Kucinich to the Left of All Too Many Socialists

Dennis Kucinich isn't a socialist and doesn't claim to be one, but his position on Libya is more sensible and also more in keeping with socialist activism than the kind of argument we have heard, and are still hearing sometimes, from all too many US and other socialists about the Libyan debacle ("revolution" in their lingo). The way the US government went to war against Libya was undemocratic and is now illegal too, and that's the point that Kucinich is focusing on, unlike those socialists who think that democracy begins with uncritical support for other people's rebellions far from home, regardless of the political character of their leadership.

Kucinich's resolution got voted down 148-265. It's noteworthy, though, that more Republicans (87) than Democrats (61) voted for his resolution, too, not just John Boehner's counter-resolution (presented to weaken support for Kucinich's) which only criticized the POTUS without committing the USG to withdrawing troops from the Libya war.

It all says a lot about the state of the left-of-center side of US politics, from Trotskyists to Democrats.

Intelligence Failure Due to Wishful Thinking

In an article posted on 19 April 2011, Simon Assaf of the SWP (UK) says that "accepting the deployment of Western ground forces remains a line that no [Libyan] rebels are yet prepared to cross." On Libya, this organization has so far distinguished itself among left-wing voices by being consistently at odds with the real world, due to a combination of intelligence failure and wishful thinking (the latter, imho, is the cause of the former). On the same day as Assaf's statement above, the Wall Street Journal reports: "Rebels in Misrata Call for Foreign Troops."

Leftists for Chaos?

There is an opinion like this on the left side of the blogosphere:

Arab regimes (and Iran) often warn against change and revolutions: they try to scare us by warning of the potential for chaos. I say: we should work for the overthrow of all those regimes (Arab regimes and Iran) because chaos is far superior to those regime. At least, under chaos there is a stronger chance for change and sabotage (sabotage of oppression and injustice and occupation and conspiracies).

But I doubt that most leftists in the oppositions in Iran and the Arab world are looking for "chaos." In any case, they are too few in number and too unorganized to take advantage of it if that's the idea. Instead, such leftists as exist there are looking to establish better governments than they have and wish to lead organized mass action for that purpose, though in most cases they end up following rather than leading rebellious largely-non-left-wing crowds when such arise.

If you want chaos, you can find it in Somalia, for instance, and increasingly in Libya as well, but Libya and Somalia (unlike Egypt and Tunisia), if anything, are in all likelihood disincentives, not incentives, for would-be left-wing revolutionaries elsewhere.

Are the Libyan Rebels for Us or against Us?

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?

The West Proliferates Nuclear Technology in the Middle East

It looks like the West is intent on proliferating nuclear technology in the Middle East, bringing it to Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and even Yemen (the poorest country in the Middle East!), all run by the regimes far more vulnerable to social unrest than Iran's.

• "Algeria, France to Sign Nuclear Energy Pact: Minister," AFP, 31 May 2008.


• "Sarkozy, in Egypt, Offers French Nuclear Assistance to Cairo," Reuters, 29 December 2007.


• "French FM due in Jordan to Sign Nuclear Deal," AFP, 30 May 2008.


• "US Unveils Deals with Saudi on Nuclear Power, Oil Protection," AFP, 16 May 2008.


• "UAE, France Lay Ground for Nuclear Partnership," WAM, 22 May 2008.


• "Yemen Signs Nuclear Energy Deal with US Firm," 24 September 2007.

The news of the French nuclear deal with Algeria, for instance, just about coincided with that of concern about the growth of violent protests in the country that has yet to fully recover from the civil war in the 1990s, which is said to have killed more than 150,000: William Maclean, "Algeria Riots Pose Risk of Wider Unrest," Reuters, 1 Jun 2008.

In the meantime, the West's pressures on Iran escalate: the International Atomic Energy Agency has changed its tune, probably bowing to Washington (Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, "A Giant Backward Step on Iran," Asia Times, 30 May 2008); and threats of missile strikes, by the United States or Israel or both, are made again and again. The latest comes from former Foreign Minister of Germany Joschka Fischer: Joschka Fischer, "As Things Look, Israel May Well Attack Iran Soon," Daily Star, 30 May 2008.

