Libya: Gaddafi Dead - What now?

By Robert Bechert, CWI, http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5364


Independent action by Libyan workers, youth and poor vital to prevent revolution’s derailment

While the defeat of the last major forces defending Gaddafi’s dictatorial and increasingly megalomaniac regime was widely welcomed, the way in which it fell means that clouds now hang over the future of the Libyan revolution. There are now both opportunities and dangers facing the working masses and the youth in Libya. The combination of the absence of an independent workers’ movement, the bitterness resulting from an increasingly brutal civil war and particularly NATO’s intervention, have combined with Libya’s own history and characteristics to produce a complicated political and social situation.

In August we wrote, just after Tripoli’s fall, that it “was greeted with rejoicing by large numbers of, but by no means all, Libyans. Another autocratic ruler, surrounded by his privileged family and cronies, has been overthrown. If this had been purely the result of struggle by the Libyan working masses it would have been widely acclaimed but the direct involvement of imperialism casts a dark shadow over the revolution’s future ...

“While many Libyans are celebrating, socialists have to be clear that, unlike the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, the way in which Gaddafi has been removed means that a victory for the Libyan people was also a success for imperialism. Without NATO acting as the rebels’ air force or the soldiers, weapons, organisation and training that NATO and some other countries like the feudal Qatar autocracy supplied, Tripoli would not have fallen to the rebels in the way that it has.” (‘Gaddafi regime crumbles’, 26 August, 2011)

Read the full article here: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5364

Libya: Gaddafi regime crumbles

By Robert Bechert, CWI - http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5249
After six long months of bloody, protracted struggle the overthrow of the dictatorial Gaddafi regime was greeted with rejoicing by large numbers of, but by no means all, Libyans. Another autocratic ruler, surrounded by his privileged family and cronies, has been overthrown. If this had been purely the result of struggle by the Libyan working masses it would have been widely acclaimed but the direct involvement of imperialism casts a dark shadow over the revolution’s future. The continuing battles in Tripoli and elsewhere indicate the instability of the current situation in Libya and also how the revolution that began there last February has, in many ways, been thrown off course.

Role of Nato

While many Libyans are celebrating, socialists have to be clear that, unlike the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, the way in which Gaddafi has been removed means that a victory for the Libyan people was also a success for imperialism. Without NATO acting as the rebels’ air force or the soldiers, weapons, organisation and training that NATO and some other countries like the feudal Qatar autocracy supplied, Tripoli would not have fallen to the rebels in the way that it has. Even the capture of the Bad al-Aziziya compound in central Tripoli was only achieved after a massive NATO aerial bombardment and an assault led by Qatari and other foreign special forces.

Now, despite their fears of exactly which way events in Libya will unfold, the imperialist powers are attempting to present Libya as a success for ‘liberal interventionism’, i.e. their right to intervene in other countries on ‘humanitarian’ or ‘democratic’ grounds. Of course, this was always hypocritical as ‘liberal interventionism’ does not apply to imperialism’s dictatorial friends and allies in Saudi Arabia, Yemen or elsewhere. The NATO powers hope that, after the disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq, they can win justification for further interventions in defence of their own interests.

Despite the involvement of large numbers of Libyans in the fighting and the mass arming of the population, there are not, so far, any signs of Libyan workers, youth and poor establishing their own independent rule over society. In fact, in a manner reminiscent of the collapse of the Stalinist regimes twenty years ago, imperialism has taken advantage of a spontaneous movement that knew what it was against but had no clear programme of its own.

Unfortunately, this overthrow of a dictator has not had the same character as the revolutions in Tunisia or Egypt, or even of the early days of the uprising in Benghazi when popular committees were established and briefly were the power in that city. Tragically, Gaddafi’s ousting was not simply the result of a popular mass movement, like in Tunisia and Egypt, forcing the dictator out. The momentum of the Libyan revolution’s early days was lost and, unlike Tunis or Cairo, Tripoli did not see one mass protest after another and strikes undermining the regime.

(Benghazi, 23 February 2011)

This was not simply due to the Gaddafi regime’s brutal repression of the mid-February protests; repression has not immediately stopped the repeated demonstrations in Syria.

The Libyan regime’s brutal reaction was not accidental; Gaddafi and his coterie feared the mass movements which were then developing in North Africa. As we explained in March: “Gaddafi’s first reaction to this year’s dramatic revolutionary events was to side with the dictatorial, corrupt autocrats. Just after Ben Ali fled from Tunisia, Gaddafi told Tunisians that they had ‘suffered a great loss’ because ‘there is none better than Ben Ali to govern’. Perhaps revealing how he viewed his own future, Gaddafi added that he had hoped that Ben Ali would rule ‘for life’.” [‘Stop the bombing – No to foreign intervention!’ 23 March, 2011.]

