Libya: After the fall of Tripoli

Revolution in grave danger of being seriously derailed

The first weeks following the fall of Tripoli to rebel forces have, unfortunately, confirmed how the Libyan revolution is in grave danger of being seriously derailed. An absence, so far, of independent organisations of workers and youth and the dark shadow that NATO’s intervention has thrown over the revolution have produced a situation where scarcely a day goes by without warning signs appearing of the dangers ahead.

While the revolution started as a popular mass uprising against the autocratic Gadaffi regime, the fall of Tripoli did not have the same character. The rebel fighters who moved, with NATO air support, into Tripoli were made up of tribes and members of the Berber minority opposed to Gadaffi along with fighters from towns like Misrata and were “armed by the French, trained by the British and led into battle by Qatari special forces” (Observer, London, August 28, 2011)

Since Tripoli’s fall, the fighting is continuing for longer, and with greater ferocity, than the rebels expected. Glib explanations, like those of British premier Cameron during his flying visit to Libya, that mercenaries are doing the fighting do not explain why, despite big retreats and constant NATO air bombardment, these forces are still fighting. In reality, it reflects the social and tribal roots Gadaffi’s regime had, alongside a fear of revenge by the winning side and hostility to foreign intervention.

While the towns where, at the time of writing, battles are continuing will probably fall to a combination of NATO air power, rebel forces and the desire for fighting to end, this fighting will leave a bitter legacy that can fuel future conflicts.

Rising racial tensions

The brutal long siege of Misrata by Gadaffi’s forces resulted in the highest death toll any city has suffered so far. Clearly, prisoners have been killed by both sides. But while now the crimes of the Gadaffi regime have been highlighted by the western media, for some time they have downplayed the execution of Gadaffi fighters and the rebels’ targeting of black Libyans and Sub-Saharan Africans.

Amnesty International (AI), while mainly condemning the brutality of Gadaffi’s forces, also gave examples of rising racial tensions in Libya. AI stated that Tawargha “home to many ethnically black Libyans (is) in the mind of Misrata residents, the town is associated with the worst violations committed during the month-long siege and relentless shelling of Misrata earlier this year” (August 30, 2011). Two weeks later, after the fighting had passed through that town, the Wall Street Journal reported that “Every house, shop, school and public building in Tawargha has been ransacked since the Misrata rebels chased out pro-Gadaffi soldiers” and that forces are “preventing Tawargha residents coming back” (September 14, 2011).

These developments are the background to the increasing reports of fighting taking a tribal and racial character. At the same time, there are signs of divisions emerging along the lines of the three provinces – Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan, which the US, Britain and France helped unify into Libya in the late 1940s. Furthermore, in the absence of a workers’ movement, Islamists have started to seize the initiative in opposing defectors from Gadaffi being in government and the growing influence of foreign powers.

Despite this revolution beginning as a popularly-supported movement, it unfolded in quite a different way from Tunisia or Egypt. In both of these countries, there were already pre-existing opposition forces, especially elements of independent workers’ organisations, which pushed the revolution forward. In Libya, these did not exist. The uprising had a popular character but almost from the start, its self-proclaimed leaders were a combination of middle class, pro-capitalist elements and recent defectors from the regime.

Quickly after the revolution started, imperialist powers, Britain, France and the US especially, took advantage of the counter-attack by Gaddafi’s forces towards Benghazi and the east. Stung by the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, these imperialist powers intervened as “protectors” of the Libyan people and, via the agency of the self-appointed and pro-western Transitional National Council (TNC), sought to control the revolution and exploit it for its own ends. Thus, the fledging democratic bodies that had begun to develop in Benghazi were curtailed and, in essence, the TNC became a NATO ally.

However, already these plans are not working out exactly as Britain and France had planned. The western powers are becoming exasperated at the TNC’s difficulties as it attempts to establish itself. A western official was quoted as saying that the TNC is “completely unprofessional. It is like a backwater municipal council from Southern Europe” (New Republic, USA, September 1, 2011).

Gaddafi and former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair

Revelations of imperialist hypocrisy

The publication of the correspondence between Gaddafi’s security service and the CIA, the British MI6 etc. has deeply damaged the west. The confirmation of the joint Libyan/US/British operation to capture, “render” and torture Belhaj, the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who now heads the Tripoli Military Council, has both further enhanced his standing and re-enforced popular scepticism towards these new “friends”. This is further strengthened by the confirmation that Britain exported £60,000 of weapons and munitions to Libya in February, the month the revolution began (Times, London, August 29, 2011).

The long delay in the Transitional National Council (TNC), the self-appointed leadership, moving its base to Tripoli is a reflection of mounting tensions. The TNC’s first public rally in Tripoli on September 13, nearly three weeks after its capture, was reportedly attended by only around 10,000, a small “victory” turnout in a city of well over a million. The Financial Times has reported on the continuing support for Gadaffi in Tripoli’s Abu Salim district (August 29, 2011).

18 September’s announcement of a further delay in the announcement of a “cabinet” reflected the growing tensions within and towards the TNC. The western powers favour the appointment of Jibril, the chair of the first executive dissolved after the still unexplained arrest and subsequent killing of the TNC’s military commander, Younis, by his own side.

