Here's a comic footnote to the Libya war: Neither side of the Libyan conflict was actually looking for any real solidarity with leftists (least of all Marxists), but somehow one side (the regime) got a lot of gratuitous, undeserved Latin American leftist support and the other side (the rebels) got a lot of gratuitous, undeserved Western leftist as well as (both secular and religious) Arab and Iranian support.
As a matter of fact, both the regime and the rebels were looking for Western imperialist support, and they didn't hide it either. The Western imperialists -- unlike the world Left, the Arabs, and the Iranians, who all jumped into the Libyan fray without examining what they were jumping into -- first took a good, hard look at both sides and then decided to back the rebels.
The rebels got what they wanted, and that's that.
In recent days, though, I have noticed that the propaganda machine of the Islamic Republic of Iran began to change tack. Maybe the IRI establishment finally realized that the Libyan rebels aren't pro-Iranian -- in fact, the rebels are as likely to be against Shia Muslims as against Africans, Marxists, and so on. Hezbollah and Trotskyists, perhaps more selflessly idealistic than IRI officials, apparently have yet to ask a crucial question of international solidarity, which unlike charity is a two-way street: Are the rebels for us or against us?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
===============
Neither side of the Libyan conflict was actually looking for any real solidarity with leftists
===============
A half-truth: The rebels are obviously not leftists, and leftists would be of no particular help to Qadhafi in the current crisis -- from a strategic perspective -- so no need to emphasize solidarity. Otherwise Qadhafi himself is a committed socialist.
=================
but somehow one side (the regime) got a lot of gratuitous, undeserved Latin American leftist support
=================
Qadhafi, insane as he is, has been a great friend to Subsaharan Africa and to Latin America. The President of Uganda just wrote an excellent piece on the good and the bad of Qadhafi. So "undeserved and gratuitous" is too strong.
=================
and the other side (the rebels) got a lot of gratuitous, undeserved Western leftist as well as (both secular and religious) Arab and Iranian support.
=================
this is more complicated than you make it out to be. Certainly the Western leftist support for the rebels has fed into the latest projection of liberalist "humanitarian" imperialism. OTOH, the rebels have genuine grievances, but poor living conditions is not really one of them (Libya has had one of the highest living standards in Africa).
Arab support is mainly (but not exclusively) Saudi sponsored. The Saudis have openly hated Qadhafi and made a trade with Nato: Give us free rein here and in Bahrain; and we give you Libya. This is now open knowledge.
Iran and the Shi3ah have never forgiven Qadhafi for the Imam Sadr fiasco (nor should they). However, Iran has not "jumped into the Libyan fray without examining what they were jumping into".
=============
I have noticed that the propaganda machine of the Islamic Republic of Iran began to change tack
=============
Not really. Iran was also against the Iraq invasion, which implied no support of Saddam or lack of support of the oppressed people of Iraq.
==============
Maybe the IRI establishment finally realized that the Libyan rebels aren't pro-Iranian
==============
Trust me, they never believed that to begin with :-)
==============
Hezbollah ... selflessly idealistic ... apparently have yet to ask a crucial question of international solidarity ... Are the rebels for us or against us?
==============
Hezbollah, in its selfless idealism as you put it, does not care one whit whether the rebles are for or against them. Qadhafi did away with Imam Sadr and that's it: we're with the rebels as long as they go after Qadhafi and we can find out what happened to Sadr.
Peace
===================
The Western imperialists first took a good, hard look at both sides and then decided to back the rebels.
===================
No, they took a quick, superficial look at both sides and then decided to back the rebels. This becomes more apparent with each passing day.
Indeed, it is highly arguable that this all has less to do with supporting the rebels than with feeding the dragon of the military-industrial complex and inserting yet another imperialist outpost in the region to keep an eye on Egypt etc; and to otherwise be in a position to play a proactive role in the face of the ongoing Arab uprisings.
Peace
Post a Comment