None of these fundamental questions seems to be of concern to the major political participants. Everything happened as if the ultimate objective of the “revolution” had been to obtain elections rapidly. This is to think that power finds its sole source of legitimacy in the voting booth. But there is another, higher legitimacy: undertaking struggles for social progress and the real democratization of society! These two types of legitimacy are likely to have serious confrontations in the future.
Libya: A Country Erased from the World Map
Libya never truly existed as a nation. It is a geographical region that separates the Maghreb and the Mashreq. The boundary between these two Arab regions runs exactly through the middle of Libya. Cyrenaica was historically Greek and Hellenistic, and then it became part of the Mashreq. Tripolitania was Latin and became part of the Maghreb. Consequently, there has always been a basis for regionalism in the country. I saved the British atlas used at school by my father in 1913. The region from Kufra to Tibesti was under the rule of the Khedive of Egypt. In 1911, Italy seized Ottoman Libya, which in actuality was only the coastal band. In 1915, to reward Rome for joining the Entente, the British ceded the Saharan regions of Cyrenaica to Italy.
Gaddafi was never anything more than a buffoon whose empty thinking is reflected in his famous “Green Book.” Acting in a still archaic society, Gaddafi could allow himself to adopt various positions, without any real significance—“nationalist and socialist” one day, then “liberal” the next. He made the latter choice “to please the West”(!), as if choosing liberalism would have no effects on society.
Gaddafi had insistently invited me, on several occasions, to visit his country. In my twofold role as president of the Arab and African Research Centre in Cairo, and director of the Third World Forum, I had posed one condition: the prior payment of 200,000 dollars to these two organizations, without any conditions on use of these funds. I would then visit the country and present lectures on general subjects, without broaching the discussion of Libyan problems. There was no follow-up, of course.
I also remember that when, following NATO’s military intervention, the scandal of the donation made by Libya to the London School of Economics broke—the LSE had awarded, in exchange, an honorary diploma to Gaddafi’s son, which all U.S. universities do with their generous donors—I was interviewed in London on the subject and said: “How shameful! This is at least as scandalous as accepting a gift from the Ford Foundation.” Obviously, the interview was not published.
Gaddafi’s going over to economic liberalism simply worsened the social difficulties for the majority of people. The very large redistribution of the oil revenues gave way to its confiscation by the regime’s supporters and Gaddafi’s family. The conditions were thus created that led to the explosion we all know, immediately taken advantage of by political Islam and regionalist forces in the country.
It is in this context that the National Transitional Council (NTC) was formed in Benghazi. The president of this Council was none other than Mustafa Muhammad Abdul Jalil, the president of the Libyan Appeals Court who confirmed the death sentence of the five Bulgarian nurses. He was rewarded and named Minister of Justice in 2007, a post he held until February 2011. For this reason, Bulgarian prime minister Boyko Borisov refused to recognize the NTC. The United States and European countries did not accede to this view. There were, perhaps, some more or less confused “democrats” on this Council, but above all there were Islamists—the worst among them, in fact—and regionalists. From the very beginning, the “movement” in Libya was an armed revolt that immediately took over civilian demonstrations. This armed revolt straightaway called for NATO support. France and Great Britain immediately responded to this appeal, subsequently supported by the United States.
The imperialist powers’ military intervention certainly did not aim at the “protection of civilians” or “securing democracy,” but at the control of oil and groundwater resources, as well as acquiring a major military base in the country. Certainly, the Western oil companies already controlled Libyan oil since Gaddafi’s move to support “liberalism.” But with Gaddafi, nothing was ever certain. What if he changed sides and brought the Chinese or the Indians into his game tomorrow? But more important than the oil were the Libyan groundwater resources. Initially, it was a question of exploiting them to the benefit of the countries of the African Sahel. This page is now turned. Well-known French multinationals seek to reserve access to these resources and make their exploitation “the most financially profitable” for themselves, probably for the production of biofuels.
Gaddafi had, in 1969, already demanded that the British and Americans evacuate their military bases set up after the Second World War. Today, the United States needs to transfer Africom (the U.S. military command for Africa, an important part of the system for military control of the world, still located in Stuttgart!) to Africa. The African Union refuses to accept it and, to this day, no African state has dared to agree to host it. A lackey placed in power in Tripoli (or Benghazi) would obviously support all of the demands coming from Washington and its subaltern NATO allies. The base would be a permanent threat as it could be a source for interventions against Egypt and Algeria.
The “new regime” has demonstrated its inability to govern the country. Libya’s disintegration following the Somali model has begun. Libya no longer exists.
The Syrian Tragedy
The Syrian Baathist government derived its legitimacy from implementing its non-democratic national popular project. When I visited Damascus, Aleppo, and other Syrian cities in the past, I clearly observed this legitimacy, despite the autocratic practices of the government. I also observed that its policy of secularization had made possible advances in women’s rights and allowed freedom in the social behavior of youth, which certainly deserved support.
Then, when the system ran out of steam, opening the way for globalized neoliberalism to go on the offensive and advance its “solutions,” the same hard-pressed Baathist ruling class accepted the infitah (the uncontrolled opening to globalized capital), just like the other Arab countries, so as to preserve its political control. The resulting social disaster led to the same consequences as elsewhere: the rise of perfectly legitimate democratic and social protests and increased repression by the government in response. It is almost amusing to note that one leader of the “rebellion”—Abdul Halim Khaddam—was the main architect of the “economic liberalization.” The legitimacy of the Syrian people’s revolt thus cannot be questioned.
The United States learned from the surprise in Tunisia and Egypt. It thus decided to take the initiative and get ahead of the movement by introducing armed groups that attacked the authorities, proclaimed themselves to be an “army of liberation,” and immediately called on NATO to help them. With local collusion and support from the Gulf countries, it was possible to infiltrate armed groups from Jordan (under Tel Aviv’s orders), Tripoli (base of “radical” Islam in Lebanon), and Turkey (the Colombia of the Middle East). An important NATO power, Turkey has participated in the conspiracy. The so-called refugee camps in Hatay are actually training camps for mercenaries recruited from terrorist groups (Talibans and others), financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. I refer here to Bahar Kimyongur’s book.19
One would have to be completely naive to be surprised at the silence emanating from the Western governments: silence on the recruitment of “terrorists,”