Libya: A War For Regime Change?

August 23, 2011 1 Comment

“Our differences could have been resolved very easily…” said Mohammed Gaddafi as the deafening sound of an AK47 round thundering from its barrel drowned out his voice. Colonel Muammar’s son was giving a live telephone interview from his home (where he was supposedly under house arrest) last night when the line went dead, cutting off his cry “I’m under attack right now”. The rebel army has taken Tripoli.

As thousands discharged weapons into the air with gleeful smiles, it was easy to be swept up in the triumphalism of the moment. As Brutus said, “then walk we forth even to the marketplace, and, waving our red weapons o’er our heads, let’s all cry out ‘peace, freedom, and liberty!’”

But along with pictures of elated Libyans celebrating in the newly reclaimed (and renamed) Martyr Square, came the inevitable question: where is Muammar Gaddafi? And then its corollary: have NATO therefore been successful?

The whereabouts of the Colonel are still unknown, but many commentators have been quick to declare victory, and praise the NATO campaign. USC professor Josh Lockman appeared on Al Jazeera last night to declare that Obama’s decision to engage in Libya had been “vindicated”, and that NATO forces had followed UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

The second of these pronouncements is obviously false. No sensible definition of the “measures to protect civilians” that UNSCR 1973 mandates can include bombing a densely populated Tripoli. In addition, both President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron have quite openly claimed that the Libya campaign’s overall aim was the removal of Muammar Gaddafi. Given these facts, and that NATO has conducted over 7000 strike sorties in the past six months, the flimsy R2P interpretation of the resolution can be safely shelved. NATO have been acting as a rebel air force.

Leaving the legality of a regime change war aside for a moment, we should turn to assessing whether or not the description is even accurate. Has the Libya campaign really aimed to remove Gaddafi as Cameron and Obama say? And now that the TNC has control of Tripoli, does that therefore mean NATO deserves some of the praise?

It’s first necessary to remember that until it was impossible to continue doing so, the West supported Gaddafi rule in Libya. It is possible, of course, that messrs. Sarkozy, Obama and Cameron were genuinely concerned for the people of Benghazi, and were moved to end Gaddafi rule purely by terror of his threats. Were that the case, why were the people of Bahrain, Syria and the Ivory Coast not shown the same tender care, faced as they were with the reality, not merely the threat, of atrocities?

On June 21st, I predicted that Gaddafi’s offer to end the conflict and hold internationally monitored elections would be ignored by NATO. That prediction proved to be correct. If the objective of the campaign was the end of Gaddafi, why was this offer neglected? Either we must assume that NATO feared Gaddafi would win a free election (unlikely), or that there were motivations beyond ‘regime change’.

The claim that UNSCR 1973 has been followed is flatly false, but the claim that regime change is the real motive is also untenable. Other motivations present themselves. Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa, and is Europe’s single largest provider. It’s also blessed with at least 1 trillion cubic metres of gas.

The smiles in Martyr’s square may well turn to frowns if it comes to pass that NATO really intends to ensure that those energy reserves aren’t threatened by instituting a new Libyan leadership that is both more reliable, and more conducive to Western resource needs, than Gaddafi’s.

Photograph from شبكة برق

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-stevenson/libya-a-war-for-regime-ch_b_933336.html

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Some Elementary Remarks on Freedom of Expression

August 23, 2011 Leave a comment

It is a sad day indeed when a writer wishes that his own work were not necessary. Unfortunately such days have been common over the past century – many inspired by this very topic. Much of the sorrow I have at feeling compelled to write this article is, I hope, expressed in its plagiarised title.

Sad too, is that I must first preface my remarks with something of a disclaimer: I could not possibly have a lower opinion of the English Defence League. They are as contemptible and vile a band of men as one is ever likely to meet. Nothing that I write here should be taken as an endorsement of any of their incoherent ‘views’ (itself an ironic word to use, as it should not apply to those who are obviously blind).

