Is there justice now Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is dead or has an innocent man suffered for nothing?

Is a interesting question following the death of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi today who had lived on longer than many people had thought he might. But does this latest episode in the mystery behind the tragic bombing of that Pan-Am flight one christmas.

The death of the only man to have been convicted of the Lockerbie bombing – when Pan Am flight 103 was blown out of the sky over Scotland in the week before Christmas 1988, means it is less likely than ever that the full story behind the outrage will be told.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi who died in Tripoli on Sunday, two years and nine months after his release from a Scottish jail, always protested his innocence.
The 60-year-old, whose imminent death had been predicted on several occasions since his return to Libya, had, according to US and UK authorities been a Libyan intelligence officer as well as head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines and director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli.
In November 1991, he and Lamin Khalifa Fhimah were indicted in the US and Scotland for the bombing which killed 259 passengers and crew on the Pan Am jet and 11 people on the ground. Libya refused to extradite them, though they were kept under arrest in Tripoli.
However, eight years later they were handed over after complex negotiations that led to their being prosecuted under Scottish law, at a court with three judges but no jury, in the Netherlands. In January 2001, Megrahi was convicted of 270 murders and jailed for life. Fhimah was acquitted.
The Libyan government paid $2.7bn (£1.7bn) in compensation and accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials while not admitting direct responsibility for the bombing. Megrahi was jailed first at Barlinnie, in Glasgow, and later at Greenock. His wife and children moved to Scotland too.
Years of legal wrangling followed, with an appeal rejected in 2002, and a £1.1m investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) that found there were six grounds where a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
A full appeal got under way in April 2009. But it was dropped suddenly the following August, two days before Megrahi was put aboard a plane to Tripoli. Climbing aboard the plane, he wore a white shell-suit to hide body armour. He had been transferred from prison in a bombproof vehicle accompanied by security officers, also wearing body armour and drawing enhanced danger pay.
International furore erupted over the release, with allegations it had been sanctioned by the UK government in order to secure more business and oil deals with the Gaddafi regime. Gordon Brown's administration was forced to admit it had known in advance of the release but that it had been a matter for the Scottish justice system. Nonetheless, David Miliband, then foreign secretary, made no apology for protecting business links with Libya. "With the largest proven oil reserves in Africa and extensive gas reserves, Libya is potentially a major energy source in the future", he told MPs at Westminster. David Cameron always said that Megrahi should have died in jail.
Even as the Gadaffis faced overthrow last year, state TV showed Megrahi at a rally in support of the threatened rulers. But when rebel forces took control of Tripoli and discovered Megrahi apparently close to death, the national transitional council said he would not be returned to Britain.
Late last year, the new Tripoli government gave Britain some encouragement to mount fresh investigations, both into Lockerbie and the shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher in London in 1984.
Megrahi's family insisted he was too ill to be seen by British officials and in March this year Libyan officials appeared to rule out the possibility of UK detectives travelling to Libya to conduct new inquiries for the foreseeable future.
However, Frank Mulholland, the Lord Advocate and Scotland's chief law officer, recently visited Tripoli with the FBI chief Robert Mueller to kickstart talks about getting access to records from Gaddafi's regime and potential suspects, believed to include the former Libyan head of intelligence Abdullah al-Senussi.
While many relatives of Lockerbie victims remain convinced of Megrahi's guilt, there are some, particularly in Britain, who believe he is innocent.


The UK and US authorities have repeatedly brushed off claims by campaigners that the bomb was planted by Syrian agents and Palestinian terrorists in revenge for the attack on an Iranian passenger airliner by a US warship.
The Scottish first minister Alex Salmond said: "The Lockerbie case remains a live investigation, and Scotland's criminal justice authorities have made clear that they will rigorously pursue any new lines of inquiry. "
Jim Swire, whose daughter was a passenger on Pan Am 103 told Sky News: "It's a very sad event. Right up to the end he was determined – for his family's sake, he knew it was too late for him, but for his family's sake – how the verdict against him should be overturned.
"And also he wanted that for the sake of those relatives who had come to the conclusion after studying the evidence that he wasn't guilty, and I think that's going to happen."

Will we ever know the truth I wonder? Did an innocent man go to prison or was he part of a bigger cover up. I don’t know but whatever happened many innocent people lost their lives in the process which is unforgivable. Someone was behind it and I hope there I justice one day for the families of lost loved ones.



With extracts from the Guardians piece on the same story.

As Gadaffi nears the end, democracy must come first for Libya's future

SO last night and all of this weekend rumours and advances by rebel forces in Libya have progressed further reaching the capital Tripoli and almost but not quite taking the capital and toppling Gadaffi. This has been helped along the way with NATO forces who have carried on their imperialist intervention supporting the rebels in a clear regime change mentality .

I from the start opposed any intervention by NATO and western forces but now hopefully Gadaffi is gone we cannot forget NATO's role in all this and how their precense has lead to many civilian deaths all which could have been avoided i am sure.

NATO has poured lots of arms in to Libya with the help of American and French forces too. Does this toppling of Gadaffi prove the interventionists were right ?

No it certainly doesnt. For months it looked like a complete stalemate with NATO running close to being pushed back in total retreat. This backthrough has come a little by surprise but no doubt the bombings of towns and cities along the route to Tripoli has taken its toll on many innocent Libyans .

Still many things are unsure in Libya the situation is very fluid and very dangerous. Britain and several other western countries have backed the rebels and recognised them but do we really know who they are and if they are not Gadaffi sympathisers in amongst them wanting their own chance of power and fame.

This is a very dangerous situation in a way this could just be the start of the trouble as we all know what happened in Iraq after Saddams over throw again by illegal intervention from the west then consequently lead to years of internal insurgance and civil fighting between various factions who just could not get on.

We as socialists do not support armed uprisings and revolution via bombings and killing of innocent lives. We support a organised working class uprising and the working class taking control of their lives and their country. From top to bottom the workers should be in control. Controlling the commanding heights of the economy this must be the case in Libya once Gadaffi is gone.

There must be democracy and the highest form of it. We do not want the west finding a leader among the rebels who will become another puppet who is a figure head to befriend the west and assist the west in remaining powerful and in control of the region.

This must be averted and a workers democracy must come to the front now with workers councils and rules put in place for a democracy to florish i.e no elected representitive shall recieve than a average skilled workers wage, all are subject to immediate recall at any first sign of veering off course and using their positions for personal and financial gain, full involving democratic elections involving all corners of the population .

This must just be the start of a new democracy in Libya where workers have their destiny in their own hands. Not in the hands of the west, NATO or any other rogue interventionists .

The hypocrisy of the west when it comes to Syria

As we have been watching on our tv's today the Syrian government is trying to crush the dissent from the anti government protesters today with huge force.

Syria's army has advanced into the southern city of Deraa, using tanks to support troops amid an intensified effort to curb popular protests.

One activist was quoted as saying that security forces were "firing in all directions", and at least five people were reportedly killed.

Witnesses also said security forces had opened fire in a suburb of Damascus.

A prominent human rights campaigner said President Bashar al-Assad had launched a "savage war" on protesters.

In the US, the Obama administration is considering imposing sanctions on senior Syrian officials to pressure the regime to stop its violent crackdown, Reuters news agency quoted a government official as saying.

The official said steps taken could include a freeze on assets and a ban on business dealings in the US, but gave no time-scale for the measures.

According to a UN Security Council diplomat, the UK and other European states are circulating a draft statement condemning the violence in Syria.

There have been numerous reports of crackdowns and arrests around Syria over recent days, despite the lifting of an emergency law last week.

Deraa is the city in which protesters, many of whom are now demanding that President Assad step down, began calling for political reforms last month.

It is just a few miles from the border with Jordan, which has been closed by the Syrians, according to Jordan's information minister.


Opposition activists said Monday morning's raid on Deraa involved as many as 5,000 soldiers and seven T-55 tanks.


This is a big move by the government, an attempt to sort this out once and for all I think. We'll now have to see if the protesters are going to be forced back into their homes, or whether they will remain defiant despite what's happened.

Syria is a one-party state and it has been extremely repressive in the past. The last time this happened was 1982 when there was an insurgency in just one town, Hama. The father of the current president sent in troops and they killed possibly 10,000 people and razed a whole quarter.

That is the history of this government. We may not be seeing anything on that scale but we are seeing something of that character, with troops being moved in to make sure the government remains the government.

The US has suggested that sanctions may be imposed on Syrian regime officials in response to the crackdown, but I don't think many people in Syria think targeted sanctions will make a difference in a situation like this.
Tanks surrounded the Omari mosque in the old city with snipers firing from rooftops, anonymous opposition sources said. The opposition reported than more than 25 people were killed, and their bodies could not be reached because of the fierce gunfire. This claim could not be independently verified.

One activist, Abdullah al-Harriri, told AFP: "The men are firing in all directions and advancing behind the armour which is protecting them."

"Electricity is cut off and telephone communications are virtually impossible."

While there are reports of growing strife among Syrian army officers on different levels - with suggestions that some soldiers have changed sides and are now fighting with the people of Deraa - foreign journalists have been prevented from entering the country, making information hard to verify.

But the BBC's Owen Bennett-Jones, in neighbouring Lebanon, says the use of tanks has not been reported elsewhere in Syria, and would mark a scaling up in the government's response to protests.

