African Union and Libya

[ComradeMan]

What do you guys make of the African Union's refusal to recognise the "new" Libyan Government?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/african-union-libya-rebels-government_n_938011.html

[jake williams]

It's a bit of a mixed story. Africa in general (at least the governments and civil society, we don't exactly have opinion polls from peasants in Niger or Somalia) is not happy with NATO's intervention and "rebels" in Libya, and is not at all happy with the new government. Why that is involves several things. There's a reflexive (and totally reasonable in light of virtually all of African history for the past several centuries) opposition to anything perceived as European colonialism in Africa, of which NATO's present adventures certainly are an example. There's a specific commitment from some quarters, at least allegedly, to Gaddafi himself, who has been seen (rightly or wrongly) as being particularly committed to pan-Africanism and the AU itself. The NTC is full of anti-black racists, like to be more diplomatically oriented toward, to pick a random country, Qatar, than they would be to southern Africa.

In South Africa in particular it's fairly clear that there was pressure from the left within the ANC to oppose intervention, and to reverse what was seen as a tacit approval of the intervention by way of the "no-fly zone". There might be some analogies with other countries, but it's significant that there are organized progressive mass movements in South Africa which are mostly minimal or non-existent outside of it. There's been some suggestion, in fact, that the concern on the part of a lot of African state leaders was that an immediate endorsement of the NTC would set a precedent for endorsing just about any provisional government set up by any ragtag bunch of whackos who could get NATO air support. This is something that leaders of various weak states, progressive or not, would also not be happy about.

So, all told, it's not exactly because there's a mass, working class anti-imperialist movement supporting Gaddafi (not that there aren't aspects of that in a minor way), but in general does represent a desire on the part of most African leaders to not endorse imperialist intervention. That's an impulse we can't really dismiss, whether or not it's partly coming from some fairly objectionable figures.

[Bud Struggle]

A bunch of dictators don't care much that a brother dictator has been taken down--quite understandible.

But in the end--who cares? NATO won.
To the victor goes the spoils.

[ComradeMan]

A bunch of dictators don't care much that a brother dictator has been taken down--quite understandible.

But in the end--who cares? NATO won.
To the victor goes the spoils.

Omar Mukhtar my friend. No one has won anything yet. As a good cappie you should know that profit must exceed expenditure and as of yet the balance books have not been closed. I'm not going to form apologetics for Ghaddaffi- he was indeed an oppressive tyrant and a dictator, but at the same time I think it is grossly premature to view this conflict as being by any means over and I furthermore have a horrible feeling that they've opened Pandora's box with this one and it's going to bite them in the ass.

[#FF0000]

What do you guys make of the African Union's refusal to recognise the "new" Libyan Government?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/african-union-libya-rebels-government_n_938011.html

It doesn't surprise me at all. I'm definitely no expert on this and I only have a foggy understanding of the whole thing, but apparently Gaddafi's Libya was supposed to be a big player in African Union projects like the African Monetary Fund (which was poised to more or less kick the IMF out of Africa).

I went to find all the articles I was using as sources, but then stumbled upon one big one that summed up everything, and brought up an interesting point: that a lot of people in Africa like Gadaffi because this dude was not only a champion of pan-Africanism, but was big in the fight against Apartheid.

Anyway, here's the article. I don't think it's entirely on-topic, but it's still an decent take on the Libyan fiasco in general. (http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/04/why-is-gaddafi-being-demonized/)

[RGacky3]

But in the end--who cares? NATO won.
To the victor goes the spoils.

NATO was'nt fighting the war, and no, NATO was'nt on the ground, also who would get the spoils? THe national treasuries of the NATO countries? OR Exonn and connaco philips.

[thefinalmarch]

I'm sure Hoipolloi Cassidy is going to appear in this thread sooner or later, so just keep this in mind:

There is an ongoing national strike and boycott of the Huffington post in place, spearheaded by the National Writers' Union. It is not centered on the content of HuffPo as much as on their use of unpaid writers and designers. This boycott has had some success, meaning it's a tremendous step forward in that particular front of the worker's struggle, the internet.

As I said earlier, every time you click on the HuffPo you're crossing an electronic picket line - in effect, you're a scab. Think twice.
http://www.nwu.org/boycott-huffington-post

[#FF0000]

NATO was'nt fighting the war, and no, NATO was'nt on the ground, also who would get the spoils?

They were, actually. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/western-troops-on-ground-libya)

[RGacky3]

Well .... Not seriously on the ground.

[#FF0000]

Well .... Not seriously on the ground.

I wouldn't be too sure, man. I'll have to find some more sources because I know I heard more about British troops, but when there's smoke, there's fire. You see a handful of westerners with guns then you can bet there's a whole lot more around somewhere.

Especially considering NATO had to literally run all of the rebel's operations themselves.

EDIT: Plus they probably wouldn't even need to be. One article I read (by The War Nerd on ExiledOnline) made a pretty good point about laser designators. The rebels were probably given mountains of those.

[Drosophila]

Oil was the motivation from the start. If NATO cares so much about saving people then why didn't they get involved in Rwanda? Because it has no damn oil.

[#FF0000]

Nah it's more than oil. Libya was handing over all sorts of oil. It's bigger than that. It's about keeping the IMF in Africa. It's about keeping the Franc in Africa. It's about opening a well-stocked national bank up to the World Bank...etc. etc. etc.

[RGacky3]

Rwanda was people murdering each other, it was'nt a national leader that disobayed.

[jake williams]

I also think that like a lot of uses of military force, one of the major motivations is "because we can". There's a lot of talk around about this being "a good war" (ie. a pleasant and cost-free justification for future imperialist intervention). Democracy Now had a guest on recently talking about this being an "antidote to the Iraq experience", ie. a cure to the Vietnam syndrome. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_syndrome)

There was a lot of talk in some circles, before the intervention in Libya, and especially as things were sharp in Egypt, that it was distressing that the Arab people seemed to be liberating itself under no influence of US military force. It was essential to prove the continued relevance of the US military, and NATO more broadly, to the liberation of the Arab people. One could, I suppose, more cynically assert that perhaps NATO is less concerned about liberating the Arab people, and more concerned about intervening to prevent the self-liberation of the Arab people.

[Bud Struggle]

Rwanda was people murdering each other, it was'nt a national leader that disobayed.

Anarchy not authoritarian.

[RGacky3]

No it was'nt anarchy, it was definately not without unjust authority, both sides had extremele powerful politicians and generals. Don't play stupid semantics.