The call has rung out, over the past month, from Tower Hamlets Council, London Citizens, The Guardian‘s Dave Hill, and even an Op-Ed in this very publication, for the EDL’s planned march through Tower Hamlets on September 3rd to be banned. That is to say: the government is asked to prevent a political movement from demonstrating in London. Worse still, the call is likely to be answered positively. One year ago today the EDL were banned from marching through Bradford.

Those calling for the march to be banned do not, alas, have the courage to make their own position clear. They will not say openly what is evidently true: that they do not believe in freedom of speech or assembly. The EDL march should not be banned for many obvious reasons, but underpinning them all is the belief in the right of the individual to express anything without state censorship; in short, freedom of expression.

There are only two positions that one can hold on freedom of expression. The first is that freedom of expression is a human right, enshrined in the nature of man, and should therefore be afforded all possible protection. Any opinion or view may be expressed, however awful it may be, and is protected by law.

The second position is that freedom of expression is not a human right. This position submits that abstract collectivist entities, like states or communities, have rights that exceed those of people. Its adherents will contend that certain people don’t ‘deserve’ freedom of expression (as if it were a privilege). They will also speak of freedom of speech ‘within limits’, which is clearly an oxymoron (Stalin, I have no doubt, was in favour of freedom of speech for those he agreed with).

Between these two positions, you must make your choice. The first, it seems to me, is not only preferable but a pre-condition for civilized society. Granted, we will all occasionally hear from those we despise. Holocaust deniers, racists, and bigots like the EDL, will not be thrown in prison, but must instead be met with superior argument. Even worse, intellectuals will be allowed to freely advocate war and the murder of millions of people (a far more dangerous use of freedom, that you’ll notice is rarely met with the same call for censorship). More dangerous than allowing hateful fools to speak, though, is allowing the state the right to determine what it is acceptable to say, and what historical truth is. The story of that is known to all.

It is sometimes contended that in Britain we have transcended this debate. It is said that our state is so enlightened that we can trust it to tell us what we are allowed to say and think. Were this true, the argument would still refute itself. How would we ensure the continuation of our apparent Utopia, without legal protection of our rights? But this is to ignore that Britain only abolished seditious libel (assaulting the state by speech) in 2009, or that our existing libel laws are some of the most repressive in the developed world.

Defeating the EDL, and the scourge of fascism which they undoubtedly represent, cannot be achieved by appropriating one of their central doctrines any more than putting out a house fire can be achieved by dowsing yourself in petrol. The response to their hateful message should not be a ban, which only strengthens them and their appeal, but an opposing march and opposing message. We should drown out their weak and feeble rambling with reason, brotherhood and liberty.

I look forward to a day when such elementary remarks are accepted as too obvious to require enunciation.

This article first appeared on Qmessenger.co.uk on August 23rd 2011.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Haiti: A Lesson for Supporters of NATO’s Libya Campaign

August 19, 2011 Leave a comment

In 1823 Major General John Murray, the governor of a British slave colony in Jamaica, was confronted by a rebellion. In desperation, he promised the slaves ‘reforms’. They rejected his bargaining – responding that it provided “no comfort”. “Tired of being slaves”, they demanded that “they should be free, and would not work anymore”.

Such simple, and powerful, declarations of a right to liberty were common in the wave of slave rebellions of the 19th Century, and vindicate Immanuel Kant’s dismissal of the idea that “some men are not meant for freedom”.

The first successful slave revolt had come three decades earlier in neighbouring Haiti.

A Little Haitian History

Much like the Congo, Haiti was cursed by her wealth. In 1789, Haiti produced 40% of the world’s sugar, 50% of its coffee, and led cotton production. She was by far France’s most valuable colony, and as such, was subjected to extreme oppression. Aside from the unimaginable suffering inflicted on her people, Haiti’s face was also irrevocably scarred by extreme deforestation. The ecological and economic consequences are still evident.

The Haitians were excluded from the liberté, égalité and fraternité declared in the French revolutionary constitution, but soon decided that they too had a right to freedom. Despite no mandate in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, in 1791 the Haitian push for freedom, equality, and brotherhood also flourished, written as it is on every human heart.

