■利比亞東部大城班加西的一處牆上，塗鴉著格達費的肖像，圖攝於23日。（圖文／路透）
如何分辨「好阿拉伯人」與「壞阿拉伯人」
(中文網址：http://www.lihpao.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-105573)
=====================================================================
轉錄碎碎念：立報真是太傷腦筋了，特地大費周章引進這篇好文，卻又沒把全文翻完，害我把中文文章看到底時忍不住大喊：「蛤？這樣就結束了？」還好Google一番之後是把完整原文給找到了，不過看著看著，一股把剩餘部分翻出來的衝動也發作了=.,=......冷靜、冷靜啊！
=====================================================================
編按
自從2011年2月以來，源自利比亞東部的反抗軍與強人格達費上校的忠誠部隊衝突四起。在突尼西亞的班阿里和埃及的穆巴拉克兩位獨裁者被迫下台之後，格達費是否也將步上同樣的命運？目前發生在利比亞的事件，是否就是突尼西亞和埃及人民抗爭的翻版？如何理解格達費的奇詭行徑以及他在政治上的轉變？為何以美、英、法為首的「北大西洋公約組織」要對利比亞開戰？如何解釋或分辨「好阿拉伯人」與「壞阿拉伯人」之間的差異？
在利比亞戰火蔓延之際，《新國際》特別翻譯比利時合作媒體「調查行動」（Ivesstig'Action）網絡的這篇訪談稿。本文受訪者莫哈梅德．哈珊（Mohamed Hassan）生於非洲衣索比亞，是當今國際知名的阿拉伯世界地緣政治專家。他在1970年代即即活躍於衣索比亞社會主義革命的學生陣線，1990年代之間曾以外交官身分派駐華盛頓、北京和布魯塞爾。他的著作主要集中在處理阿拉伯民族主義和伊斯蘭運動的問題。
問：繼突尼西亞和埃及之後，阿拉伯世界的革命是否同樣會發生在利比亞？
答：目前發生在利比亞的狀況有點不同。在突尼西亞和埃及，人民的自由受到剝奪是顯而易見的，但是，真正促使年輕人走上街頭反抗的，是貧困落後的社會條件。這兩個國家的人民幾乎看不到未來。
在利比亞，格達費政權的確有貪瀆的狀況，壟斷國家大部份的財富，對於人民的抗爭也常施以嚴酷鎮壓。不過，利比亞的社會條件比起鄰國要好多了。利比亞平均壽命比起非洲其他國家都要來得高，醫療和教育體系都很上軌道。它也是非洲最早根除瘧疾的國家之一。即使其財富的分配還是相當不平等，但是國民平均所得達到1萬1千美元，是阿拉伯世界中最高的國家之一。因此，你在利比亞找不到導致類似突尼西亞和埃及人民起義的客觀條件。
墳場的和平
問：那麼，如何解釋利比亞正在發生的狀況？
答：要了解當下的事件，必須回歸到歷史的脈絡。利比亞曾經是奧圖曼帝國的一個行省。1830年，法國拿下了阿爾及利亞，而同樣受制於奧圖曼帝國的埃及，其埃及總督莫哈梅德．阿里（Mohamed Ali）則採取越來越為獨立的政策。奧圖曼當局擔心從此喪失整個地區的控制權，於是派軍進入利比亞。
那個時代，瑟努西斯教派（Senoussis）在當地非常有影響力。這個教派由一個名叫薩義德．莫罕米德（Sayid Mohammed）的阿爾及利亞人創立，他在遊學阿爾及利亞和摩洛哥後，來到突尼西亞和利比亞宣講他獨特的伊斯蘭教義。19世紀初期，瑟努西斯教派信眾越來越多，但由於他在宣教中批評奧圖曼的權威教派，並不受當局歡迎。於是他遷往埃及和麥加地區發展。但後來他還是決定潛回利比亞，在東部的席雷奈格（Cyrénaïque）地區生根，建立地盤。
他的教派在這個地區發展很快。他在那兒徵稅、調解部落間的紛爭，深入到民間的生活。後來，甚至擁有自己的軍隊，為商旅篷車提供保鑣護衛的服務。最後，瑟努西斯教派其實就變成席雷奈格的地方政府，其影響力甚至遠達查德北部。不過，歐洲殖民強權很快就大舉進入非洲，將南撒哈拉的部分與大陸切割。這當然很不利於瑟努西斯教派的發展，而義大利的入侵利比亞也撼動了這個教派原有的霸權地位。
