PSPD in English Int. Solidarity 2011-04-18   115

[introduction] Debate on Western Military Intervention in Lybia

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973  passed at the UN Security Council. We introduce two articles to show different views on the military intervention.


[ESSF (Europe solidaire sans frontièr : Europe of solidarity without borders )]
Libya: a legitimate and necessary debate from an anti-imperialist perspective
By Achcar Gilbert    http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article20819


[Socialist Unity]
The Arab Revolution Must Stay in Arab Hands – A Response to Gilbert Arhcar
By Kevin Ovenden    http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=7914




In his article Gilbert Achcar argues for the anti-imperialist left to support Western military intervention in Libya albeit in an extremely limited and sceptical sense with various caveats attached. The decisive factor for supporting Western intervention for Achcar is the “comparison between the human cost of this situation and  the human cost that would have occurred had it not happened”.  Achcar appeals to those on the left to abandon an absolutist “religious” approach to anti-western intervention arguing that in the case of Libya intervention may well have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

In the article Achcar refers to various analogies of western intervention (or non-intervention) for example, the cases of Nazi Germany and of the Rwandan genocide in order to highlight the necessity for a more relative approach to analysis of western intervention.  Achcar explains that ultimately the NATO participation in the Libyan crisis is first and foremost in order to secure Western commercial interests, namely oil interests, in the country.

Nevertheless, he argues that there is a humanitarian context to the intervention and that high amounts of public pressure on Western governments to intervene in Libya cannot be ignored. Furthermore Achcar argues that there was no real alternative to the No-fly zone; ruling out arming the rebels as practically unfeasible, a North African-led intervention as unreliable, and a diplomatic resolution as unlikely due to Gaddafi’s course for war. It is in this case that Achcar argues it is “morally and politically wrong” to oppose a no-fly zone.

Despite this, Achcar falls short of full support for the UNSC 1973, stating that the resolution is far too vague and fails to safeguard the interests of the Libyan people, and further could well be used to push forward an imperialist agenda onto a new Libyan regime; arguing “it should not be supported but neither should it be opposed”.  Achcar further states that arms should be deployed as soon as possible to the Libyan rebels in order for a relenting in Rebel alliance on Western military force.  In conclusion Achcar states, that anti-imperialists would be better to “expose imperialist hypocrisy” by supporting humanitarian intervention in all instances, unlike the imperialist powers who intervene in Libya but refuse to intervene in Gaza, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. It is this hypocrisy which Achcar claims the Left should be using against Western powers.

In Response to Achcar’s article, Kevin Ovenden argues in “The Arab Revolution Must Stay in Arab Hands” that anti-imperialists should oppose Western intervention in Libya as it is a clear instantiation of imperial violence and argues that Achcar fails to acknowledge the regional process of revolution in Arab countries.

Ovenden states that Achcar’s position plays “dangerously into the hands of reactionary forces” in playing a part in legitimising Western-led regime change in Libya. Ovenden highlights that whilst the NATO states are bombing Libya they are also intervening in other regional conflicts in different ways. He points to the hypocrisy of NATO “bringing democracy” to Libya whilst simultaneously supporting the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain suppress and murder protestors. For Ovenden the aims of Western intervention in Libya and Western non-intervention in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain etc, are the same, they aim to “corral the revolutionary process and ensure it is steered along a path which is stable and compatible with the interests of Western powers.”

Furthermore, Ovenden directly attacks Achcar’s claims that the Western public support military intervention in Libya, stating that infact there is little enthusiasm for war. For Ovenden the “little enthusiasm” there was for war merely informed the ideological manner London, Paris and Washington framed the need for intervention, that is, if there was any enthusiasm for intervention it was for humanitarian aims, these aims were dishonestly adopted by the Western powers in their rhetoric for entering Libya. 

In response to Achcar’s claims that there was no alternative to the No-fly zone, Ovenden disagrees. He argues that had the West acknowledged the legitimacy of protestors from the start they would have been able to arm them sufficiently. As it was, he suggests there was a great mistrust of the Libyan protestors and before any deal could be made for support the West had to ensure actors friendly to the West’s commercial and political interests in the region were leading the rebellion.  In this way, had the West acknowledged the legitimacy of the protestors from the beginning, and had been genuinely concerned about humanitarian crisis they would have armed the rebellion long before any crisis at Benghazi.

Ovenden parallels the attitude towards Western-backed Libyan rebels with Western suspicion, and the suspicions of Achcar, of Islamic elements of the Egyptian new order; “They want the public…to believe that regimes dependent on Western force of arms and constructed at conferences in Paris or London…are a priori better than long suppressed Islamic movements playing an independent prominent role”.

Overall, for Ovenden the military intervention in Libya is apart of  a wider imperialist project by the West in the middle east and North Africa, to support intervention in Libya is thus supporting such a process across the region. Instead anti-imperialists should be supporting independent organic revolutionary processes across the region.



summarized by Volunteer Thomas Cowan

정부지원금 0%, 회원의 회비로 운영됩니다

참여연대 후원/회원가입


참여연대 NOW

실시간 활동 SNS

텔레그램 채널에 가장 빠르게 게시되고,

더 많은 채널로 소통합니다. 지금 팔로우하세요!