The Transitional National Council

Gaddafi, learning from the overthrow of Ben Ali and Mubarak, launched a counter-offensive against Benghazi and other centres of the revolution. These were certainly threatened but could have been defended by mass popular defence alongside a revolutionary appeal to workers, youth and the poor in the rest of Libya. But the self-appointed leadership of the uprising would not do such a thing. Dominated by a combination of defectors from the regime and openly pro-imperialist elements, the Transitional National Council (TNC), pushing aside the initial popular mood against any foreign intervention, looked to the imperialist powers and semi-feudal Arab states for support.

The main imperialist powers seized this opportunity to step in, justifying their intervention on ‘humanitarian’ grounds to save lives. But these same powers adopted a mild approach to the Syrian regime’s repression and maintained a virtual silence on the brutality of their close ally, the Bahraini regime. This simply confirmed that the Libyan intervention was based on a cynical calculation. Some imperialist leaders, like Sarkozy in France, sought to gain advantages for themselves, but their general aims were to establish a more reliable, pro-imperialist regime in Libya, seize a more lucrative share of Libya’s oil and gas wealth and, above all, intervene to seek to control the revolutions sweeping North Africa and the Middle East.

This intervention by the big imperialist powers, mainly the US, Britain and France, changed the situation as they attempted to establish a client opposition leadership. Under the false flag of protecting civilians, their aircraft carried out over 20,000 attacks on more than 4,000 targets in Libya.

NATO’s intervention allowed Gaddafi to rally support against what some Libyans saw as an attempt by the US, Britain, France, and others to regain control over Libya’s assets. Against this, there can be no doubt that widespread illusions were created that NATO was acting in the interests of the anti-Gaddafi revolution, an illusion that the major capitalist powers are now using as they attempt to control developments in Libya and secure the country for further exploitation.

No alternative to Nato’s intervention?

This is why the idea that the UN decision to intervene and NATO’s actions could be supported was to accept the derailing of the Libyan revolution. The idea that there was ‘no alternative’ to NATO was already disproved in the magnificent Egyptian movement that led to Mubarak’s ousting. The imperialist powers intervened for their own reasons not in the interests of the Libyan working masses and youth. Any failure to explain this as, for example, the small British AWL grouping did when it initially uncritically supported NATO’s role in the fighting in Tripoli, politically disarms the workers’ movement, leaving it unable to warn of imperialism’s intentions. The AWL has consistently supported NATO’s bombing and it now seeks to justify this by claiming the organisation of workers will be “easier” now after Gaddafi’s overthrow, something which it is not at all certain to be the case (see also: The ‘no-fly zone’, the Left and the ‘Third Camp’). In reality this is a rationalisation of their view, shameful for a self-proclaimed left organisation, that the military assault by the imperialist NATO alliance had to be supported as Libyan workers and youth had no chance on their own of defending themselves or defeating Gaddafi.

But what will happen now is not clear. The current situation indicates that there are elements, whether for political or tribal reasons, who are continuing to fight against the TNC. At the same time, there is no real unity amongst the main elements that fought Gaddafi. The population is also becoming heavily armed. This poses the possibility, even if the current battles end, of further fighting in the future, including tribal, national or religious conflicts.

Partly in view of this, we now see, alongside the start of a scramble for contracts, the main imperialist countries stepping up their intervention, including increasing talk of a ‘stabilisation force’.

Diverted revolution

However, at this time there is undoubtedly some support within Libya for NATO’s actions but this will not last. While obviously NATO has been planning for Gaddafi’s overthrow, including learning from what are now seen as the ‘mistakes’ made in Afghanistan and Iraq after the initial military victories, events will not necessarily go the way the imperialists hope. Although the combination of Libya’s small population and its oil and gas wealth will allow at least some rebuilding and social concessions, they will not automatically resolve all the issues now coming to the surface in Libya including potential regional and tribal tensions. There are also questions over the position of the Berber minority, about 10% of the population, and those who continue to support Gaddafi or, at least, oppose foreign intervention.

The very fluid situation that has now developed is, to a great extent, a result of the way in which the revolution has been diverted from a developing mass movement, with its own organisations, debates and policies, into a purely military struggle under NATO tutelage.