For this they have been severely punished. In 1804, Haiti established the world’s first free, black, post-colonial nation (paid for with the lives of about 100,000 of its people).

France responded by demanding massive reparations from Haiti for the loss of revenue. This financially crippled her, and allowed French banks to reacquire large amounts of Haitian land.

One might be tempted to condemn the French for such an atrocity, and point out that it was they who should be paying reparations, were it not for the fact that this demand was supported by Britain, following a failed British attempt to take Haiti for the Empire between 1793 and 98. The military campaign to capture Haiti was a disaster. As Historian John Newsinger points out: “it was one of the greatest disasters in British military history”, and therefore “hardly figures in histories [of the empire]“.

Crushing Democracy

As is generally the case, the United States took over from the British and French Empires. On July 28th 1915, President Wilson (the renowned isolationist and “idealist”) invaded and occupied Haiti. She remained under direct US control until 1934, when a US backed military Guard took over.

From 1957 to 1990, Haiti was ruled by the brutal Duvalier dictatorship, backed not only by the US but by the Catholic Church. In 1980, no less a person than Mother Teresa visited Haiti, and praised Baby Doc, who in 1971 won an “election” with 99.98% of the vote (a figure reminiscent of the recent Moroccan Referendum).

But in 1990 there was a free election in Haiti – now one of the poorest countries in the world. Following a great deal of popular organization, the Haitians legally, and fairly, elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The US-backed candidate, World Bank official Marc Bazin, got just 14% of the vote. The election should be remembered as the second time Haiti pioneered world democracy and independence, but alas cannot be, as seven months later Aristide was deposed in a CIA-backed coup, and forced into exile.

Aristide was allowed to return in 1994, under the condition that he adopt Bazin’s policies, and after the population had been terrorised by militias that were, once again, backed by Washington. The US was evidently worried about the record of its proxy gangsters as in 1997 the Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch condemned the Clinton administration for stealing “160,000 documents, including photographs of torture victims, that the United States military seized from the Haitian Army and its paramilitary allies in 1994″.

In 2001 Aristide was re-elected. But after opening up a trade relationship with Venezuela, he was once again deposed in coup backed by the CIA in March 2004. This time he was not only removed but kidnapped by US Navy SEALS and taken into exile in South Africa.

Wikileaks and an Earthquake

Aristide was then subjected to a campaign of calumny by the Vatican, which accused him of practising ‘Voodoo’, and said it had “no regrets” about his “departure”. The Wikileaks cables on Haiti show us that the French saw the prospect of an Aristide return to Haiti as a “catastrophe”. Thanks to Wikileaks, and the wonderful work of journalist Kim Ives, we even know that when Dominican President Fernandez suggested that Aristide should be involved in Haiti’s future, he was told he was “wrong” and castigated by the US ambassador. The Ambassador claimed that Aristide was involved in drug trafficking. No evidence has ever emerged to justify this claim despite an expansive US ‘investigation’.

In 2010 Haiti was hit by an Earthquake that killed 230,000 people in the capital Port-au-Prince, and in February 2011 Aristide vowed to return to his suffering nation. Barack Obama, who evidently disagrees with Kant, responded by asking South African President Jacob Zuma to delay his return, and Aristide’s political party Fanmi Lavalas was banned from taking part in the planned election.

Wikileaks cables, again, help clarify this. They reveal that Washington viewed the idea of an Aristide return as “dangerous to Haiti’s democratic consolidation”. Aye there’s the rub.

Aristide did return on March 17th 2011 to a hero’s welcome. In a speech to the crowd that awaited him, he said: “In 1804, the Haitian revolution marked the end of slavery. Today, may the Haitian people end exiles and coup d’états, while peacefully moving from social exclusion to inclusion”. No doubt to Washington, this was the real Earthquake.