It appears from the latest reports that the government is absolutely determined to use force to suppress the protest movement, he says.


All this news is very worrying for the good people of Syria. Several questions come to mind though firstly will this finnish off this uprising by the good people of Syria or will they cease for now but come back and defy the governments orders at a later date looking to push back the government more ?

also the key here again just like in the Egyptian uprisings the army could be key here. In Egypt as we saw the army split and a lot downed guns and joined the rebels in trying to over over throw the government which ended up in a success in that instance.

Many questions still there for me and what is most notable is the western hypocrisy on this situation. When you looka cross the region to Libya where NATO planes continue to bomb Tripoli and Libya itself enforcing their "no fly zone " which i think they have destroyed all targets now so no idea why they are still there is striking when you look at Syria and American, British and french polititains are not calling for intervention there this time ? this all seems very wrong and why Libya is deamed nessesary to enforce a no fly zone yet Syria is looked at ok to let it carry on while putting up silly sanctions which have no affect at all.

So it will be interesting to see how this one develops. I do hope the government is over thrown in Syria and the power is given to the workers in a trade union movement to brin about a socialist society but i am guessing if there is any chance of that the imperialist west will not like to see that and will act then.

Libya, the "no fly zone" and the left

here i thought i'd share with you a excellent article by teh general secretary of the socialist party, Peter Taaffe, which is to appear in our may edition of socialism today from the socialist party issue number 148 which you can order a copy from the party at www.socialistparty.org.uk
this article is also available to read on the CWI website at www.socialistworld.net too

this is fascinating and shows up a lot of hypocrisy not just with Ed miliband and labour but also some other left groups when it comes to Libya and the events out there at the moment.

Imperialist powers have implemented a no-fly zone over Libya to protect their own strategic and economic interests and to restore their damaged prestige. Incredibly, some on the Marxist left support this military intervention. PETER TAAFFE writes.
WAR IS THE most barbaric of all human activity, invested as it is in the modern era with fiendish weapons of mass destruction. It also lays bare the reality of class relations, nationally and internationally, which are normally obfuscated, hidden by layers of hypocrisy and the moral turpitude of the ruling classes.

It is the ultimate test, alongside revolution, of ideas and programme, not only for the bourgeois but also for the labour movement and the different political trends within it.

The current Libyan war - for that is what it is - illustrates this clearly. Capitalism and imperialism, masquerading under the moth-eaten label of 'humanitarian military intervention' - utterly discredited by the slaughter of Iraq - are using the conflict in an attempt to regain the initiative.

Taken aback by the sweep of the revolution in Tunisia and Egypt - with loyal props such as Mubarak and Ben Ali toppled - they desperately sought a lever to halt the process and hopefully reverse it.

This is what lies behind the bloody massacre in Bahrain, carried out by Saudi Arabian troops, with a large component of mercenaries from Pakistan and elsewhere.

Not a peep has issued from the British government on the revelations in The Observer of widespread murder gangs - led by Sunni Muslims linked to the monarchy - and the deliberate attempt to foster sectarianism in what had been previously a largely unified non-ethnic movement.

The slogans of the original Bahraini demonstrations were: 'We are not Shia, we are not Sunni, we are Bahraini'. Equally, the 'Labour leaders' - led by New Labour chief, Ed Miliband, who promised something 'different' to the previous regime of Tony Blair - have now shuffled into line to back David Cameron's Libyan policies and the imposition of the no-fly zone.

Incredibly, this policy has been supported by some on the left, including a few who adhere to Marxism and Trotskyism. Amongst these must be included Gilbert Achar, who has written books on the Middle East, and whose support for the no-fly zone was originally carried uncritically on the website journal of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI), International Viewpoint.

His views were subsequently repudiated by the USFI.

No such uncertainty, however, exists for the Alliance for Workers' Liberty (AWL). This organisation's shrill tone, particularly in criticising others on the left, rises in inverse proportion to its small forces and its even more limited influence within the labour movement.

The AWL has even dragged in Leon Trotsky to justify imperialist intervention through the no-fly zone. One headline read: "Libya: no illusions in west but 'anti-intervention' opposition is abandoning the rebels".

Another priceless headline was: 'Why we should not denounce intervention in Libya'. (Workers Liberty website, 23 March)

These latter examples fly in the face of a cardinal principle of Marxism and Trotskyism. That is to strive to instil into the working class and its organisations complete class independence from all shades of bourgeois opinion and the actions that flow from this.

This applies on all questions, particularly during a war, even a civil war, which the Libyan conflict clearly has elements of. There is nothing remotely progressive in the attempt of the imperialist powers of Britain, France or the US to implement the no-fly zone.

The Benghazi rebels are so much small change in their calculations. Only yesterday, these 'powers' embraced Muammar Gaddafi, supplied him with weapons, bought his oil and, through Blair, visited his 'big tent' in the desert and welcomed him into the 'international community'.

This term is a complete misnomer, as is the idea of the United Nations, used on this occasion as the screen behind which the intervention in Libya was prepared, for naked capitalist and imperialist class interests.

Undoubtedly, there are illusions amongst many idealistic young people and workers who look towards such bodies to resolve the problems of war, conflict, poverty, etc.

Some were also motivated to support the no-fly zone because of the fear that the population in Benghazi would be massacred by Gaddafi's forces. But the UN merely brings the capitalist nations together, dominated overwhelmingly by the US, to collaborate when their interests coincide, but which, equally, are very 'disunited' when the opposite is the case.

The jockeying for position and the squabbles between the different imperialist powers over the Libyan intervention illustrate this.

US overstretch and uncertainty
THE REVOLUTIONS IN the Middle East and North Africa initially revealed the uncertainty - almost the paralysis - of the major imperialist power, the US, to intervene.

The administration of Barack Obama has been forced to attempt to separate itself from George Bush's doctrine of a unipolar world dominated by US imperialism, with its overwhelming economic and military power.

It still retains this military advantage compared to its rivals but this is now undermined by the economic weakening of the US.

There is also the problem of Afghanistan and the fear that this is leading to military overstretch. This forced Robert Gates, US defence secretary, to declare early on his opposition - and, it must be assumed, of the US general staff - to the use of US land troops anywhere else in the world.

He also said that it was a 'certainty' that no US ground troops would be authorised by Obama in Libya.

He underlined this when he "laid into the rebels' capabilities, describing the opposition as a faction-ridden and disparate 'misnomer' whose forces lacked 'command and control and organisation'." (Observer, 3 April)

Obama, on the hoof, has sought to formulate a new military diplomatic doctrine in line with the changed position of the US. He has tried to draw a distinction between the 'vital' and 'non-vital' interests of US imperialism.

In 'vital' cases, the US will act unilaterally if the situation requires it but the US, he arrogantly proclaimed, is no longer 'the world's policeman' but, in future, would act as the world's 'police chief'.

This means, it seems, that the US would lend its support, be formally at the head of, a 'multilateral core coalition', so long as this did not mean the automatic actual deployment of troops.

Despite this, the pressure allegedly to prevent a 'bloodbath' has now compelled Obama to sign a public letter with Nicolas Sarkozy and Cameron declaring that it would be 'an unconscionable betrayal' if Gaddafi remains in place and the rebels are left to his mercy.

Libya, they declare, threatens to become 'a failed state'. This appears to set the scene for another somersault, particularly by Obama, to prepare the use of some ground forces if necessary.

When it has been unable to intervene directly, because of domestic opposition for instance, imperialism has not hesitated to use mercenaries to overthrow a regime it did not favour or to stymie a revolution.

Such was the policy of Ronald Reagan's administration in using hired thugs, the Contras, against the Nicaraguan revolution. Imperialism has been forced into the latest stand by the fact that Gaddafi appears to be winning or, at least, has sufficient military strength and a residue of support to avoid outright military defeat, short of a land invasion.

The rebels hold only the east, and not even all of this. The west, in which two thirds of the population live, is still largely controlled by Gaddafi and his forces.

This is not entirely due to popular compliance with the Gaddafi regime. His forces have most of the guns, particularly heavy weapons, tanks, etc.

He has always kept the regular army in check for fear that a coup could emanate from this quarter. Patrick Cockburn wrote in the Independent on Sunday: "Absence of a professional army in Libya means that the rebels have to rely on long-retired soldiers to train new recruits".

(17 April) Gaddafi is also able to draw on tribal support, as well as the political capital accumulated for his regime from the higher living standards in Libya, before the conflict, than in most countries in the region.

The Spanish revolution
MANY SUPPORTERS OF the no-fly zone took this position in the expectation that imperialism would be unable to proceed beyond this.

What will they do if, as cannot be excluded, land forces in one form or another are deployed with the open or concealed compliance of the imperialist powers of the US, France and Britain?

In the House of Commons debate on 21 March, Miliband was unrestrained in his support for Cameron's military action. This is further confirmation of the political degeneration of the Labour Party, from a workers' party at bottom into a bourgeois formation.

Writers from the capitalist class now almost casually recognise this reality: "The Labour Party was once the political arm of the organised working class.

All three main parties are now the political arm of the organised corporate class. This is not a peculiarly British phenomenon.

Almost every advanced democracy, and particularly the US, struggles to control the corporate sector". "(Peter Wilby, The Guardian, 12 April)

Just compare the stance of the current 'Labour' leader to that of Harold Wilson at the time of the Vietnam war. Much to the chagrin of then US president, Lyndon Johnson, Wilson - although he was not averse to supporting military action abroad if he thought he could get away with it - refused to involve British troops.