(Head of the National Transition Council, Mahmoud Jibril, and European Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, in Brussels on Wednesday 13 July 2011)

Currently, the self-appointed TNC is attempting, with NATO help, to impose itself on the situation. But there is no guarantee that it can, in reality, do this. The TNC is currently largely a fiction. For a time, it appointed a ‘government’, but that was dissolved after the still unexplained 28 July ‘arrest’ and subsequent killing of Younes, Gaddafi’s former interior minister who became the TNC’s top military commander. Jibril, who is still being presented as the ‘head of government’ has generally been out of the country because “he fears for his own safety in Benghazi” [The Times, London, 23 August, 2011.] If "prime minister" Jibril does not feel safe in Benghazi, up to now the TNC’s main base, it is understandable that the TNC leaders hesitated over when to move to Tripoli.

The TNC itself, as we commented before, was “simply relying on a combination of NATO air power and the masses’ desire for change to secure victory”. [‘Defend the revolution! No to imperialist intervention!’ 30 March, 2011.] The TNC, based in the east, clearly lacked standing in the west, as was shown by the fighters in Misrata who rejected its authority. Whether it can now build its position and, if so, for how long, are open questions.

Alongside a Libyan national consciousness that especially developed over the last decades, many regional, tribal and clan loyalties remain despite the country now being heavily urbanised. Added to that is the position of the Berber minority, who played a crucial role in the battles against Gaddafi’s forces in the south-west and in the advance on Tripoli.

Libya itself is a relatively new creation, having been initially formed by Italy in the 1930s and again, this time under US pressure, in the late 1940s. A decline in the feeling of being ‘Libyan’ alongside a growth of regional and tribal tensions, or the development of fundamentalist Islamic forces, could pose the possibility of a break-up of Libya, even of a Somali or Yemen style development. Tribal tensions could develop as a result of any lengthy fighting if Gaddafi is able to follow the example of one of his heroes, Omar Mukhtar and the armed resistance to the Italian take over and occupation after 1911. However, against this there is the fact that one of the motive forces in the movement against Gaddafi, the young people who reacted against the stifling effect of a corrupt dictatorship, saw themselves as Libyan.
No trust in NATO, build an independent workers’ movement

For the Libyan masses, especially the youth, workers and poor, this revolution was for an end to oppression and the stifling, corrupt regime, and for higher living standards. But despite any immediate oil-funded concessions and rebuilding, these aims will, in the long run, come into conflict with the reality of the crisis-ridden capitalist economy. A new world recession would hit Libya in the same way as in the 1980s when its gross domestic product collapsed by over 40% as the oil price fell.

But to prevent the danger of a new collapse of the economy and to block the asset stripping of the country, a break with capitalism is required. The TNC is obviously not going to do this; on the contrary it is dominated by pro-capitalist elements.

From the beginning of the anti-Gaddafi uprising we argued: “What have been missing are independent organisations of Libyan workers and youth that could give a clear direction to the revolution in order to win democratic rights, end corruption and secure for the mass of Libyans democratic control over, and benefit from, the country’s resources.” [‘Stop the bombing – No to foreign intervention!’ 23 March, 2011.]

A programme for the Libyan revolution that will 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 economy planned to use the country’s resources for the future benefit of the mass of the people.

This is why Libyan workers and youth should have no illusions in NATO or put any trust in the TNC which is, in essence, tied to imperialism. This tie-up was illustrated in the TNC’s draft Libyan constitution, first published by the British foreign ministry, which declares that “the interests and rights of foreign nationals and companies will be protected”. But neither the TNC nor any other government based on capitalism will be able to meet the aspirations of the population in this period of world economic instability or prevent the development of a new exploitative elite.

The creation of an independent movement of Libyan and migrant workers, poor and youth that could rely on its own action and struggles to implement such a real revolutionary transformation of the country is the only way to thwart the imperialists’ plans, end dictatorship and transform the lives of the mass of the people.

To achieve these goals such a movement would need to defend all democratic rights, be against the privatisation of Libya’s assets, demand the withdrawal of all foreign military forces and oppose all foreign military intervention, demand the democratic election of a Constituent Assembly and, above all, reject participation in any government based on capitalism. Instead it would strive for a government of representatives of the workers and poor based upon democratic structures in the workplaces and communities.

The dangers facing Libya now is that the combination of imperialist domination over the new government and the absence of a movement of the workers and poor leads to the possibility of regionalist, tribal or religious conflicts.

However, as Tunisia and Egypt have shown, the mass overthrow of dictators is not the end of a revolution as the working masses strive to achieve their demands and aspirations. Although developments in Libya have taken a very different course, the demands of the masses have not gone away and in the struggle to win them lies the possible of building a socialist movement that can truly transform the country.