問：關於殖民罪行，義大利曾經在2008年給付利比亞一筆補償金。當時的殖民政權真的那麼恐怖嗎？或者是因為義大利總理貝魯斯柯尼另有盤算，想要討好格達費以便簽訂利潤更為龐大的商貿協議？
答：義大利的殖民政策的確相當酷殘。20世紀初，有一個法西斯團體開始發動宣傳，主張在黑色大陸上應該積極建立白人的至高優先權。尤其是義大利於1896年的阿杜亞（Adoua）戰役受挫於衣索比亞部隊之後，重建白人霸權的欲望大張，認為文明大國的榮譽已被野蠻人玷污，必須要用鮮血來清洗。法西斯的宣傳認定利比亞是一個野蠻國家，其居民是落後的遊牧民族，然則，其風景又彷如明信片那麼漂亮，是一個很適合義大利人攻占的美好領地。
義大利入侵利比亞引發土耳其的不滿，兩國於1911年開戰。這是一場非常血腥的戰爭，最後是義大利於翌年大獲全勝。不過義大利也只能控制地中海沿岸的黎波里的地區，其他地方的反抗依然不斷，尤其是席雷奈格這個地區。瑟努西斯教派在這裡支持一支由阿爾默克塔（Omar Al-Mokhtar）領導的游擊部隊，這個游擊隊藏身山裡，十分厲害。儘管義大利軍隊的裝備和人馬都佔了優勢，卻還是常常被游擊隊突擊，損失重大。
然則，到了1930年代，墨索里尼在義大利當家，他採取極端政策根除抵抗，在利比亞的鎮壓變得十分兇暴，其中一個大屠夫就是葛拉季安尼將軍（Rodolf Graziani）。他曾經寫道：「義大利士兵深信他們揹負著一個文明而高貴的使命，他們必須不計代價完成這個使命……如果利比亞人不肯認命，不接受上天的安排，那麼，我們義大利人就必須持續作戰，也許必須將利比亞人民完全消滅才能夠取得和平，墳場的和平……」
2008年貝魯斯柯尼總理為這些殖民罪行補償利比亞。這當然是經過算計的策略：貝魯斯柯尼想要討好格達費以便尋求進一步的經濟合作。不管怎樣，利比亞人民的確深受殖民之害，即使要說是族群滅絕也不為過。
國王就是傀儡
問：利比亞後來是如何獨立的？
答：當義大利殖民者鎮壓席雷奈格地區的反抗時，瑟努西斯教派的領導人伊德里斯（Idrss）逃亡到埃及，在埃及和英國當局談判。第二次世界大戰之後，歐洲的殖民帝國一個個瓦解，而利比亞也在1951年獨立。在英國的支持之下，伊德里斯取得政權。然而，利比亞有一部分中產階級人士受到源自開羅的阿拉伯民族主義影響，希望利比亞能夠併入埃及，成就一個北非大國。可是，西方帝國主義強權不願意看到發展出一個阿拉伯大國，他們選擇支持利比亞獨立並扶植伊德里斯做為傀儡。
問：那麼，伊德里斯國王完全符合他們的期待嗎？
答：完全符合。獨立之後，組成利比亞的3個地區──的黎波里（Tripolitaine）、斐棧（Fezzan）和席雷奈格（ Cyrénaïque）統合在一個聯邦體制下。可是，要知道，利比亞的領土3倍於法國，由於基礎建設欠缺，各個地域的界線其實很難認定，一直等到有航空器進行測量後，分界才比較明朗。1951年獨立時，利比亞人口約莫只有1百萬人。3個新近統合的地區，其歷史、文化的差異相當大。這個國家也根本沒有公路可以讓3個地區相通互連。因此，獨立初期的利比亞實質上還處於相當落後的階段，根本稱不上是一個真正的國家。
問：關於這個狀態，可否請你進一步說明？
答：「民族國家」是一個跟資產階級和資本主義的出現緊緊扣連的概念。在歐洲中世紀期間，資產階級希望他們的商貿活動可以擴展得越廣越好，可是卻被封建制度的種種限制給束縛了。每一個地方都被切割成無數的小小封建領土，商人貨物的輸送必須經過層層關卡，一次又一次地被扣稅被剝皮。這還不包括他們必須向每一個封建領主奉獻的禮品采金。所有這些路障都在資產階級革命之後打通了，民族國家也從而建立起來，允許商品在一個國家之內的龐大市場自由流通。
可是利比亞是在前資本主義階段被創建出來的。它的基礎建設嚴重欠缺，絕大部分的人民還是過著遊牧生活，根本難以管控，而社會中的分歧依然相當巨大，奴隸制度依然存在……此外，伊德里斯國王腦袋中根本沒有任何國家發展計畫，他完完全全依賴美國和英國的援助。
問：英國和美國為什麼要支持他？為了石油嗎？