For him to have done otherwise would have split the Labour Party from top to bottom, probably leading to his removal as leader. In other words, he was compelled by the pressure of the ranks of the Labour Party and the trade unions to desist from supporting military action by US imperialism.

Now Miliband backs Cameron, with hardly a squeak from New Labour MPs or the 'rank and file'. He has invoked Spain during the civil war, in justifying support for the government.

He declared: "In 1936, a Spanish politician came to Britain to plead for support in the face of General Franco's violent fascism.

"He said: 'We are fighting with sticks and knives against tanks and aircraft and guns, and it revolts the conscience of the world that that should be true'." (Hansard, 21 March)

The parallel with Spain is entirely false. Then, a genuine revolution of the working class and poor peasants unfolded, with the creation, at least in the initial period after July 1936, of genuine workers' power, mass committees, and the occupation of land and factories.

Spain was experiencing a social revolution. In the main, this revolution was defeated not by Franco's fascist forces but by the false policies of the republican bourgeoisie which derailed the revolution, aided and abetted by the Communist Party, under orders from Stalin and the Russian bureaucracy.

They correctly feared that the triumph of the Spanish revolution would be the signal for their own overthrow. In this situation, the world working class rallied in support of the demand for arms to Spain.

Then imperialism, particularly the Anglo-French powers, did everything to prevent the Spanish workers from being armed. Yet the right-wing Tory MP, Bill Cash, agreed with Miliband that there was indeed "a parallel with what happened in 1936", and therefore supported the "arming of those who are resisting Gaddafi" in Benghazi.

Does this not indicate the political character of the present leadership in Benghazi and the east, which includes former Gaddafi loyalists like the former head of the special forces, Abdul Fattah Younis? If the original tendency shown in Benghazi of mass committees, involving the participation of the working class, had been maintained there would be no question of support emanating from right-wing Tories! Miliband gave further justification for his support of the no-fly zone: "There is international consent, a just cause and a feasible mission... are we really saying that we should be a country that stands by and does nothing?"

No serious left force can advocate a policy of abstention where working people are subjected to murderous attack by a ruthless dictator like Gaddafi. Clearly, we had to give political support -the position of the Socialist Party and the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI) from the outset - to the people of Benghazi when they drove Gaddafi's forces from the city in a revolutionary uprising.

This is a sufficient answer to those who seek to justify support for military intervention from the outside on the basis that Benghazi's people are defenceless.

They used the same arguments about the impotence of the Iraqi people in the grip of a ruthless dictator to justify the bombardment and invasion of Iraq, with all the murderous results that we see now.

But this argument was shattered by the uprising of the Tunisian and Egyptian peoples who, through their own multi-millioned power, smashed dictatorships.

The people of Benghazi have already defeated Gaddafi's forces once. This was when revolutionary or semi-revolutionary methods were deployed.

These now seem to have taken a backseat as petty-bourgeois and bourgeois forces have elbowed aside the genuine revolutionary forces. On the basis of mass workers' committees, a revolutionary army - unlike the ragtag force supporting the so-called 'transitional government' - could have been mobilised to seize all the towns in the east and make a revolutionary appeal to the people of the west, particularly in the capital, Tripoli.

There are many successful examples of this in history, not least in the Spanish revolution, which Miliband invokes but does not understand. For instance, after the workers in Barcelona smashed Franco's fascist uprising in July 1936, José Buenaventura Durruti formed a revolutionary army which marched through Catalonia and Aragon to the gates of Madrid.

This placed four fifths of Spain in the hands of the working class and poor peasantry. This was indeed a 'just' war on the part of the masses who were defending democracy while striving for a new, humane, socialist society.

Moreover, it was one with real international support from the European and world working class. Miliband's criteria for what is 'just' and what is not is situated within capitalism and what is best for that system, not the interests of working-class people who are in an oppositional and antagonistic relationship to that system, increasingly so today.

Western powers' double standards
OUR CRITERIA OF what is just and progressive, including wars, is that which enhances and strengthens the working masses, increases their power, their consciousness, etc.

What hinders this is retrogressive. Capitalist, imperialist intervention, including the no-fly zone, even if successful, will not strengthen the working class, increase the sense of its own power, to see itself and its organisations as the real and only lever for achieving its ends.

Instead, it directs the gaze of the workers in the east towards an outside 'liberating' force, thereby lowering the consciousness of working people in their own potential power.

As even Tory MPs commented in the Commons debate, Miliband seemed to identify himself completely with the 'Blair doctrine' - so-called humanitarian military intervention from the outside - from which he had appeared to distance himself when first elected leader.

This meant justifying both Blair and Cameron's arguments when confronted with the choice of where and when to intervene in the world. Miliband fell back on the specious statement: "The argument that because we cannot do everything we cannot do anything is a bad argument".

'We', that is capitalism and imperialism, cannot intervene against dictatorship in Burma, cannot even raise 'our' voices against the murderous assaults of the Israeli ruling class on the Palestinians in Gaza.

'We' are mute against the vicious regimes in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Nevertheless, it is 'just' to oppose Gaddafi - while only yesterday 'we' embraced him - and to use force from the sky, at least, against him and his regime.

The 'liberal' Observer newspaper takes the prize for summing up this arbitrary hypocritical approach of capitalism: "Why does this Gulf regime [Bahrain] get the benefit of the doubt when other authoritarian Arab rulers do not? Clearly, there is no question of intervention in Bahrain or in any other state where protest is being crushed.

The entanglement in Libya leaves no appetite for giving active support, whether diplomatic or military, to other rebellions. If only one villain in the region had to be singled out for attack, Colonel Gaddafi was surely the most deserving candidate". (17 April)

"Entirely missing from this argumentation is the real reason for intervention in Libya, and that is the material interests of capitalism and imperialism, above all of oil, with some of the biggest reserves in Africa.

Some have even denied that this is a factor - they argued the same before Iraq. "The oil conspiracy theory... is one of the most absurd", said Blair (6 February 2003).

Now The Independent (19 April) has published a hitherto hidden Foreign Office memorandum, sent on 13 November 2002, following a meeting with the oil giant BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect.

"BP are desperate to get in there".

Shameful support for military intervention
WHILE THE POSITION of the likes of Miliband is not unexpected, given the rightward evolution of the ex-workers' parties and their leaders, the same cannot be said of those claiming to stand in a Marxist-Trotskyist tradition.

Sean Matgamna of the AWL even drags in Leon Trotsky to justify support for military intervention in Libya: "An individual, a group, a party, or a class that 'objectively' picks its nose while it watches men drunk with blood massacring defenceless people is condemned by history to rot and become worm-eaten while it is still alive".

In this passage, from his writings on the Balkan wars prior to the first world war, Trotsky denounces the spokesmen of Russian liberal capitalism for remaining silent while Serbian and Bulgarian atrocities were committed against other nationalities.

He was not in anyway justifying support for the leaders of one nation against another. This is clear from the rest of the quote, which Matgamna does not cite: "On the other hand, a party or the class that rises up against every abominable action wherever it has occurred, as vigorously and unhesitatingly as a living organism reacts to protect its eyes when they are threatened with external injury - such a party or class is sound of heart.

"Protest against the outrages in the Balkans cleanses the social atmosphere in our own country, heightens the level of moral awareness among our own people... Therefore an uncompromising protest against atrocities serves not only the purpose of moral self-defence on the personal and party level but also the purpose of politically safeguarding the people against adventurism concealed under the flag of 'liberation'."

If anything, the last point from this quote finds conclusively against the AWL. It is supporting imperialist intervention under the false flag of 'liberation'.

Yet we find the astounding allegation: "The would-be left is yet again tying itself in knots over a false political dilemma: the belief that in order not to give general support to the British-France 'liberal intervention' in Libya, they must stridently oppose them on this and on every specific thing they do.

Or at least on every military action. In fact it is a dilemma of their own making".

"Trying to square the circle, Matgamna then adds: "Of course, socialists should not give positive political support to the governments and the ruling capitalists of Britain, France, the USA, or the UN, in Libya or anywhere else".

A child of ten can recognise that support for military action of whatever kind is 'positive political support'. The AWL claims that it can neatly separate support for action of this character from the wider perspectives of the powers that take such action.

It is, in effect, the political attorney and apologist for France and Britain: "The UN, with Britain and France as its instruments, has set very limited objectives in Libya.

"There is no reason at all to think that the 'Great Powers' want to occupy Libya or are doing other than a limited international police operation on what they see as Europe's 'southern border'." Gratuitously the AWL says: "The bitter lessons of their bungling in Iraq are still very fresh to them".

It goes on: "In the name of what alternative should we have told them to stop using air power to prevent Gaddafi massacring an incalculable number of his own people? That is the decisive question in all such situations".

If you do not go along with this nonsense you are incorrigible pacifists, according to the AWL. To show how far these latter-day 'Trotskyists' are removed from Trotsky's real views on war, look at his position during the Spanish civil war on the issue of the military budget of the Republican government.

Max Shachtman, at that time one of his followers, opposed Trotsky who had argued in 1937: "If we would have a member in the Cortes [Spanish parliament] he would vote against the military budget of Negrin".

