The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) has issued a statement on the events in Libya which appears to make them one of the few honest far-left parties. They have thrown their weight – for what it’s worth – behind the regime of Colonel Gaddafi.
Hands off Libya: victory to Gaddafi
Issued by: CPGB-ML
Issued on: 11 March 2011The CPGB-ML calls for support for the Libyan government in its fight to crush attempts to take control of Libyan oil out of the hands of the Libyan people.
We must resist attempts by foreign powers, especially western imperialists, who, in the interests of gaining control over its oil resources, want to Balkanise Libya, or to turn it into a client state and a base for attacking the democratic movements now surging in the rest of the Arab world and Africa.
Attempts by the imperialist media to portray the Libyan government in the same light as those of the puppet dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain are totally fraudulent, as are attempts to depict the opponents of the Libyan regime as rising up in the interests of freedom alongside the peoples of those Arab countries that are clients of western imperialism.
Their position appears premised on three basic beliefs:
- Qaddafi has been leading his country out of feudalism into the modern world, and the vested interests of the old regime don’t much like this.
- Western imperialism, outraged by Libya’s nationalisation of its oil under Gaddafi, and by Gaddafi’s unfailing support for anti-imperialist causes (South Africa, Palestine, Ireland etc), has also always opposed the Gaddafi regime
- [I]t should be obvious that for the Gaddafi regime to survive at all and to continue implementing its progressive programme, it had to resort to repression of its most dangerous enemies.
Interesting stuff, particularly since the Americans don’t appear to be terribly enthusiastic about intervening.
Curiously, in addition to Western Imperialism and Capitalist Oil Interests, they appear to be blaming Islamic fundamentalists for the Colonel’s problems.
Feudal tribal chiefs do not like to see their power ebbing away. Their religious ideologues do not like to see a society arising that rejects their medievalist tenets, such as women’s inferiority and a predilection for cruel and unusual punishments for crimes – dating from the times when nomadic societies had no resources to develop more humane methods of dealing with offenders.
This, of course, is where they depart more fundamentally from other far-left groups, most of which see Islam as some sort of anti-Imperialist Liberation Theology. I’m surprised that – with their use of language like “medievalist” and their critique of Sharia law – they haven’t been condemned by Bob Pitt on Islamophobia-Watch!
But at least they’re honest. Unlike John Wight at the StWC-aligned Socialist Unity blog who – though he denies it in the comments below his article – appears to have given many of his readers the idea that his article was coded support for Gaddafi. Not without cause. He says:
Previous attempts at initiating negotiations, specifically at the behest of Hugo Chavez, were spurned by the opposition. Another concerted attempt must be made to implement a ceasefire and resolve the conflict with the help of outside mediation. The rebels cannot now win without the support of the West.
Just look at the language. The opposition have “spurned” any negotiations with Gadaffi even with an offer from the supposedly reasonable Hugo Chavez to initiate talks. So clearly they must be the baddies, who, since they have “spurned” the opportunity to “negotiate” with a megalomaniac delusional probably deserve to be killed when their revolution fails. Indeed, Wight pretends to support the opposition while noting that they “cannot now win without the support of the West.” Now remember the title of his article: “No to Military Intervention in Libya”
It seems odd to admit a group you claim to support cannot succeed without help and then to campaign that that help is denied to them. But perhaps sensing the public won’t support a leader who uses jet planes to attack protesters, Wight and Co have had to rephrase their position as Supporting the anti-Gaddafi opposition’s right…. not to get the help from the West which they do not need in order to be not successful, or not…. or something.
Let us not forget that before the most recent events played out in Libya, Socialist Unity was also playing the “Western Interests” card now dealt by CPGB-ML. Earlier this month Wight had written:
With regard to the events unfolding in Libya itself, it is clear at this stage that the toppling of Gaddafi in the aftermath of events in Tunisia and Egypt will not be as straightforward or as simple as expected. The fact is the Libyan leader continues to enjoy significant support in the West of the country, much to the evident surprise of most western commentators and the chagrin of their business and political counterparts.
He then went on to suggest that racist motives were behind reports that Gaddafi was drafting in mercenaries.
Though, to be fair, Wight’s fellow SU blogger Andy Newman seems genuinely on the other side:
Victory for the Libyan people is not yet guaranteed. There will be more suffering ahead before the tyrant is overthrown.
Of course, last year it was a different story as Newman praised and thanked the Gaddafi Foundation for its hospitality and support of the ‘Viva Palestina’ convoy in a series of posts.
CPGB-ML is more candid, and for that we should be grateful.
It seems Colonel Gaddafi can rely on the British far-left to either provide unqualified support for his regime or to agitate against any outside help for his embattled opponents. But then most tyrants can.