答：在1951年，利比亞還沒有發現石油。但是英、美在利比亞境內有軍事基地，戰略上控制紅海和地中海。直到1954年，才有一個來自德州的大富豪韓特（Nelson Bunker Hunt）發現了利比亞的石油。當時，利比亞每桶石油的價碼只有阿拉伯地區石油的3分之1，可見這個國家是如何落後。當時，可以說是非洲最最貧困的一個國家。
革命泛阿拉伯主義
問：石油畢竟帶來了龐大收入，這些錢是怎麼使用的？
答：伊德里斯國王和他的集團，瑟努西斯教派核心人士靠著石油發家致富。他們也把一部分的石油收入分給其他部落的頭人，以緩和彼此的緊張關係。一小部分菁英靠著石油買賣也積累了一些財富，基礎建設開始有了一些投入，不過主要都集中在地中海沿岸，這是和外界做生意最受矚目的地帶。但是利比亞內地鄉野地區還是處於極端貧困的狀態，無數的窮人來到城市求生，集聚在都會邊緣的貧民窟。這樣的景況持續到1969年，3名軍官起來推翻了國王，其中一人就是格達費。
問：為何革命來自於軍隊中的軍官？
答：在一個部族分歧如此巨大的國家，軍隊其實就是唯一的國家體制。要不是有軍隊，利比亞這個國家根本就不算存在。除此之外，伊德里斯國王所屬的瑟努西斯集團也擁有他們自己的民兵。可是在國家軍隊，來自不同地區的年輕人可以在這裡交會，認識彼此。
格達費原先是參加一個服膺納塞主義的政治團體，可是他清楚這樣一個組合並不足以推翻王朝，於是決定入伍參軍。拉下伊德里斯國王的3名軍官都深深受到納塞的影響。其實納塞本身也是以埃及軍官的身分推翻法儒克（Farouk）國王。納塞受到社會主義的啟發，反對新殖民主義強權介入第三世界國家內政，主張阿拉伯世界大聯合。他上台後甚至將原本被英、法控制的蘇彝士運河收歸國有，這個舉動激怒了西方國家，導致1956年對埃及的轟炸。納塞的「革命泛阿拉伯主義」對於利比亞有相當大的迴響，尤其是在軍隊當中，格達費當然也是其中之一。利比亞軍官1969年所發動的政變基本上就是跟隨納塞的腳步。
問：利比亞革命帶來什麼改變？
答：格達費當時可以有兩個選擇。其一是將利比亞石油交給西方財團，就如同伊德里斯國王所做的一樣。那麼，利比亞就可能變成波斯灣地區的石油王國一樣，奴隸制度繼續存在，婦女被剝奪一切權利，而歐洲的那些所謂建築大師可以前來大顯身手，而天文數字般的預算則是來自阿拉伯人民口袋。或者，自主走上另一條獨立於新殖民強權的道路。格達費選擇了第二個選項，他將利比亞石油國有化。這當然也激怒了虎視眈眈的帝國主義者。
1950年代，在艾森豪總統時期的白宮流傳著一個笑話，這個笑話到了雷根總統時期發展為貨真價實的政治理論。你要如何辨別「好的阿拉伯人」和「壞的阿拉伯人」？答案是：一個好的阿拉伯人就是，美國說什麼，他就做什麼，於是，他會得到飛機做為回報，他可以把錢存到瑞士的銀行，可以被邀請到華盛頓作客等等。艾森豪和雷根都有屬於他們的好阿拉伯人，譬如，沙烏地阿拉伯和約旦的國王、科威特的親王、伊朗王室的首腦以及摩洛哥國王等，當然，別忘了利比亞的伊德里斯國王。至於壞的阿拉伯人，是哪些呢？那些不聽話的，譬如納塞、格達費，乃至稍後的海珊……
石油反革命
問：不過，格達費似乎不太……
答：格達費把槍口朝向群眾，這當然是有爭議的。不過，在沙烏地阿拉伯，在巴林，他們同樣對群眾開槍，而這些國家的領導人得到西方的一切讚許。對美國來說，格達費是一個壞阿拉伯人，因為他把石油國有化，而在1969年革命之前，西方石油集團根本上是把利比亞石油視為他們的囊中物。因為有石油收入的挹注，格達費為利比亞帶來了一些正面的改變，包括基礎建設、教育、醫療以及婦女的生活條件等等。
問：好吧，格達費推翻了王朝，將石油國有化，反對帝國強權，也為利比亞帶來正面改變。可是，在他當權40年之後，他畢竟是一個貪瀆的獨裁者，鎮壓反對的聲音，並且重新開門迎接西方大財團。你要怎麼解釋這些轉變？
答：剛開始的時候，格達費站在反對殖民強權的立場，並且慷慨支持世界上其他地方的解放運動，我很肯定他當年的作為。不過，要說清楚的是：格達費其實是反共的。1971年，他派人劫持了一輛載著蘇丹共產黨反對派人士的飛機，迫使其改變航道飛返蘇丹，這些人隨即被蘇丹總統尼梅黎（Nimeyri）處決。
事實上，格達費從來就不是一個有廣闊視野的政治家。他的革命是一場中產階級民族主義的革命，他是用國家資本主義在統治利比亞。要瞭解他的政權為何越走越偏，我們必須分析一些對他不利的因素，也要深入了解他個人所犯的錯誤。