Trotsky wrote that Shachtman's opposition to this position "astounded me. Shachtman was willing to express confidence in the perfidious Negrin government".

He later explained: "To vote for the military budget of the Negrin government signifies to vote him political confidence... To do it would be a crime.

"How do we explain our vote to the anarchist workers? Very simply: We have not the slightest confidence in the capacity of this government to conduct the war and assure victory.

We accuse this government of protecting the rich and starving the poor. This government must be smashed.

So long as we are not strong enough to replace it, we are fighting under its command. But on every occasion we express openly our non-confidence in it: it is the only one possibility to mobilise the masses politically against this government and to prepare its overthrow.

Any other politics would be a betrayal of the revolution". (Trotsky, From a Scratch to the Danger of Gangrene, 24 January 1940) How much more scathingly would Trotsky assail the AWL's shameful support for imperialist intervention in Libya today.

An independent class position
INCREDIBLY, THE AWL's apology for imperialist intervention allegedly defends 'independent working-class politics'. But there is not an atom of an independent class position in its approach.

We opposed military intervention, but so did the masses in Benghazi in the first period. The slogans on the walls read, in English: 'No to foreign intervention, the Libyans can do it themselves'.

In other words, the masses had a much sounder class instinct, a suspicion of any military intervention from the outside, particularly by the powers that formerly dominated the region: Britain and France.

They correctly feared that a no-fly zone, despite protestations to the contrary, would lead to an invasion, as it did in Iraq. Does this mean that we remain on the level of general slogans, that we are impassive in the face of a possible attack by Gaddafi on Benghazi? No.

But in such a situation we emphasise the need for independent class politics, for the masses to rely on their own strength and to give not a scintilla of support for the idea that imperialism has the best interests of the masses at heart.

Truly, we cannot react - as did Alex Callinicos, a leader of the British SWP - to the arguments of the possible massacre in Benghazi with the statement: "The sad fact is that massacres are a chronic feature of capitalism.

The revolutionary left is, alas, too weak to stop them". Physically, the forces of Marxism may be too weak to prevent massacres - in Rwanda, for instance.

Nonetheless, we are obligated to advocate that the broad labour movement should adopt the most effective position politically to defend and enhance the power and influence of the working class in a given situation.

In Northern Ireland in 1969, for instance, Militant supporters (predecessors of the Socialist Party), opposed sending in British troops to defend the Catholic nationalist areas of Belfast and Derry from a murderous assault by the predominantly loyalist B-Specials.

The SWP, despite later denials, supported sending in the British troops. When the troop did go in, they defended these areas from loyalist attacks and were welcomed as 'defenders'.

But, as we predicted, at a certain stage this would turn into its opposite and the troops would come to be seen as a repressive force against the Catholic nationalist minority.

This is how events actually worked out.

However, faced with a possible massacre of the Catholic population we did not adopt a 'neutral' or passive position. In Militant (now The Socialist), in September 1969, we argued "for a united workers' defence force, the withdrawal of British troops, disband the B-Specials, end of all discrimination, jobs, homes, schools, etc, for all workers".

We stood, in other words, for class unity and for working people to rely on their own forces and not on the capitalist state forces. Only a similar approach based on the foundation of complete class independence, adapted to the concrete conditions in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East, can lead to success for the workers' struggle in a very complicated situation.

We cannot follow Achar either when he declares: "Can anyone claiming to belong to the left just ignore a popular movement's plea for protection, even by means of imperialist bandit-cops, when the type of protection requested is not one through which control over their country could be exerted? Certainly not, by my understanding of the left.

No real progressive could just ignore the uprising's request for protection".

It is wrong to identify the 'uprising', which was originally a genuine mass movement - as we pointed out - with its present leadership, stuffed with bourgeois and pro-bourgeois elements, including remnants from the Gaddafi regime.

Moreover, it is entirely wrong to equate Lenin's acceptance of food and even arms from one imperialist power to be used to repulse another, without any military or political strings attached, to support for imperialism's no-fly zone - as some have done.

It is not a question for Marxism only of what is done, but who does it, why and how.

Defending revolution
ULTIMATELY, IMPERIALISM'S intervention is to safeguard its power, prestige and income from the threat of the unfolding revolution in the region. A spokesman for the Obama administration made it clear that it is not Libya that is the main concern but what happens in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, where most of the oil reserves upon which world capitalism depends are concentrated.

But they see a successful intervention in Libya as a firewall against the threat of revolution in these states and the whole region. They are also concerned about the regional influence of Iran, which grew enormously as a result of the Iraq war.

The situation in Libya is extremely fluid. The outcome of the present conflict is uncertain.

At the moment, it looks like deadlock with neither Gaddafi nor the rebels able to strike a decisive blow for victory in what is now a drawn-out civil war.

This could lead to the effective partitioning of the country, already the de facto case. In this situation, all the latent tribal divisions - held in check partly by the terror of the Gaddafi regime - could come flooding to the surface, creating a new Somalia in the centre of the Middle East, with all its instability, not least in the struggle over Libya's oil reserves.

On the other hand, imperialism is desperate to avoid the impression that Gaddafi could come out as a partial victor in this struggle, enhancing the perceived impotence of the imperialist powers to decide the outcome of events.

But the responsibility of the labour movements in Britain and worldwide is clear.

Absolute opposition to all outside imperialist intervention! Let the Libyan people decide their own fate! Maximum support, from the world working class and labour movement, including the supply of food and weapons, to the genuine forces of national and social liberation in Libya and the Middle East!

Imperialism will not be able to stop the forward march of revolution in North Africa and the Middle East. Yes, there is disappointment, as the CWI predicted, amongst the masses that the fruits of their victories against Mubarak and Ben Ali appear to have been stolen for the moment by the regimes that replaced them.

The hated security apparatus and state machine which existed before, despite the mighty labours of the revolution, remain largely intact. But they are being opposed by the mass movements.

The revolutions endure and millions have learnt enormously in the course of this movement. Hopefully, their conclusions will lead to a strengthening of the working class and the development of independent class politics.

This would be symbolised by the development of the workers' own organisations, new powerful trade unions and workers' parties with the goal of socialist transformation, accompanied by democracy in Libya and the region as a whole.

Revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa at a cross roads

Recent days have again shown that, despite the masses' yearning for real change, freedom and the heroic events of the past months, none of the revolutions in North Africa have so far secured a certain victory.

In Egypt and Tunisia, the countries where dictators were ousted, the ruling classes are making desperate attempts to hang onto their wealth and power.

While Tunisia has seen three governments since Ben Ali's flight in January and been forced to agree to elections for a constituent assembly, the regime is using what means it can to maintain the rule of the elite. For example, forced to dissolve the old secret police, the State Security Department, they have appointed a new Interior Minister, Habib Essid, who was "chief of cabinet" in the Interior Ministry between 1997 and 2001. As such, he was obviously involved in the tortures, repression and dirty work of the Ben Ali regime.

There is a growing mood among workers and youth that the revolution's future is at stake which is preparing the ground for new struggles to secure their demands.

Similarly in Egypt the military government that replaced Mubarak has been waging dogged resistance to stem the revolution's tide. But, as in Tunisia, increasing numbers of workers and youth are seeing, as the CWI warned from the moment of Mubarak's overthrow, that the military tops are no friend of the revolution. Already the military has announced plans to criminalise many strikes, protests, sit-ins and gatherings of workers and youth.

As seen before in many other countries' revolutions, Egyptian workers and youth feel that control over events is slipping away and that the old order is attempting to reassert itself.

They poured into Tahrir Square again on Friday 8 April in an attempt to regain the initiative. Hundreds of thousands, numbers not seen since immediately after Mubarak's removal, of workers, youth and some military officers rallied for a "Friday of Cleansing".

The presence of army officers, disobeying orders not to participate, is a sign that a call to the military rank and file to support the revolution would get a strong response. In the Square calls were made for the replacement of the military regime by a civilian council, the arrest and trial of Mubarak and other gangsters and torturers from the old regime.

Textile workers present put forward their own demands including removal of the old, state run, Egyptian Federation of Trade Unions; renationalisation of privatised companies; a LE1,200 (Egyptian pounds) minimum wage (US$ 200) and trial of the corrupt gang including Mubarak and the former head of the official textile workers' trade union.

The military regime's response was, after the mass of demonstrators had temporarily left the Square, repression. Denouncing some of the protesters as "thugs" the military brutally attempted to clear the Square late on the Friday night, killing at least one protester. Significantly the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Bayoumi, supported the military's move saying nothing should "jeopardise the unity between the people and the army".

What he really meant by "unity" was the continuing attempt of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership to reach a deal with the military tops. The crackdown continued afterwards. On April 11 a blogger, Mikel Nabil, was sentenced to three years in jail for "publishing false information" and "insulting the armed forces" by publishing an article quoting international news reports that the army had tortured detainees during the revolution.

The military tops may be forced to retreat a bit, Mubarak and others may go on trial, but their main aim is to safeguard their privileges and the reign of the ruling class. This is why, from the very moment of Mubarak's removal, the Socialist Party and the world socialist organisation to which we are affiliated, the Committee for a Workers' International, warned: "No trust in the military chiefs! For a government of the representatives of workers, small farmers and the poor" (issue 658).