Unlike with Mubarak, Gaddafi’s overthrow has had a mixed response in the rest of the Middle East. Partly this is because he was seen by many as ‘anti-imperialist’ but mainly because of NATO’s role. The contrast between NATO intervening in Libya while doing nothing to stop Israeli attacks on Gaza and being allies of the Saudi and other dictatorships is clear to many. But a workers’ movement in Libya, Tunisia or Egypt that challenged both the old order and imperialism would receive a wide echo, offering the possibility of revolutions that open the way to a socialist future.

Central Bristol Socialist Party meeting - Revolution in the Middle East

Central Bristol Socialist Party meeting: 

Revolution in the Middle - Domenico Hill

Tuesday 6th June 2011

7.30pm

Cheltenham Road Library, Bristol, BS6 5QX

2011 has already seen the fall of two dictators, and they are not going to be the lasr. There has been mass revolt and revolution, and now the direct intervention of Western military force in Libya, shameless in the face of their own 'humanitarian' hypocrisy in Syria. But what are the prospects for these mass movements? How can Socialists support their struggle for a better world? Domenico Hill will discuss these 

East Bristol Socialist Party - meeting tomorrow 18th May

REVOLUTION IN THE ARAB WORLD

Wednesday 18th May 

Cross Keys Pub, 

Fishponds Road, 

BS16 3BA

7.30pm

East Bristol Socialist Party will host Socialist Party member and Unison activist Domenico Hill on the popular uprising in North Africa and the Middle East. 2011 has already seen the fall of two dictators, and they are not likely to be the last. There has been revolution, counter-revolution, and now the bloody intervention of Western military force in Libya, with recent events in Syria exposing the hypocrisy of these ‘humanitarians’. But what are the prospects for these mass movements? How can Socialists support their struggle for a better world? For more info contact ma_gordon@hotmail.co.uk

Clare Daly, Socialist MP, speaks against imperialist intervention in Libya

No to Western military intervention - Build an independent movement of workers and youth!

By Robert Bechert, CWI
Read the full article here: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4949


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.

...

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.

Gaddafi must go! It’s a fight to the finish

Masses reject foreign intervention as towns fall to opposition
Report by Niall Mulholland of the Committee For a Workers' International
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4884

Dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s control over Libya suffered big reversals over the weekend with the fall of Zawiyah, a city 30 miles from the capital, Tripoli, to opposition forces. Over 20 people are reported killed in fighting for control of the city, which started last Thursday and lasted four days. Zawiyah, an oil port and refinery, is now surrounded by Libyan army forces still loyal to Gaddafi but they have, so far, not attempted to retake the city.

The ten day uprising has left at least 1,000 dead and led to thousands fleeing the fighting. Tens of thousands of migrants are stranded near Libya’s Tunisian border.

Other towns across Libya have fallen to the opposition in recent days. Reports from Misrata town say opponents of Gaddafi repelled a regime counter-attack also over the weekend. Tripoli, partially still in the grip of the regime, is increasingly encircled. Tanks and checkpoints guard the main roads into the capital but the situation inside the city is becoming more chaotic and desperate, as crowds queue up outside shops to stock up on essential supplies and besiege banks to get their money.

In a push for a final armed assault on Gaddafi’s remaining support base, groups of heavily armed opposition forces are reportedly planning to march towards western Libya, to link up with opposition militias near Tripoli. The groups are mainly made up of young people and former members of the security forces who defected to the opposition during the fierce battles in Benghazi city which led to Gaddafi losing control of Libya’s second city. A member of the newly announced ‘interim government’ in Benghazi, Ramadan Faitoura, said the armed groups are not part of an ‘official’ drive on Tripoli, although they have the interim government’s support.

Gaddafi’s days in power appear to be shortening fast, although the regime’s demise can still be protracted and accompanied by more bloodshed. A potential major obstacle for an advancing opposition militia is the traditional Gaddafi family stronghold town of Sirte, which sits half way between Benghazi and Tripoli. Although some military and security personnel in Sirte defected to the opposition, it has not been in the same numbers as the east of the country. Gaddafi also has tribal support in Sirte. But this support base can fall away if the areas main tribe concludes that Gaddafi is a lost cause.

Indeed, every day, more tribes and former Gaddafi ministers, high ranking officials and diplomats denounce the regime and declare allegiance to the revolution. Army generals have stated their refusal to order shooting on protests and to launch fighter aircraft against unarmed civilians protesting in the streets.