首先，我們要知道，格達費剛接手的利比亞幾乎是一無所有，這個國家十分落後，根本沒有什麼受過教育的群眾或者強大的工人階級來支持革命。大部分受過良好教育的人都是屬於菁英階層，他們只會把利比亞的財富捧去奉送給新殖民強權。當然，這些人不會支持革命，他們當中有相當大部分的人乾脆就離開利比亞，到國外組織反對團體。
此外，推翻伊德里斯國王的軍官都深受納塞影響，埃及和利比亞原本是要計畫要連結成戰略上的夥伴關係。可是，1970年納塞逝世，整個計劃化為烏有。埃及從此變成一個反革命的國家，選擇向西方靠攏。埃及新總統沙達特親近美國，傾向自由市場經濟，並與以色列結盟。1977年，利比亞和埃及之間甚至爆發短暫衝突。想想看格達費的處境：一個曾經啟發他的國家，一個他曾經要緊密連結的國家，突然之間，變成他的敵人。
另一個對利比亞革命造成不利影響的重要因素是：1980年代石油價格大幅滑落。1973年，在以色列與周邊阿拉伯國家爆發戰爭的時候，幾個石油生產國決定採取禁運政策，造成油價急速攀升。此次禁運首度造成北方國家的財富往南方國家轉移。可是，到了1980年代，一個由雷根總統聯合沙烏地阿拉伯主導的「石油反革命」發生了，沙烏地阿拉伯大量增產，淹沒了整個石油市場，導致油價急速滑落。每桶石油的價格從35美元一下子摔到了8美元。
問：沙烏地阿拉伯豈不是搬石頭砸自己的腳？
答：對於他們的經濟當然不利。但是石油並不是沙烏地阿拉伯最重要的東西。最重要的是它與美國的關係。因為只有美國的支持才能維繫沙烏地阿拉伯王朝於不墜。
油價遽降對其他產油國而言是一場大災難，導致債台高築。而這一事件就發生在格達費掌權10年之後。他原本一無所有，如今可以用來進行建設的唯一財源又眼看著如同雪片在太陽下蒸發。
還要注意的是，這一波「石油反革命」也加速了蘇聯解體，導致它深陷於阿富汗戰爭而無以自拔。隨著蘇維埃集團的瓦解，利比亞失去了它最主要的政治支持者，在國際舞台上完全被孤立。而雷根政府把利比亞列入恐怖主義國家的黑名單，緊接著發動一系列的制裁行動，這讓利比亞更加難以喘息。
======================以下是立報沒翻完的訪談內文==========================
What were Gaddafi’s mistakes ?
As I have said, he wasn’t a great visionary. The theory developed in connection with his Green Book is a mix of anti-imperialism, Islamism, nationalism, state capitalism and other things. Besides his lack of political vision, Gaddafi made a serious mistake in attacking Chad in the 1970s. Chad is Africa’s 5th largest country and the Colonel, no doubt feeling Libya was too small to accommodate his megalomanic ambitions, annexed the Aozou Strip. It is true that historically the Senoussis Brotherhood had exercised its influence on this region. And in 1945 the French Foreign Minister, Pierre Laval, wanted to buy off Mussolini by offering him the Aozou Strip. But in the end Mussolini drew close to Hitler and the deal remained a dead letter.