Building the working masses' independent power is the key to these revolutions succeeding in transforming the lives of the majority of Egyptians and Tunisians. Without this, control will remain in the hands of the ruling class and elites, who will inevitably move sooner or later towards repression to maintain their rule.

Only through building mass organisations, including free, combative trade unions and especially an independent party, can the genuine revolutionaries, workers, youth, small farmers and the poor create the instruments with which to fight the old guard's attempts to retain power and to create a real alternative, namely a government formed by representatives of workers, small farmers and the poor.

Libya

The absence of such organisations in Libya has contributed to the present derailment of the revolution there as February's initial mass upsurge did not succeed in the western part of the country around Tripoli. Partly this was because the Gaddafi regime still has some basis of support, but mainly as a result of the revolution having no clear leadership.

An important factor was when some of the rebels in eastern Libya adopted the old monarchist flag. The former king had come from Benghazi, and the flag had limited appeal in Libya's largest city, Tripoli, and was seen by many as opening the door to renewed foreign control, not just in Libya but throughout the region.

The sidelining of the more radical elements in Benghazi and the formation of the self-appointed, imperialist backed, Interim National Council (INC) by a combination of pro-capitalist forces and defectors from the Gaddafi regime also limited the revolt's appeal to those who, while opposing Gaddafi's gang, feared a loss of the improvements made in education, health and other areas over the last 40 years.

With only limited anti-Gaddafi movements in western Libya, where two-thirds of the population live, there is, for now, effectively a stalemate. While the African Union's peace plan was rejected it is now increasingly likely that, for at least a limited period, Libya will effectively be divided.

Despite the original claim that it was intervening to defend civilians, it is now increasingly clear that the UN/Nato intervention is supporting the more reliably pro-imperialist side in this conflict in an attempt to remove Gaddafi who, at best, they previously regarded as an unreliable ally.

The Financial Times, a strong supporter of the intervention in Libya, accidentally revealed its real motives when it argued that "further military action in the region to protect UK interests" is possible (Editorial, 8 April, 2011). As the CWI previously argued, Tunisia and Egypt showed that tyranny can be overthrown by mass movements.

The world powers' near-silence on the continuing repression in Bahrain, and their only limited criticism of the Syrian regime's increasingly bloody crackdown, shows how their concern for civilians is limited to when it is in their own class imperialist interests.

In different ways the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East are at or approaching new turning points. In countries like Bahrain, Libya, Syria and Yemen the immediate questions are how to move forward, overthrow the dictatorships and what then needs to be done to meet the demands and aspirations of the mass of the population. How the latter can be achieved, along with removing the remaining vestiges of the old regimes, is the central issue facing the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.

The answer to these questions, and saving the revolutions, lies in the hands of the working masses. Tunisia and Egypt have already shown that determined struggle can overthrow dictatorships. However the events this year have shown that, on its own, willingness to struggle is not enough.

The working masses need to independently and democratically organise in trade unions and a mass party of workers and the poor with a clear programme, to be able to struggle to prevent the gains of their revolutions being snatched away by remnants of the old elite or a new elite in formation, in collaboration with imperialism.

Genuinely revolutionary forces of the working masses need to reject any alliance with pro-capitalist forces or reliance on the UN or Nato. To defeat dictatorial regimes workers and youth need to build their own forces that can carry the revolutions to victory, victories that not only win democratic rights but which ensure that society's wealth is genuinely owned and democratically controlled and managed in the masses' interests.

This would lay the basis for liberation and a genuine democratic socialism, not the fake versions of Gaddafi and Syria, that could then be an example to the working masses in the Middle East, Africa and beyond to follow in order to end the rule of autocrats and the misery of capitalist rule.

How the western intervention in Libya could swell the numbers for march 26th TUC demo

In a survey of British people only 35 % of the public currently support the western military interventions in Libya. That figure i expect to fall considerably as this imperialistic mission drags on for weeks into months possibly.

But i really do think this all may have a big affect on this saturdays march in London where a estimated minimum of quarter of a million plus will be marching fagainst the cuts this retchid government of ours are trying to force through. They say the cuts are unavoidable and there is no alternative, we say they are wrong and they need to make the bankers pay not the working class - ordinary people.

I really think when people open their eyes to the fact we are spending hundreds of thousands on expensive bombs and missiles that no average ordinary people benifit from they only serve to halt a revolution in the arab world which risks the western influence and more importantly to the capitalist nations that big three letter word Oil.
When ordinary working class people the disabled, students and pensioners are being told we cannot afford these vital services and support networks yet they see our beloved government bombinb the shit out of a country which can barely defend itself with a load of out of date Weapons that are nothing compared to American, British and French planes, bombs and technology. It is not a fair fight and it must be opposed i feel.

I think as this unessesary conflict continues, not unessesary that we dont need to see the removal of Gadaffi but the removal of him by his own people in a popular uprising situation would be our preference rather than bombing for peace as the west loves to describe it. I've never heard so much rubbish how does dropping bombs on a country and its people and lets be honest given the best bombing technology in the world today bombs and missiles can still go off course and hit civilian targets as we all well know.

So i think this obsurdity that we can afford bombs and missiles for wars abroad yet we cannot afford to basically look after our own people it will anger people. I know it angers me a hell of a lot. The hypocrisy is astounding and we must highlight this on saturday too.

No to imperialist military intervention in Libya

I found this excellent article really detailed and spot on on the socilaist party's website at www.socilaistparty.org.uk and thought i'd share it on here if you havent seen it yet. I think it puts things into perspective in LIbya and offers a real solution to the problems in that oil rich country.

If you enjoy articles like this and would like to learn more or join the socialist party please visit this link here :
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/main/join


The UN Security Council's majority decision to enact a militarily-imposed 'no-fly-zone' against Libya, while greeted with joy on the streets of Benghazi and Tobruk, is in no way intended to defend the Libyan revolution.

Revolutionaries in Libya may think that this decision will help them, but they are mistaken. Naked economic and political calculations lay behind the imperialist powers' decision.

It is not a lifeline that could 'save' the revolution, in the real sense of the word, against Gaddafi. Major imperialist powers decided that they wanted now to exploit the revolution and try to replace Gaddafi with a more reliable regime.

However the Libyan foreign minster's announcement of an immediate ceasefire has complicated imperialism's position.

Faced with a rapid eastwards advance of Gaddafi's forces, many in eastern Libya seized hold of the idea of a no-fly-zone to help stem this tide, but this is not the way to defend and extend the revolution.

Unfortunately, the revolution's initial drive towards the west, where two-thirds of Libyans live, was not based on a movement, built upon popular, democratic committees that could offer a clear programme to win support from the masses and the rank and file soldiers, while waging a revolutionary war.

This gave Gaddafi an opportunity to regroup.

The growing support for a no-fly-zone was a reversal of the sentiment expressed in the English language posters put up in Benghazi, in February, declaring: "No To Foreign Intervention - Libyans Can Do It By Themselves".

This followed the wonderful examples of Tunisia and Egypt, where sustained mass action completely undermined totalitarian regimes. The Libyan masses were confident that their momentum would secure victory.

But Gaddafi was able to retain a grip in Tripoli. This, at least, relative stabilisation of the regime and its counter-offensive led to a change in attitude towards foreign intervention that allowed the largely pro-Western leadership of the rebel 'Interim Transitional National Council' to overcome youth opposition to asking the West for aid.

However, despite the Gaddafi regime's blood-curdling words, it is not at all certain that its relatively small forces could have launched an all-out assault on Benghazi, Libya's second largest city, with around a million living in its environs.

A mass defence of the city would have blunted the attack of Gaddafi's relatively small forces. Now, if the ceasefire holds and Gaddafi remains in power in Tripoli, a de-facto breakup of the country could occur, returning to something like the separate entities that existed before Italy first created Libya after 1912 and which Britain recreated in the late 1940s.

Whatever the immediate effect the 'no fly zone', any trust placed in either the UN or the imperialist powers threatens to undermine all the genuine hopes and aspirations of the revolution that began last month.

This is because the powers that have imposed threatened military action are no friends of the Libyan masses. Until recently, they were quite happy to deal with, and pander to, the murderous Gaddafi ruling clique, to maintain a 'partnership', especially concerning Libya's oil and gas industries.

Indeed, the day after the UN took its decision, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal lamented that "the close partnership between the Libyan leader Col.

"Muammar Gaddafi's intelligence service and the CIA has been severed" (18 March, 2011). The Journal reported "according to a senior US official" the previous 'partnership' was "especially productive".

Now, having lost former dictatorial allies Mubarak, in Egypt, and Ben Ali, in Tunisia, imperialism is trying to take advantage of the popular uprising in Libya to both refurbish its "democratic" image and to help install a more "reliable" regime, or at least a part of Libya.

As before, North Africa and the Middle East, with its oil and strategic location, are of tremendous importance to the imperialist powers.

This reveals the absolute hypocrisy of the main imperialist powers, which have shamelessly supported repressive dictatorial regimes throughout the Middle East for decades.

At the very same time that they were deciding the No Fly Zone, the same powers did absolutely nothing to prevent Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies' increasingly brutal suppression of the majority of the Bahraini population and their attempt to ferment sectarianism.

Within 12 hours of the UN decision, the armed forces another regional ally, Yemeni, ally shot dead at least 39 protesters in the capital city, Sanaa. The UN was only able to take its decision on Libya because the Arab League supported a no fly zone, but of course these mainly reactionary rulers say nothing about repression in Bahrain, Yemen or other Arab countries.