One of the few bright spots for Iran on the nuclear front is Moscow's continuing insistence that Iran is not making a nuclear bomb. Vladimir Putin just said so again in no uncertain terms:

I don't think the Iranians are looking to make a nuclear bomb. We have no reason to believe this. The Iranian people are very proud and independent. They are trying to implement their legal right to develop peaceful nuclear technologies.

I should say that formally Iran hasn't violated any rules. It even has the right to carry out enrichment. It only takes a quick glance at the relevant documents to confirm this. ("What Putin Said to Le Monde -- in Full," Russia Today 1 June 2008; in French, Marie Jégo, Rémy Ourdan, and Piotr Smolar"La version intégrale de l'interview de Vladimir Poutine," Le Monde, 31 May 2008)

What Putin Said to Le Monde -- in Full

Nevertheless, Moscow is not about to bend its position that Iran should settle for receiving handouts from the club of the nuclear haves:

And if they [Iran and other nations seeking to develop nuclear energy] create their own closed cycle to solve the problem, there will always be the suspicion that they could produce military grade uranium. It is difficult to control. That's why we propose carrying out the enrichment on the territory of those countries which are beyond suspicion because they already possess nuclear weapons. ("What Putin Said to Le Monde -- in Full," 1 June 2008)

Moreover, in light of Putin's firm statement that "We will use any means possible to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons" ("What Putin Said to Le Monde -- in Full," 1 June 2008), even Moscow's long-standing position begins to sound less reassuring than before.

Mussolini's "Sword of Islam," Made in Florence

On 17 March 1937, Benito Mussolini, having conquered Libya, posed himself as the protector of Islam, receiving a "Sword of Islam" from local notables in Tripoli. Where did the sword come from, though? Not from Libya but Italy itself.

"An English newspaper reported sarcastically that the 'Sword of Islam' had been manufactured by a goldsmith in Florence" (Margret Boveri, Mediterranean Cross-currents, Trans. Louise Marie Sieveking, Oxford UP, 1938, p. 25).

"Having purchased 'The Sword of Islam' as near to home as Florence and hired Libyan Jewish goldsmiths to engrave Arabic designs on it, the Duce presented it to himself with grotesque solemnity" (William N. Connor, The English at War, Secker & Warburg, 1941, p. 45).

"This sword had been made in Florence after a model published in a German book at the time of Wilhelm II" (Dorothy Norman, Twice a Year, 1948, p. 68).

Far from a sign of affinity between Islam and the European Far Right that some take it to be, it is a piece of colonial photo op, already judged tawdry by all thinking people even back then.

The same charade, by the way, continues to this day. Just as Fascist Italy pretended to defend Muslims from British and French imperialists, the American empire, too, presents itself as the liberator, this time promising liberation not from other empires but from local "tyrants and dictators."

"I Hate All Iranians"

Some on the Left wonder: why doesn't Washington deal with Iran as it dealt with Libya? The answer: Iran is not Libya.

Neither East nor West

The Iranians are the only people in the world who successfully defended themselves when their country was invaded by an enemy equipped with Soviet hardware and backed by all the major Western powers. These are people to be reckoned with!

The Iranians paid dearly for their independence, and they will not give it up and submit themselves to the domination of the US-led multinational empire easily.

Still Very Much Rebellious

Qaddafi didn't come into power through social revolution, like the one that convulsed Iran from bottom up. Instead, he won state power through a bloodless coup d'état. It's easier for Washington to deal with a dictator who rules the passive population, whether to depose him (as in Iraq) or work with him (as in Libya), than with the collectivist leadership who lead the historically revolutionary and still very much politically active population like Iran's.

Let's say Washington offers a deal, and Khamenei, et al. take it. Washington can't rule out that the people of Iran won't, sooner or later, undo it, either restoring the status quo ante or even taking their revolution to a new, higher stage.

Washington's enemy is not Khamenei or Rafsanjani, or even Ahmadinejad -- its enemy is the people of Iran.

Britsh MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America's stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one of President Bush's senior women officials [Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates]: "I hate all Iranians." (Simon Walters, "I Hate All Iranians, US Aide Tells MPs," Daily Mail, 29 September 2007)