understand that the title is not inviting to read the article. The words "intervention military "and" left "do not match very well and grind in the ear of anyone who is considered left-wing, really left. Still, I invite you to read my arguments and then if they want to judge according to his principles and convictions. The history of mankind is accelerating and requires that we begin to review all positions and dogmas that during all these years of apparent historical rest have acquired and assimilated. The intention of this article is the claim of a revolutionary Marxist reasoning itself to events that are occurring in North Africa and the Middle East, free from imperialist clichés.
Before considering the merits of the issue worth clarifying the premises on which part of my reasoning. Firstly I hope that at this point in the conflict in Libya and we have all rejected the conspiracy theory. Not go into detail on this issue because much has been said and much has been written and I wrote something too [1]. Just wanted to add a detail to this issue, at any time Gaddafi accuses the West of a plot, moreover, Gaddafi accused the rebels of "drugs" and being members of "Al Qaeda" in an attempt to win Western support. Qaddafi knows that is an internal rebellion, because he could have accused the West of intervention to gain the support of his people, but preferred to attack the rebels to win Western support.
Secondly I assume that what is happening in Libya is a democratic revolution. As a democratic revolution which is expected to see red flags is unthinkable, as would have caused disunity in the many conflicting wills that exist right now in opposition, however, have chosen an ampersand spontaneously to serve the heterogeneity, the flag of independence Libya (also monarchy). In my opinion, its use should be rather a symbol of rejection of the green flag more than a symbol of longing for the monarchy. There is no clear direction in opposition, is more a conglomerate of interests, organizations and activists with a common agenda, the fall of dictator Qaddafi and the yearning for democracy and human rights. Surely within the opposition elements are found, they shall, after Gadhafi if it falls down, used to become the new Libyan oil business with the West, do not deny it, but is also likely that the Libyan people once fallen Gaddafi does not allow any another system that is not a real democracy, as indeed is happening right now in Tunisia and Egypt.
Third, Gaddafi is no guarantee of anything resembling a democracy, much less a proletarian or socialist democracy. Gaddafi is no more or less what Ben Ali and Mubarak, is exactly the same, a tyrant rich by the wealth of the territory it controls. Claiming that the political system can be reformed Gaddafi is to enter the field of illusion and magic, Gadhafi seeks only the welfare of his family and not the Libyan people, he prefers to bring his people into civil war before to resign. It is true that the Libyans are likely to have better living conditions than their neighbors, but it is not only living conditions, it is democracy, freedom, justice and dignity. For while the Libyan people shared the crumbs of profit oil that belongs as collective rights, individuality and your family is the most profit for himself, just as Ben Ali and Mubarak. For if we reason in this way, ie, that the good conditions of life compared to our neighbors we vaccinate any rebellion, is like saying that in Europe we can never rebel, as compared to the rest of the world we live so badly. Yet we rebelled or tried, it is not just about living conditions, but a system that oppresses us and we canceled, although compared with neighboring're not so bad.
That said, we can only support the rebels still any doubts that we can generate their composition. Gaddafi means no change, the history of Libya to stop other so many years. The rebels means a chance of bourgeois democracy, and from this the birth of an organization post a proletarian socialist revolution. Much has been said on this point in the history of socialist and Marxist thought, and all agree on the need currents of bourgeois democracy because that is where the proletariat acquires its class consciousness. And we see in Libya, Gaddafi was responsible for eliminating all opposition, bourgeois, socialist, of all kinds. Not be expected then that the Gaddafi regime born a social force, because it is not necessary conditions for it, but a heterogeneous force that claims democracy, as is happening. I'm still looking forward to reading a Marxist analysis on the current situation in Libya to make me see that they have to do the rebels or the rebellion should be left to European and Latin American support them without reservation.