Jibril headed Gaddafi’s economic liberalisation policy from 2007. In 2010, Gaddafi’s government published a plan to privatise over 50% of the economy by 2020, although controls were planned to remain in the oil, gas and banking sectors. Jibril has come under attack for his links to both the Gadaffi regime and the western powers which previously worked closely with Gadaffi; but unfortunately these attacks have not come from a workers’ movement but from Islamist forces.

Divisions over new regime

Ismail al-Salabi, leader of the Benghazi based “February 17 brigade”, has demanded the resignation of the executive headed by Jibril as it consists of “remnants of the old regime”. Salabi and his brother Ali, an influential preacher, are being promoted by Qatar and its al-Jazeera TV channel. Qatar, a totally undemocratic Gulf kingdom run along feudal lines, is also “directly” sending weapons and financing to Islamist militias (New York Times, September 9, 2011).

The situation is similar in Tripoli. Jibril’s 11 September press conference in Tripoli was twice postponed and then had to be moved to another venue. A spokesman for Belhaj, the leader of the Tripoli Military Council, said “Jibril represents no-one. He is not welcome here. We have just got rid of one dictator, we don’t want another one.”

But reflecting the growing regional tensions, representatives from Misrata opposed both Jibril and Belhaj. Abu Muzairik, a Misrata military council leader, said “We are worried about a lot of things happening politically. We have not seen Jibril in Libya, he has spent all the time we were suffering outside the country. Suddenly he is here and we have to accept he is the Prime Minister. What are people trying to do about it? Well, he will have to be replaced … The people who actually fought for the revolution must be allowed to have a say in how the country is now being run.” Abu Muzairik went on to challenge ex-LIFG leader Belhaj, saying he was “just in charge of fighters in Tripoli, that’s all. He is not in charge of Libya, even if he thinks he is” (Independent, London, September 13, 2011). The Misrata rebels have announced their own candidate, Abdul-Rahman Sweilhi, for prime minister. Sweilhi warned of the danger of a “new dictatorship" and insisted the government could not include “symbols of the Gaddafi regime” (Guardian, London, September 19, 2011).

But these differences are not simply over personnel and regional representation in government. Demands are growing in Benghazi for the headquarters of the National Oil Company to be moved back there from Tripoli where it has been based since early 1970s. A newly formed “17 February Committee for Oil and Gas” wants it moved to Benghazi on the grounds that most of Libya’s oil is in the east (Financial Times website September 12, 2011). Clearly this sort of demand could develop later into separatist demands, as the Financial Times reported two days later “an uneasy feeling is evolving” in Benghazi that will focus on Tripoli and the more populous west once the government moves there.

How to achieve a real revolutionary transformation?

But these are still early days; Libyan workers and youth have still not put their demands on the table. A key factor in the revolution was the revolt of the youth against the Gaddafi regime’s suffocating corruption and nepotism. Seventy per cent of Libya’s 6.5 million population are under the age of 30 and there are nearly a quarter of a million university and college students – and their voices will be heard.

Oil and gas have made Libya a rich country. The World Bank estimates that it has a $160bn foreign currency reserve – equal to two years’ oil income. This income and wealth allowed Gaddafi to raise living standards, education and health care were free of charge, and many basic consumer goods were subsided, although at the same time there was 30% unemployment.

While Gaddafi’s regime had already been privatising it is likely that the pro-Western leaders of the TNC will, if they are able to form a government, proceed carefully with a neo-liberal agenda. They will most likely use Libya’s oil and gas income to maintain, at least for a time, public services and subsidies. However, there is already a discussion on whether the subsidies on basic items could be replaced by the ‘Iranian model’, which sees the government directly giving out cash via bank accounts, something that could be used, over time, to reduce the real value of the subsidies. But a renewed world economic crisis would fundamentally change the situation and threaten to plunge the country into disaster. When oil prices fell in the 1980s, Libya’s GDP collapsed by over 40%.

Alongside the large numbers of unemployed Libyans there are a large number of migrants in Libya. These totalled up to 2.5 million, one million of whom came from Egypt, out of the country’s total 6.5 million population (Financial Times, September 2, 2011). Although over 650,000 fled during the first 6 and half months after mid-February uprising, large numbers still remain.

Gadaffi’s self-proclaimed position as the “Lion” of Africa and pretensions to lead the whole continent, alongside encouragement of migration from Africa, made it easier for some Libyans to believe that it was mainly African mercenaries who were fighting for him. This belief, which also exploited old prejudices towards Sub-Saharan Africans, helped fuel the racist attacks that have taken place. These racist attacks, alongside the increase in tribal tensions and mass unemployment, mean that building the unity of working people and youth is now more vital than ever, racist, tribal or religious conflicts could send the country down the path towards Yemen or Somalia.

Now, more than ever, the creation of independent, democratic workers’ organisations, including a workers’ party, are vital, if working people, the oppressed and youth are to achieve a real revolutionary transformation of the country and thwart the imperialists’ plans, end dictatorship and transform the lives of the mass of the people.

Without this other forces will step into the gap. To limit this and to achieve the above goals, a workers’ movement would need to defend all democratic rights, involve and defend the rights of migrant workers, oppose 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 with pro-capitalist forces. Instead, it would strive for a government of representatives of the workers and poor, based upon democratic structures in the workplaces and communities, which would use Libya’s resources for its population. This would be the real victory for the Libyan revolution and set an international example of ending both dictatorial rule and the miseries of capitalism.

Liked this article? We need your support to improve our work. Please become a Patron! and support our work
Become a patron at Patreon!

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.