Once you understand that the return of a democratically elected leader like Aristide is dangerous to democracy, the relevance of Haiti’s history to the NATO ‘intervention’ in Libya becomes clear. The idea that the same three powers — the United States, France and Britain – who have punished Haiti so mercilessly are now bombing Libya as part of a tireless effort to promote a “democratic transition” is absurd given the conception of “democracy” the Wikileaks cables reveal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-stevenson/haiti-a-lesson-for-suppor_b_926108.html

Photo: UN Development Programme

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

‘The Biggest Brother’: The London Riots

August 15, 2011 Leave a comment

Standing in the middle of Mare Street in Hackney, I am face to face with a line of riot police. Behind them, a billboard with a picture of a large red eye looks over all of us. “Biggest Brother Ever”, it reads – only the Channel 5 icon in the lower right corner ruins an otherwise Orwellian scene.

In response to a wave of looting, and an attack on a stationary police car earlier in the day, riot police have shut down a small section of the road. To their credit, they seem to have calmed an angry crowd. During a tense but peaceful stand off, I ask one of the officers what their plan is. He lifts the cotton balaclava from his mouth: “all I know is that we’re shutting this area down, and keeping it sterile”. ‘Sterile’ an interesting choice of word. It’s six o’clock, and many Hackney residents who have returned from work are eager to pass through the cordon. “It’s not fair, just let us past” an elderly woman says, “I’ll tell you what’s not fair”, the officer replies “people rioting in the street and injuring police officers”.

Another hour of tension and inadvisedly terse words proceeds until, at about 6.50pm, the police withdraw. “Where are you going”, I ask one of the officers, “We don’t know yet – once an area is calm we move on somewhere else”. But is Hackney calm, or will the looting continue as soon as the police move on? “It’s a tough situation”, he tells me “we all have our own views”. “Do you think this could spread to other parts of the country”, I ask, “after all there are many northern towns in precisely the same situations?” He nods solemnly: “I know – I just don’t know what will happen”.

Crowds in Hackney seem to be dispersing, so we decide to travel to Stratford on the now re-opened overground. The shopping centre has been pre-emptively closed since 4pm, and is guarded by many officers, but nothing happens. Travel is by now very restricted, with many buses and underground stations closed, we have to head home. But later in Hackney, Croydon, Enfield, Peckham, and all over the poor inner city, riots do break out. In Croydon a furniture shop burns furiously, billowing smoke into the air. By the early ours of the morning, a huge Sony distribution centre in Enfield is ablaze, and with these buildings the sympathy of onlookers for a disenfranchised, deprived, and ignored population also goes up in flames.

Roads closed by policemen arrayed in praetorian uniform, shops looted, flames visible for miles, how did it come to this?

On the way home, we witness something telling. A group of 12 police officers, who had evidently realised that they weren’t needed at Stratford shopping centre, surround a small group of children. All but two are black, one of those is Asian. “Why are you searching these children?”, I ask an officer, “stop taking photographs – this is nothing to do with you” he snaps back. “It’s perfectly legal to record this, and we will continue” my photographer responds. “Why are you searching these children”, I repeat, “they’re being searched lawfully under Section 60” (he means the Public Order Act). “And do you have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are in possession of weapons?”, I ask. The conversations repeats itself. Eventually he stumbles, “why aren’t you searching me?”, my photographer asks him, “You have to look at them” he replies, “this conversation is over”.

There is no “excuse” for rioting and destruction, especially if it endangers people. Yet the complaints of the predominantly black communities in Tottenham that began this series of riots are important, and should not be lost. In London, you are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched by police officers if you are black. There have been 333 deaths in police custody since 1998, and not a single conviction of any officer.

There is a strong feeling of injustice and inequality all over poor London, and like the elderly woman in Hackney, people are tired of the police, and politicians, saying “I’ll tell you what’s fair”. Though it is tempting to forget the protest against unjust policing in Tottenham while the flames surround us, we must not. For many Londoners, the image of an intimidating police force with a Big Brother eye behind them is real, and this must be addressed, or we are condemned to repeat this.

 

(All Photography by Katie-Jane Cockerill)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-stevenson/the-biggest-brother-the-l_b_921944.html

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.