Gaddafi nevertheless wanted to annexe this territory and engaged in a struggle against Paris for influence over this former French colony. In the end, the US, France, Egypt, Sudan and other reactionary forces in the region supported the Chadian army which defeated the Libyan trops. Thousands of soldiers and large quantities of arms were captured. The President of Chad, Hissène Habré, sold these soldiers on to the Reagan administration ; and the CIA used them as mercenaries in Kenya and Latin America.
But the Libyan revolution’s biggest mistake was to have bet too heavily on its oil. It is human resources that are a country’s greatest wealth. You cannot succeed in a revolution if you do not develop national harmony, social justice and a fair distribution of wealth.
However, the Colonel never eliminated the discriminatory practices that had long been a tradition in Libya. How can you mobilise the population if you do not prove to the Libyans that whatever their ethnic or tribal backgrounds, all are equal and can work together for the good of the nation ? The majority of the Libyan population is Arab, speaks the same language and shares the same religion. Ethnic diversity is not very important. It would have been possible to abolish all discrimination in order to mobilise the population.
Gadaffi was also incapable of educating the Libyan people in revolutionary matters. He did not raise the level of political consciousness of citizens and did not build a party to support the revolution.
Nevertheless, in accordance with his 1975 Green Book, he did set up people’s committees, a kind of direct democracy.
This attempt at direct democracy was influenced by Marxist-Leninist concepts. But these people’s committees in Libya were not based on any political analysis, or any clear ideology. They failed. Neither did Gaddafi build a political party to support his revolution. In the end, he cut himself off from the people. The Libyan revolution became a one-man project. Everything revolved around this charismatic leader divorced from reality. And while a gulf opened up between the leader and his people, force and repression step in to fill the void. Excess began to follow excess, corruption expanded and tribal differences crystallised.
Today these divisions have come to the forefront in the Libyan crisis. There is of course a part of Libyan youth that is tired of the dictatorship and has been influenced by events in Tunisia and Egypt. But these popular sentiments are being taken advantage of by the opposition in the east of the country which is after its share of the cake, the distribution of wealth having been very unequal under the Gaddafi regime. It will not belong before the real contradictions see the light of day.
Moreover we don’t know a great deal about this opposition movement. Who are they ? What is their programme ? If they really wanted to wage a democratic revolution, why have they resorted to he flags of King Idriss, symbols of the time when Cyrenaica was the country’s dominant province ? If you are part of a country’s opposition, and as a patriot you want to overthrow your government, you must try to do this correctly. You do not cause a civil war in your own country and you do not put it at risk of balkanisation.
In your view, it is no longer just a question of a civil war resulting from contradictions between different Libyan clans ?
It’s worse, I think. There have already been inter-tribal contradictions but they have never been so widespread. Here the US is fanning the flames of these tensions in order to be able to intervene militarily in Libya. From the very first days of the insurrection, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was suggesting arming the opposition. From early on the opposition organised by the National Council refused all foreign interference on the part of foreign powers because they knew that any such interference would discredit their movement. But today some of the opposition are calling for armed intervention.
Since this conflict broke out, President Obama has called for all possible options to be considered and the US Senate is calling on the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libyan territory, which would be a real act of war. Moreover the nuclear aircraft carrier,USS Enterprise, which was stationed in the Gulf of Aden to counter piracy, has travelled up to the Libyan coast. Two amphibian ships, USS Kearsage and USS Ponce, with several thousands of marines and fleets of combat helicopters aboard, have also been stationed in the Mediterranean.
Last week, Louis Michel, former EU Development and Humanitarian Aid commissioner, forcefully raised the question in a TV studio as to which government would have courage to make the case to its parliament for the necessity of military intervention in Libya. But Louis Michel never demanded any such intervention in Egypt or Bahrain. Why was that ?
Is the repression not more violent in Libya ?
The repression was very violent in Egypt but NATO never sent warships to the Egyptian coast to threaten Mubarak. There was merely an appeal to find a democratic solution.
In the case of Libya, it is necessary to be very careful with the information that reaches us. One day there is talk of 2,000 deaths, and the next day the count is revised to 300. It was also being said from the very start of the crisis that Gaddafi was bombing his own people, but the Russian army, which is observing the situation by satellite, has officially given lie to that information. If NATO is preparing to intervent militarily in Libya, we can be sure that the dominant information media are going to spread their usual war propaganda.