From this full support for the rebels, then we should observe their claims, which can be summed up in demand for democracy to Libya, international aid request takes the form of arms and a no-fly zone and non- intervention foreign land in Libya. The rebels have made it clear that it is they who must overthrow Gaddafi and do not want foreign troops in Libya and will turn against them. Resolution 1973 adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations will indeed affect the need for a no-fly zone, protection of civilians and civilian areas, and of explicitly prevents land occupied the territory. I understand that decision after analyzing in depth that prevents the use of the imperialist purposes, not deny it. Nor do I doubt that this resolution is to end imperialist attempt to use and control of Libyan oil, do not deny it. Moreover, within the meaning of the vote of each of the powers in the Security Council can guess, or glimpsed what Gaddafi has bought wills and wills which have bought the rebels. Still, worldwide there is no alternative if we support the rebels without reservations, since they have asked even at the risk of an imperialist invasion likely land in Libya, which has yet been produced.
The position of the English left has been that of "no war" . I understand the position in theory but not in practice. Try to explain this point using the statements of the MEP Willy Meyer [2] . Through the aforementioned article I find that Meyer insists that "the solution to this conflict that has become a civil war is political and diplomatic pressure to give notice to the parties to a verifiable ceasefire with the presence of international observers and to establish a timetable for elections to enable the Libyan people to exercise self-determination. You can not tolerate any military interference " . In theory to me, and I think anyone reading this, we would like all conflicts are solved through dialogue, but in practice not always be so. Gaddafi before the imperialist intervention said it would take Benghazi in fire and blood and was going to go house to house rebel reprisals. If the allies had not intervened Qaddafi surely would have turned their threats and then there would be no dialogue possible, because one party simply does not exist, would be dead or missing. In practice the position of dialogue and non-intervention means the extermination of the rebels, we wish it were otherwise but terribly true. Gaddafi has the military power and so was winning the war, and since his regime never sought a cease-fire before the intervention imperialist military. Gaddafi did not want to talk, wanted time to crush the rebellion. Only after the imperialist intervention cease-fire talks, as the military forces have been balanced, or have leaned toward the rebellious. In theory the ideal situation would have been a departure from Gaddafi with the least possible loss of life, as has happened in Tunisia and Egypt, but in practice this has not happened. We assume that revolutions are violent, not because the people who stand to be a ruthless murderers and bloodthirsty revenge, but rather because who has the power or benefits it does not want to leave his position without a fight, though Libya has taken this fight to end civil war. The difference in Libya not the brand of imperialism, but the attitude of Gaddafi will not leave office unless they throw it by force, as already demonstrated.
In this case, the imperialists have not started a war. As Meyer himself acknowledges there was already a civil war in progress, and Gaddafi's statements infer that he intended to crush the rebels without contemplation. I agree with military intervention not because I think the international community should take to clean bombing Qaddafi, this should be the task of the Libyan people themselves, but because otherwise it would have meant the extermination of rebel forces and the message to other Arab peoples are rising up in their respective countries the use of military force to suppress the rebellion will be allowed by the international community. How to defend in the near future that the international community to do something about the repression in Bahrain and Yemen if we do not support something done now before more than possible extermination and more than possible repression in Libya?
I agree with military intervention in the current terms because the rebels themselves, who believe the revolutionary forces now in Libya, and they want and need it. I do not know who to tell the rebels must carry their rebellion, and I'm not the one to tell the rebels that practice must stop because the world left crush has no strength left to help the world and will not allow that helps imperialism, which has oil interests in the area. When the imperialists seek to enter Libya or military operations against the rebels approach, then I'm against. My support will always be fully with the rebels until they fall Gaddafi. When he falls then we observe, analyze and decide again.
practice and once again we really do need to rethink our theoretical convictions.
Pedro Luis López Sánchez La
Global Strategies - http://laestrategiaglobal.blogspot.com/
Global Strategies - http://laestrategiaglobal.blogspot.com/
-
[1] Pedro Luis López Sánchez, The Arab Revolt and the permanent revolution http://laestrategiaglobal.blogspot.com/2011/02/la-rebelion-arabe-y-la-revolucion.html
[2] Agitación, in the the war in Libya , http://www.agitacion.org/diario/internacional/1178-no-a-la-guerra-en-libia.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment