by taking the action on Libya State TV, and in pressing UN to get Chad &c to recall their mercenaries. (see my recent posts).
Yet there is just silence on this from the anti-interventionists. No counter arguments, just silence. The inescapable conclusion is that analysis is taking precedence over action.
Which is a bit sad.
RL: "The inescapable conclusion is that analysis is taking precedence over action.
"Which is a bit sad."
The sadness is wholly caused by your flawed analysis.
It is sad that people are prepared to write ad infinitum about theory, but not prepared to take concrete action that will help to shorten the conflict in Libya, and thereby assist the democracy movement world wide.
Richard, where are the people who are writing ad infinitum about theory? I have never met any. Where does one meet such people?
Of course, there are very few people who are prepared to write ad infinitum about theory; this suggestion seems to be a device applied by you to dismiss those who contribute to your blog who prefer forms of activism different to your own.
Just as there are varieties of opinion there are also varieties of activism.
Interestingly there are some, who I know, who think lobbying MPs is the height of naivety...
NSB
I will say it again: No, I'll put a question: Do you hope for the speedy victory of the Libyan people over Gaddafi?
If so, will you help those of us who are pressing for Libya State TV to be closed down?
R
Yes Richard, I hope for a speedy victory of the Libyan People over Gaddafi. And a speedy victory of the people of the whole region against the dictators and absolute monarchs.
The enforcement of a NFZ was, at best, an opportunity for the interventionist forces to act as the air force for the rebels. The U.S. announced the neutralisation of Gaddafi's air power early on and now the focus has shifted. The objective now appears to be regime change - but importantly - not by the Libyan people.
And the rebels have now become the ground force of a NATO project. The revolution no longer belongs to the Libyan people.
We can now expect a situation of managed instability, sufficient stability to allow the oil to flow, sufficient instability to destablise other progressive movements in the region, particularly in Egypt. And sufficient instability deprive the population of the sort of economic New Deal which you have mentioned as a desirable outcome.
A progressive outcome is dependent on the revolution remaining in the possession of the majority of the people. The wrong sort of intervention, at the wrong time, has ensured that will not now happen.
This morning on the radio, I heard a commentator prepare public opinion for what lies ahead, he said the targeting of the non-rebel civilian population was acceptable, as Gaddafi will use them as a human shield. Humanitarian intervention in reverse, it seems.
The blocking of a tv station is immaterial to the outcome.
One further contribution, if I may.
Best thing for us to do is to campaign against the supply, by the U.K., of arms to the dictators and absolute monarchs of the region (including crowd control ammunition etc.)
If this had been done successfully previously the position of Gaddafi, and the rest of the Kleptocrats, would be much more precarious than it is.
Of course, I think we all know why the U.K. has supported them and continues to support them.
http://www.caat.org.uk/
NSB
You are still dodging my question, with as much dodginess as a dodgy politician on Newsnight.
I am a longstanding member and supporter of CAAT.
But the dont sell arms is the "I wouldn't start from here" argument.
We are here, and we have to do something about it if we can. Many of us now are calling for closedown of Libya State TV.
Let me turn the question around: do you support the right of Gaddafi to have his own TV station to issue lies (like last sat was a huge margh against the intervention, and "Eman al-Obeidy is mad") thus keeping his supporters in thrall to his delusions, thus prolonging the revolution possibly into a bloody stalemate or prolonged civil war?
Yes? No? Maybe even?
An rnswr is reqd.
Here's another comment that has got lost. And I cannot find it on the spam filter.
---
Yes Richard, I hope for a speedy victory of the Libyan People over Gaddafi. And a speedy victory of the people of the whole region against the dictators and absolute monarchs.
The enforcement of a NFZ was, at best, an opportunity for the interventionist forces to act as the air force for the rebels. The U.S. announced the neutralisation of Gaddafi's air power early on and now the focus has shifted. The objective now appears to be regime change - but importantly - not by the Libyan people.
And the rebels have now become the ground force of a NATO project. The revolution no longer belongs to the Libyan people.
We can now expect a situation of managed instability, sufficient stability to allow the oil to flow, sufficient instability to destablise other progressive movements in the region, particularly in Egypt. And sufficient instability deprive the population of the sort of economic New Deal which you have mentioned as a desirable outcome.
A progressive outcome is dependent on the revolution remaining in the possession of the majority of the people. The wrong sort of intervention, at the wrong time, has ensured that will not now happen.
This morning on the radio, I heard a commentator prepare public opinion for what lies ahead, he said the targeting of the non-rebel civilian population was acceptable, as Gaddafi will use them as a human shield. Humanitarian intervention in reverse, it seems.
The blocking of a tv station is immaterial to the outcome.
---
RL: So do you think that the content of SkyNew and the rest have no effect on public perceptions in the UK?
If tv broadcasts are as effective as you seem to think then there would be no uprising to start with, not in Libya, not in Egypt or elsewhere. All the people who are currently campaigning for freedom are not supported by any tv station.
If mass-media broadcasts are crucial then social/political change everywhere would cease. Vested interests, through the ownership of media, would ensure rapturous transports of mystical exaltation whenever we see a commercial for soap powder or watch Eastenders, and we would revolt no more.
Perhaps significantly, a number of commentators have attributed an important function to the availability of internet access and social media (blogs, facebook etc.
Establishing unblockable internet access (though I can't see the West allowing this as it would deprive them - the West - of influence)could be more productive than blocking Gadaffi tv broadcasts.
That's it from me.
Another comment from NSB that has not made it onto the comment slots:
If tv broadcasts are as effective as you seem to think then there would be no uprising to start with, not in Libya, not in Egypt or elsewhere. All the people who are currently campaigning for freedom are not supported by any tv station.
If mass-media broadcasts are crucial then social/political change everywhere would cease. Vested interests, through the ownership of media, would ensure rapturous transports of mystical exaltation whenever we see a commercial for soap powder or watch Eastenders, and we would revolt no more.
Perhaps significantly, a number of commentators have attributed an important function to the availability of internet access and social media (blogs, facebook etc.
Establishing unblockable internet access (though I can't see the West allowing this as it would deprive them - the West - of influence)could be more productive than blocking Gadaffi tv broadcasts.
That's it from me.
NSB: "If tv broadcasts are as effective as you seem to think then there would be no uprising to start with, not in Libya, not in Egypt or elsewhere."
RL: This argument depends on the premise: "Either TV channels are all powerful or they have no power."
Clearly a false premise. TV is an immensely powerful medium for social control, but in the end human desire for freedom of thought will take free thinking people out of its sphere of influence. But that leaves the conservatives - the kind who read the Daily Mail - still believing in the propaganda fed daily in to their houses and lives. This is the influence that we could abolish, starving G's supporters of his lies, and therefore supporting the aspirations of the working classes of Libya.
Post a Comment