Gaddafi’s recent speeches show a dictator who has lost control. He makes blood-curdling threats against demonstrators, mixed with anti-imperialist phrases mixed with attempts to foster divide and rule tactics – offering some tribes large amounts of money and land - which are failing. Despite his sometimes “revolutionary” rhetoric and the changes made since the 1969 coup, Gaddafi has ensured that control has remained in his own grip. Hence the luxurious lifestyle and wealth of his own children.

Sensing the way in which the struggle in Libya is likely to conclude, Western powers are now quickly publicly shedding their cosy links with the brutal Gaddafi regime. They are exploiting their past hostility to Gaddafi to present themselves as being on the side of the “people”, something they do not do in regard to the semi-feudal regimes of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. The imperialists are scrambling to influence a post-Gaddafi regime, to ensure continuing preferential and lucrative Western big business access to Libya’s oil fields and to safeguard imperialist interests in a vital geo-strategic region. The US, in particular, is terrified that the Libyan events could be emulated in oil-rich Saudi Arabia, where youth on the internet are calling 11 March the day of “revolution”.

Imperialism changes its tune
Western leaders have very belatedly discovered they have serious concerns about the lack of democracy in Libya and are now calling for the dictator to step down. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, announced that the new UN Security Council sanctions against the Gaddafi regime were imposed “to speed the transition to a new system of governance”. Even Gaddafi’s good friend, Italian Prime Minister, Berlusconi, instructed his foreign minister to de facto suspend its 2008 ‘friendship treaty’ with Libya, which includes a ‘non-aggression’ clause.Amid reports that Gaddafi moved £3 billion to Britain, last week, the Cameron government froze the assets of the Libyan dictator and his family. British officials also reportedly contacted senior Libyan figures to try to persuade them to defect from the regime so that it collapses, rather than see a last ditch bloody fight to the end. Under the cloak of ‘humanitarian’ aid, some Western politicians are calling for a ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya and even Western military intervention into Libya and Saudi Arabia if mass revolts start there as well. The US has publicly backed anti-Gaddafi groups in eastern Libya.Amongst the Libyan masses, who are well aware of their history of opposition to colonialism, there is opposition to another imperialist intervention in the region. “Despite the heavy sacrifice they are offering every day, Libyans utterly reject any foreign intervention, even for their defence and protection,” writes Mahmoud Al-Nakou, a Libyan author (Guardian 28/02/11). “The people are adamant that this revolution is theirs alone.”Reports from Zawiyah show wide support for the uprising and also repudiate Gaddafi’s propaganda claims that the rebels are made up of drug-crazed youth and al-Qaida-inspired foreign fighters: “…they were the town’s people…the doctors and engineers, teachers, local youths and old men…”, reports the Guardian (London 28/02/11).Various ‘community committees’ and ‘councils of the elders’ have been set up in Benghazi, Musrata and Zawiyah to ‘restore order’ and opposition forces controlling eastern cities have formed a ‘national council’ in expectation of the fall of Tripoli.The former justice minister, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, announced that he would head an interim government, suggesting that it has the backing of the US. He also said an agreement could be reached with the sons of Gaddafi, echoing some Western politicians.Although Mustafa Abdel-Jalil’s comments are disputed by other opposition figures, they still intend to include him in an interim government. This should act as a warning to the Libyan masses – their revolution is in danger of being hijacked by remnants of the Gaddafi regime, pro-bourgeois opposition ‘leaders’, reactionary tribal leaders and imperialist interests.

Committees vital
For the revolution to win its goals – for real democratic rights and a transformation in living standards – it needs democratically-elected committees that truly represent the interests of the mass of working people, youth and the poor, in the neighbourhoods, workplaces and colleges, linked up at local, regional and national levels. Building committees within the forces of the state is also vital. Putting forward democratic demands as well as those needed to assure decent living standards, such a movement can appeal to the masses of Tripoli to rise up against Gaddafi’s last stronghold.
The masses armed, under democratic control, can defend themselves against Gaddafi’s forces, march on his last bases of support, and sweep away the dictator and his entire regime while preventing the country once again falling under foreign control. Such a mass movement would immediately introduce full democratic rights and oversee elections to a revolutionary constituent assembly. A government representing the interests of workers and small farmers would take the oil fields into public ownership, and other major planks of the economy, under democratic workers’ control and management. This would ensure that the country’s huge natural riches serve the majority of society not only an elite around the corrupt Gaddafi family and giant multi-national companies.To ensure this, mass organisations of the working class need to be formed, including independent unions and a mass party of the working class, with bold socialist policies. Such mass class organisations would oppose not just Gaddafi and the remnants of his regime but all pro-capitalist and reactionary forces in Libya and meddling imperialism.