Cameron and Sarkozy's "concern" for Libya is at least partly motivated by domestic unpopularity and the hope that a foreign success will strengthen their standing.

Cameron clearly hopes for a boost similar to that which Thatcher enjoyed after her victory in the 1983 Falklands war. But Thatcher achieved a quick military victory - the no fly zone operation will not will produce a similar military win.

Sarkozy, after the disaster of his Tunisia policy that led to the resignation of the French Foreign Minister, needs a "success" to lift his low poll ratings as next year's Presidential election looms closer.

Gaddafi zig-zags
Despite the imperialist powers' recent rapprochement with Gaddafi, the tyrant always remained an unreliable ally. Throughout his nearly 42 years in power, Gaddafi zig-zagged in policy, sometimes violently.

In 1971, he helped the Sudanese dictator, Nimeiry, crush a left coup that took place in reaction to the earlier suppression of the left, including the banning of the one-million member Sudanese communist party.

Six years later, Gaddafi proclaimed a "people's revolution" and changed the country's official name from the Libyan Arab Republic to the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah.

Despite the name change and the formation of so-called "revolutionary committees", this was not genuine democratic socialism or a move towards it. The Libyan working people and youth were not running their country.

Gaddafi remained in control. This was underlined by the increasingly prominent role that many of his children played in the regime.

Nevertheless, since 1969, on the basis of a large oil income and a small population, there was a big improvement in most Libyans' lives, especially in education and health, which at least partly explains why Gaddafi still has some basis of support amongst the population.

Even while there is growing opposition to the Gaddafi clique, especially amongst Libya's overwhelmingly young and educated population, there is also fear about who might replace him and opposition to anything that smells of foreign rule.

The revolutionaries' widespread use of the old ruling monarchy's flag was bound to alienate those who do not want to return to the past and was used by Gaddafi to justify his rule.

Flying the old flag also risked alienating Libyans in the west of the country because the former king came from the east and had no historic roots in the area around Tripoli.

But these factors are not a complete explanation as to why Gaddafi was able, at least temporally, to stabilise his position. While there was a popular uprising in eastern Libya, Gaddafi was able to maintain his position in the west, where two-thirds of the population live, despite large protests in Tripoli and uprisings in Misrata, Zuwarah and a few other areas.

Role of the working class
Unlike in Egypt and Tunisia, the working class in Libya has not, so far, begun to play an independent role in the revolution. Furthermore, many workers in Libya are migrants who have fled the country in recent weeks.

The absence of a national focal point which, for example, the Tunisian UGTT trade union federation provided (despite its pro-Ben Ali national leadership), complicated the situation in Libya.

The huge revolutionary enthusiasm of the population has not, so far, been given an organised expression. The largely self-appointed 'National Council' that emerged in Benghazi is a combination of elements from the old regime and more pro-imperialist elements.

For example, the Council's foreign spokesman, Mahmoud Jibril, the former head of Gaddafi's National Economic Development Board, was described by the US Ambassador, in November 2009, as a "serious interlocutor who 'gets' the US perspective".

It is easy for Gaddafi to present these people as a threat to Libyan living standards and agents of foreign powers. At the same time, this propaganda will have only a limited effect, as population's living standards worsening and unemployment increased (standing at 10%) since from the end of the 1980s oil boom and the start of privatisation back in 2003.

Gaddafi's use of the threat of imperialist intervention did gather some support and if the country becomes divided may gain more. How long this can sustain Gaddafi is another question.

In addition to anti-imperialist rhetoric, Gaddafi made concessions to maintain support. Each family has been given the equivalent of $450.

Some public sector workers have been given 150% wage increases and taxes and customs duties on food have been abolished. But these steps do not answer the demands for freedom or end the growing frustration of Libya's youthful population, with an average age of 24, over the regime's corruption and suffocating grip.

Around the world, millions of people follow, and are inspired by, the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. These events inspired protests against the effects of the continuing capitalist crisis in many countries.

Some of those welcoming the revolutionary events in the region may support the UN's 'no fly zone' but socialists argue that it is primarily made in the interests of the imperialist powers - the same powers that no nothing substantially to restrain the repressive actions of Gulf states against mass protests in their countries.

But what then can be done internationally to genuinely help the Libyan revolution? First of all, trade unions should block the export of Libyan oil and gas.

Secondly, bank workers should organise the freezing of all the Gaddafi regime's financial assets.

The 'no fly zone' will not automatically lead to the overthrow of Gaddafi, in fact, like Saddam Hussein, the Libyan leader could entrench his position for a time in those parts of the country he controls.

As the experience of Egypt and Tunisia shows, the key to overthrow dictatorships is the movement of the working masses and youth.

A revolutionary programme
Thus the fate of the revolution will be decided inside Libya itself. Its victory requires a programme that can cut across tribal and regional divisions and unite the mass of the population against the Gaddafi clique and for a struggle for a better future.

A programme for the Libyan revolution that would genuinely benefit the mass of the population would be based on winning and defending real democratic rights; an end to corruption and privilege; the safeguarding and further development of the social gains made since the discovery of oil; opposition to any form of re-colonisation and for a democratically-controlled, publicly-owned, economic plan to use the country's resources for the future benefit of the mass of people.

The creation of an independent movement of Libyan workers, poor and youth that could implement such a real revolutionary transformation of the country, is the only way to thwart the imperialists' plans, end dictatorship and to transform the lives of the people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee for

Where is the western intervention heading ?

So last nightand today we have heard and seen reports of French and British military aircraft bombing Libyian targets that Gadaffi wilkl use to further opress his people. But what is really going on there and what is the west's real objective.

The most important thing to do in Britain now is to oppose the Western military intervention, and expose its real aims and its hypocrisy.
The West is intervening to strangle the Arab revolution, not to save it. This i feel is down to the west not wanting to have its base for major oil source tapped by the Chinese or Russians if they stay out and Gadaffi falls to the revolution they will not be situated to take advantage of the oil and any subsequent
new leader put in place in Libya.
But this seemingly paradoxical state of affairs should come as no surprise. On the contrary, when it comes to the issue of governance across the Arab and Muslim world, in the eyes of the West it isn’t important whether or not an Arab state is ruled by democracy or dictatorship. All that matters is whether or not it is ruled by the right kind of democracy or dictatorship. Democratically elected governments in places like Palestine, Iran and as is increasingly the case, Lebanon, are deemed pariahs, while dictatorships in places like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and up until very recently, Tunisia and Egypt, are allies and friends.

The problem for the West vis-à-vis Gaddafi isn’t a philosophical or moral one over the fact he happens to be a dictator – indeed, how could it be given the West’s eagerness to embrace his regime when he declared Libya open for business in 2004? – instead it is over the fact he’s proved an unreliable dictator. Like Saddam before him, another former ally and a dictator at one time willing to do business with the West, Gaddafi has proved prone to bouts of independent policy and, as recent events prove, brutality. This has rendered him unstable in the eyes of western political and business elites for whom stability across the Arab world is not just preferable but crucial to their interests, both strategic and economic.

What worries me the most is the whole hypocrisy of this whole invasion and war i guess you could now call it. THe fact that the west has backed Gadaffi for years and years while he has been their puppet in the area serving us with oil and playing ball we've been ok for him to stay put.

Latest news i'm hearing is that the Arab league made up of Arab countries who initially backed a colaition plan to go into Libya and enforce a "no fly zone" have now condemed the violence and have said the west appear to be going too fara nd way beyond what the no fly zone entailed for them.
I think opposition to our western intervention in Libya will continue to grow and grow.

Unlike either Ben Ali in Tunisia or Mubarak in Egypt, Gaddafi had been astute enough to dispense enough of Libya’s wealth to enough of his people to cement a social base of support for his regime. It has been this base of support which has enabled him to retain the loyalty of the bulk of his armed forces by which he was well on the way to crushing the revolt prior to the UN resolution authorising a no fly zone.

The question facing the West now, after Gaddafi announced a ceasefire almost immediately after the UN resolution was passed, is how to proceed without alienating further an Arab street which has awoken after decades of being politically infantilised? Moreover, the West’s ability to do so hinges on the extent to which the revolutionary wave which swept through the Arab world - one make no mistake which saw uprisings take place not only against autocracy and dictatorship but against the West’s stranglehold over the region – has deepened the consciousness of the millions involved.

Gaddafi may be many things but madman he is not. The fact he’s been able to rule Libya for over 40 years without any serious threat to his regime until now proves this is so. His continued survival may well depend on how effectively he takes the opportunity just handed him by the UN to parade his anti colonial and anti imperialist credentials not just in Libya but throughout both Africa and the Arab world. Further, the more successful he is in this regard the more the Libyan opposition will find itself tarnished and discredited by association. For in the last analysis, nothing positive can come of the West’s continued intervention in the region. The clutch of dictators who have and continue to scar the region’s social, political and economic landscape are a symptom of this intervention, regardless of whether it has come via the agency of soft or hard power, and it is a system of control that must be broken if the Arab world is to progress and develop. This is also why any military intervention must be opposed by progressive forces in the West itself.