In fact the same thing happened in Romania with Ceausescu. On Christmas Eve, 1989, the Belgian prime minister, Wilfred Martiens, made a speech on television. He claimed that Ceaucescu’s security forces had just killed 12,000 people. It was untrue. The images of the famous Timosoara massacre also did the rounds all over the world. They were aimed at proving the mindless violence of the Romanian president. But it was proved later on that it was all staged. Bodies had been pulled out of morgues and placed in trenches in order to impress journalists. It was also said that the communists had poisoned the water, that Syrian and Palestinian mercenaries were present in Romania, or even that Ceaucescu had trained orphans as killing machines. It was all pure propaganda aimed at destabilising the regime.
In the end Ceaucescu and his wife were killed after a kangaroo court trial lasting 55 minutes. Of course, the Romanian president, like Gaddafi, was no choir boy. But what has happened since ? Romania has become a European semi-colony. Its cheap labour power is exploited. Numerous services have been privatised for the benefit of western companies and they are financially out of reach for a large part of the population. And now every year there is no shortage of Romanians who go to weep on Ceaucescu’s tomb. The dictatorship was a terrible thing, but after the country was destroyed economically, it’s even worse.
Why did the US want to overthrow Gaddafi ? For the last ten years or so, the Colonel has been quite amenable to the West and privatised a large party of the Libyan economy, benefitting western companies in the process.
One must analyse all these events in the light of the new balance of forces in the world. The imperialist powers are in decline, while other forces are on the rise. Recently China offered to buy the Portuguese debt ! In Greece, the population is more and more hostile to this European Union that it perceives as a cover for German imperialism. Similar feelings are growing in the countries of the East. Furthermore, the US attacked Iraq in order to get control of its oil, but in the end only one US company is benefiting ; the rest of the oil is being exploited by Malaysian and Chinese companies. In short, imperialism is in crisis.
In addition, the Tunisian revolution really took the West by surprise. The fall of Mubarak even more so. Washington is attempting to regain its influence over these popular movements but its control is slipping away. In Tunisia, prime minister Mohamed Ghannouchi, a straightforward product of the Ben Ali dictatorship, was meant to control the transition, creating the illusion of change. But the people’s determination forced him to resign. In Egypt, the US was relying on the army to keep an acceptable system in place. But I have received information confirming that in very many military barracks around the country, young officers are organising themselves in revolutionary committees in support of the Egyptian people. They have even arrested certain officers associated with the Mubarak regime.
The region could well escape US control. Intervention in Libya would allow Washington to smash this revolutionary movement and stop it spreading to the rest of the Arab world and to Africa. Since last week, the young have been rising in Burkina Faso but the media are quiet about this. As they are about the demonstrations taking place in Iraq.
Another danger for the US is the possible emergence of anti-imperialist governments in Tunisia and Egypt. Should this happen, Gaddafi would no longer be isolated and could renege on the agreements concluded with the West. Libya, Egypt and Tunisia could unite to form an anti-imperialist bloc. With all the resources they have at their disposal, especially Gaddafi’s large foreign reserves, the thre of them could become a major regional power – probably more important than Turkey.
Yet Gaddafi supported Ben Ali when the Tunisian people rebelled.
That goes to show to what extent he is weak, isolated and out of touch with reality. But the changing balance of forces in the region could change matters. Gaddafi could shift his rifle to the other shoulder – it wouldn’t be for the first time.
How could the situation in Libya pan out ?
The western powers and the so-called opposition movement have rejected Chavez’s offer of mediation. This means that they are not interested in a peaceful solution to the conflict. But the effects of a NATO intervention would be disastrous. We have seen what that did to Kosovo or Afghanistan.
Moreover, military aggression could encourage Islamic groups to enter Libya who might be able to seize major arms caches there. Al Qaeda could infiltrate and turn Libya into a second Iraq. Besides, there are aready armed groups in Niger that nobody has ben able to control. Their influence could extend to Libya, Chad, Mali and Algeria. By preparing for military intervention, imperialism is in the process of opening the gates of Hell.
To conclude, the Libyan people deserve better than this opposition movement that is plunging the country into chaos. They need a real democratic movement to replace the Gaddafi regime and bring about social justice. In any case, the Libyans do not deserve military aggression. The retreating imperialist forces seem nevertheless to be preparing a counter-revolutionary offensive in the Arab World. Attacking Libya is their emergency solution. But they will be shooting themselves in the feet.
留言列表