Malcolm X put it simply when he said, “In order to understand what’s going on in Mississippi you have to understand what’s going on in the Congo.” To this can be added that in order to understand what’s going on in the Congo you have to understand what’s going on in Mississippi. In other words there is a circular relationship between social and economic injustice at home and a policy of imperialism and colonialism overseas.

For David Cameron, whose government is under increasing pressure over a domestic economic policy that amounts to a vast experiment in human despair, military intervention in Libya if successful could provide him with the kind of bounce in popularity which Thatcher enjoyed in the aftermath of the Falklands War. Failure on the other hand could see another Iraq unfold with similarly tragic consequences. In either scenario David Cameron gains or loses political credibility, while potentially tens of thousands of Libyans of every stripe, both pro and anti regime, will certainly lose their lives.

But such considerations have always been small beer when it comes to putting recalcitrant regimes in their rightful place. The old certainties whereby the West was able to prop up assorted dictatorships throughout the Arab world safe in the knowledge they would control their people while they set about the noble task of picking their collective pockets, were for an all too brief but historic period cast aside during the wave of Arab revolts just passed. Now, with both the West’s tacit approval of the repression taking place in Bahrain and Yemen, along with the prospect of military intervention in Libya, could it be that we are looking at those certainties being returned?


All in all i dont see this being a quick process and i do eventually see American and British troops being deployed to Libya as the attacks get stronger and stronger and Gadaffi's forces play hard to geta nd end up hiding in the towns and cities in amoungst innocent civilians using them as human shields . I am really hoping this doesnt turn into a mass blood bath but sadly i cant see it going any other way. As they say it is easy to start a war but a lot harder to finnish one as we've seen in Iraq and Afganistan .

The west to interveen in Libya crisis and why i feel they are wrong to do so

SO as the news breaks this morning andl ast night the UN security council has backed a motion calling for military intervention.

Underneath is the BBC report on what was voted on and decided at last nights meeting with the UN permenant members.

Western powers are discussing how to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya after the passage of a UN resolution backing "all necessary measures" to protect civilians, short of an occupation.

France said there could be air strikes "within hours", though the details and timing of any action remain unclear.

Forces loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi have been advancing eastwards towards the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

They were also said to be bombarding the city of Misrata on Friday.

Col Gaddafi has promised to retake Benghazi, saying his forces would show "no mercy".

The BBC's Ian Pannell in eastern Libya says government troops are battling rebels forces in the coastal town of Al-Zuwaytina, which lies between Ajdabiya and Benghazi.

The rebels say they have lost a number of fighters and that civilians have also been killed, he reports.


It is not thought that the US would be involved in the first strikes. The British and French, along with some Arab allies, are expected to play a leading role. Norway has said it will also participate.

Analysis
Jonathan Marcus

BBC diplomatic correspondent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In effect there are two air missions to be carried out. One operation is to establish a round-the-clock no fly zone. The other is to prevent Libyan forces bombarding or approaching Benghazi.

Both operations might require the destruction of some of the Libyan government's air defences, but it is not clear if this would be done at the outset or simply when aircraft were illuminated or engaged by Libyan government radars.

Initially it looks as though French and British aircraft will be involved, though there will be a strong desire in Paris and London to have some Arab air forces involved as well.

The goal though of the UN resolution is a cease-fire, so part of the aim of any air operation is the shock effect - to demonstrate to Col Gaddafi that the outside world means business and that he should seek another way out from this crisis.
French government spokesman Francois Baroin said on Friday morning that strikes could take place "rapidly" and "within a few hours". But he added: "You will understand that there's no question of talking as early as this morning about when, how, which targets or in which form."

British Prime Minister David Cameron said that "in the coming hours", Britain would send Typhoon and Tornado fighter jets, as well as air-to-air refuelling and surveillance aircraft, to airbases "from where they can start to take the necessary action".

Qatar will take part in international efforts to protect civilians, Qatar's official news agency reported, though it was not clear if this included military operations.


This situation has moved quickly and i fear too quickly in some ways it seems clear what will happen here western troops fighter craft and warships will flock to Libya now and look to neatralise Gaddafi's forces the best they can. But my point is how many more civilian people will loose their lives due to these ramped up military action now involving many more people and countries than it was before.

I am of course not a supporter of Gadaffi and support his removal as quickly and blood free as possible of course but just like with Iraq i do not agree with the west interveening. I am a bit more pleased this time with the UN coming on board properly but there are many factors behind the scenes playing out i do believe and we should be careful waht we read into over the next few days and weeks and probably months and years if the occupation of Iraq is anything to go by.

I have heard this morning the Libyian foreign minister coming out saying they will comply with UN regulations and call a cease fire. I would whole heartidly support this. Anything taht can result in fewer or no needless deaths i am all for as a socialist. But Gadaffi is a sneaky character and we must be wary again of his false promises. Great if it comes off but i somewaht feel he is trying to call the UN's bluff here.

As many of you may or may not know i am never in favour of all out war, i'm far more in support of all out peace.

But as it looks like this will not happen anytime soon and i will add my name to the list of anti war protesters and sign any petition i can. We must look for clear dialog with Gadaffi and his leaders and look for a peaceful solution to this conflict.

I worry for both British troops again who will be needlessly putting theirl ives on the line for our governments selfish drive to protect their own interests in the region which again i'm afraid to say is that thing they call Oil again.

I like many others will be watching carefully to see how this pans out in the next few days and weeks but i am not in support of what the west is doing it will look very imperialistic an like we are trying to interveen again where we have backed a dictator for years and years. To me it looks very hypocritical

Why we'd be wrong to go into Libya

So as the news reports flood in daily and the pressure mounts on cornel gadaffi


in Libya by his own people. Rebels who are anti cornel gadaffi


are gaining momentum and capturing more and more of cornel gadaffi


strongholds.

The news that the west including America and the Uk wish to impose a no fly zone in the country is a interesting debate to be had. The actual idea in principle is good but the difficulties and complications that can arise out of our intervention in Libya could be catastrophic i feel.

Ever since 2003 when US and Uk armed troops and aircraft invaded Iraq with no resolution and backing from the UN security council the arab world has held these two countries in high trepedation, rightly so in my opinion.

With just recently our prime minister David Cameron visited Egypt where things are still not right for the people by any means with the army still holding much of the power there.
David Cameron who was originally going to Egypt and otehr middle eastern states along with a whole set of british arms salesman yet later when the troubles and struggles started happening in Egypt and other middle eastern countries the trip was quickly spun to mean a democratic mission to spread the wests idea of democracy that they talk about so much.
We dont have to look far back to remember Tony Blair heading to the Libyian capital Tripoli to be photographed shaking hands with cornel gadaffi



So on one hand Tony blair was advocating the removal of a tyrant to his people in Iraq in the form of Saddam hussain illegally yet allowing himself to be shown in the broad light of day shaking hands doing deals for arms with cornel gadaffi.


David Cameron who i feels mirrors himself on Tony Blair in many ways and wants to go further than Blair in many ways has not ruled out military intevention in Libya if need be. He claims we must be ready for all eventuallaties . Funny that, wasnt that the same thing Tony Blair said about Iraq when it was later found that Saddam Hussain never had any Weapons of mass destruction that we were lead to believe .

So i do think any intevention in the middle east after the contraversy of the Iraq invasion of which the debate of whetehr we wre right to invade and take out Saddam was right or not still rumbles on to this day. I really dont think the middle eastern people would be too pleased with our policeman style tactics on foreign policy of late. I think this is one issue we must stand back and see how thing unfold. If there becomes a chance once hopefully cornel gadaffi is ousted by his people and over thrown and a humanitarian crisis unfolds then of course we should send people in to help out where we can. But no to military action for me.

From banks to blood

So i've been inspired to write this blog post by a fine comrade i follow on twitter called@ leaveitmark well worth a follow if your not already. She is a good friend of the socialist way who i have hosted and re blogged some of his excellent work on this blog in the past too.

The idea from this blog post has come from the recent events in the middle east and north africa. The helplessness we humanitarian socialists feel in the west. We live so far away and feel our governments do not represent our views anymore.

We are left wondering how we can help our brothers in these countries under such oppressive rulers. I have been following events in Tunisia, Egypt and now with colnel gadafi and his fightback against the anti governments protests in Libya.

Quite often the mainstream media outlets like the BBC and Sky news will not show or tell you the whole story. As journalists are banned from entering Libya we can only go by what we hear through independant sources.

Before the internet was taken down by colnel gadafis government to oppresse his countries people even more lots of videos of amatuer videos posted on the website You Tube showing some horrific human killings. I heard of one you tube video of a whole hospital being bombed to the ground by gunships, this to me is a mindless act of revenge on his own people for having the bravery to stand up and fight back. The bloodshed has been terrible. We still dont know the total death toll and i suspect it will continue to grow as colnel gadafi
looks to hit back at anti government protesters who have taken several towns along the eastern border.

What has saddened me most about all this tradegy of human lives lost to the hands of a evil dictator intent on crushing the rebellion of people wanting a new fresh start similarly to what has happened in Egypt and Tunisia is the fact that we as a country in Britain have funded this mad ruler for years and years arming him with weapons in exchange for oil which the ruling class's seem to fascinate over. The UK once had its own storage of oil off the coast of Britain in the north sea we did sell all this off for profit and now find ourselves buying up oil from rogue arab states around the middle east doing dodgy deals.

This press release from

http://www.caat.org.uk/press/

ebruary 2011
CAAT condemns empty words from Government as arms sale drive continues

Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) today condemned the Government's reaction to revelations about UK arms exports to the Middle East. It calls on the Government and UK companies to withdraw from a controversial Middle East arms fair which starts this weekend and for fundamental reform to the UK's irresponsible arms export policy.

Yesterday it was revealed that the UK Government had approved the export of goods including tear gas and crowd control ammunition and sniper rifles to Bahrain and Libya, as well as a wide range of other military equipment to authoritarian regimes in the region.

CAAT calls for an immediate arms embargo to the region, for a thorough review of why such exports were ever licensed in the first place and for fundamental reform to the UK's irresponsible arms export policy.

The UK must cancel its participation in the IDEX arms fair which starts this weekend.

The Government's arms promotion unit, UK Trade & Investment Defence and Security Organisation (UKTI DSO) will be exhibiting at the International Defence Exhibition and Conference (IDEX), the largest defence and security event in the Middle East and North African region. The UK arms industry body Aerospace|Defence|Security (A|D|S) claims that 10% of exhibitors will be from the UK and says “our sizable presence at IDEX 2011 shows that we mean business.” IDEX takes place from Sunday 20th – Thursday 24th February, in Abu Dhabi, UAE.

Sarah Waldron Campaigns Coordinator at CAAT said:

“It is astounding that the government is still insisting it has a responsible arms export policy while, in the same breath, admitting that it was happy to supply authoritarian regimes with the means to crush dissent.

Far from seeking to restrain arms sales, the UK government actively promotes them . While this policy stands there is no prospect of meaningful arms control.

The UK must cancel its participation in the IDEX arms fair this weekend, end its irresponsible arms exports and stop using taxpayers' money to promote arms sales.”

ENDS

This little press release sums a lot of the British current policy is to sell deadly arms to rogue leaders around the world in exchange for resources such as oil or important allowances.

I for one believe that the British ruling class's who have been up to these dodgy back hand deals for years now have blood on their hands. They bring great shame on the british people for pulling our name through the dirt with all these deals they carry out behind our backs. We never get a say whether we should support a foreign dictator or sell arms to them. This sort of democracy never happens. I do wonder why? I imagine it would never happen that would be why. Most british people have a sense of the world and would not tolerate this i'm sure of it but alas we have no say in such matters. Such deals are left to the ruling class's at the very top, the ones who hold all the power and most of the worlds money to decide our futures in many ways.

As my mum said to me earlier what if colnel gadafi went off his head and on one of his mad rants decided to use his military might we have armed him with against us if we fall out with him which we seem to be doing now rightly so. The guy is completely unstable and unpredictable as shown with his attacking of his own citizens.

The title of this blogpost was titled from banks to blood which i feel is very apt for what is currently going on at the moment as the constant drive for profit be it through arms or oil or even playing with peoples lives is just highliting to me how far the ruling class's will go to preserve their capitalist state of society.

I think going back to the title of this post the role of banks and ethical banks could be brought to the front here with our banks in the west still holding money from dictators from the ex president of Egypt apparently his funds have now been frozen but why only now ?

We have surely known about these regimes


for decades now so why cant we block them off from storing money in our banks and not funding their dirty horrible habbits and buying up more arms to use against their own people.

I do think that a ethical bank needs to be created or formed that does refuse to do business with any of these evil dictators around the world. Perhaps we could stop them in their tracks a lot sooner this way.

We do owe it to the people of these countries to send our solidarity and stand by them against these tyrants even though the powers that be in our country decided they were good enough to stay there for years. This is no more apparent than our very own Tony Blair has been photographed on several ocasions shaking hands and coming across all very friendly with colnel gadafi. This to me just smacks of complete hypocrisy by someone who is now a appointed middle east envoy i'm still not sure by whom exactly probably himself as he does seem very keen to be teh policeman of the world sorting out every countries troubles and thrusting his own brand of democracy on these nations.

I personally feel helpless living back in the Uk while all this is going on out in the middle east i wish there was more i could do to help the people on the ground facing hardship every day.

I think its a fine effort from Malta who have offered their country as a safe havan to disaffected Libyans looking to flea the humanitarian crisis and colnel gadafi's iron fist.

I do think if there is anyway the United Nations can possibly step in and help civilians wishing to leave the country to a neighbouring safe havan they should do so. I think the international response to colnel gadafi and his cronies in the middle east so far has been one ofa passive nature not getting too involved. But as i have said in previous blogposts and i raised at the last debating society i attended you can bet your bottom dollar that America and Britain and other major world players will be plotting behind the scenes with what will happen next in terms of their own national interests of capital and investments in the regions as we do tend to rely on their oil a lot. With threats to cut off oil supplies and pipelines this must worry western governments greatly especially if their economy starts to stall due to lack of oil.


So in conclusion i say that we must stand shoulder to shoulder with the innocent oppressed people of these nations. Stand by them in solidarty and offer any support we possibly can as no one deserves to live under such rule and i for one cant even begin to imagine how awful things must be on the ground there.

The real reason for David Cameron's recent trip to Egypt

We've seen on our news about the revolutions in Egypt and other Arab states but our British Prime Minister David Cameron has become the first leader of any country to visit the nation but all is not what it seems.

David Cameron’s decision to fly to Egypt for talks with leading government and opposition figures is not, as he states, to ensure “a genuine transition from military rule to civilian rule”. It is to safeguard the geo-political balance which was present under Hosni Mubarak.

It is no surprise that Cameron is reportedly accompanied by personnel from no less than eight different defence firms.

This geo-political balance includes Western economic interests, such as access to oil and weapons sales.

Israel’s interests also are central. The West was far quicker to praise the military’s statement that they will honour the Israeli Peace Treaty, than the bravery of the protesters.

Then there is the related goal of limiting Iranian influence in the region. Alarm bells must already be ringing after Iran has decided to test the waters (literally) by asking to sail ships to Syria through the Suez.

Lastly, there is the presence of US military personnel in the Sinai and Cairo which helps to underwrite all of the above goals. US troops are stationed at the West-Cairo Airbase whose former commander, incidentally, was a Mr Mubarak.

The West wants to make sure that these advantages are maintained.

This is why Cameron is so eager to visit the country before democracy has been established, even though he risks legitimising the current military rule. It is why he has neglected to talk to anyone from Egypt’s most popular opposition party: the Muslim Brotherhood, as they will not acquiesce to Western interests.

Democracy which doesn’t align itself with Western demands is likely to be condemned, as it was when the Palestinians had the audacity to vote for Hamas.

Cameron’s arrival signals the start of a wave of Western officials attempting to retain influence.

Senior US diplomat William J Burns is already there and no doubt others will join him soon. The ugly scramble to preserve the geopolitical status-quo has begun.


I think this is pretty hypocritical of Mr Cameron who he and his government ministers have been frantically condeming the riots and attacks by the leaders out there before the fall of Mubarac. But now this news surfaces, Smacks a little of political opputunism from before really.

This guy never ceases to amaze me how much nerve he has got. To fly in the face of what he has just said to do more U-turns than a learner driver he should be ashamed of himself really. Then again his is the so called next in line to Tony Blair they say so following in his footsteps what do we expect.

The disgraceful treatment of anti government protesters in Libya

I've been reading today of the awful treatment on anti government protesters in Libya now another north African country now facing trouble and as i have said before this domino efffect is not slowing down anytime soon and good on the people of those countries. It is just a huge crying shame the oppressive leaders of these dictatorships are clamping down hard on protesters.

Dozens of people were killed when Libyan troops used heavy weapons during a funeral procession amid unrest in Benghazi, a doctor in the city says.

She told the BBC that at least 45 bodies and 900 wounded had been brought to just one hospital on Saturday, describing the scene as a "massacre".

Human Rights Watch says at least 173 people have been killed in Libya since demonstrations began on Wednesday.

Benghazi has been a leading focus of protests against Col Gaddafi's rule.

Libya is one of several Arab countries to have experienced pro-democracy rallies since the fall of long-time Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in January. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was forced from power on 11 February.

Col Muammar Gaddafi is the Arab world's longest-serving leader, having ruled the oil-rich state since a coup in 1969.

Col Muammar Gaddafi has been widely known on the world stage for many years now of course past British governments including the last Labour government have been funding him for years with reported millions of dollars worth of arms for him.

It makes me feel physically sick that we in the UK back these hugely unpopular regiemes in this far flung country just so we can exploit them for cheap oil which we then slap huge tax's on it all rather stinks to me. If anyone ever thought that the last labour government was at all socialist they can be proved wrong. Going into Iraq and declaring illegal wars on countries like Iraq and then backing dictators like Col Muammar Gaddafi for years and years in the face of the brave people of Libya and failing to do anything about it says it all to me.

The ruling parties in every western country are all the same. Only after protecting their own interests whether that be oil or power financially.

I do think this so called domino effect will not slow down and there will i'm afraid be more bloodshed on the streets of these countries as ordinary working people look to stand up and have a voice like they deserve.

Just like in Iran last week where similar scenes were seen we must pay tribute to the fine peoples of these lands who dare to fight for their freedom. I have huge admiration for them. If only the British people would stand up and say no to our ruling class's sometimes and say we dont want you doing this or that etc. Maybe we would have a much better way of things too.

The wave of revolution will continue to grow across Africa and the middle east where will this fall next.