Libya - thinking on the left

As a very clever person once reminded his friends who were arguing about different types of left wing approaches to the understanding of WW2,
'Most wars are generally made up of more than one particular war.'

This is not to say that there is not a core conflict. Despite all of Hollywood's best intentions, most of the world's historians are pretty clear now that the core war in WW2 was fought between the Russians and Nazi-led Germany. Around this clash other, more secondary collisions - from the point of view of their effects on the overall outcome - had their sometimes spectacular places.

The war in Libya (one historian of WW2 has called it, rather disparagingly, the pick-up truck war) has at least three identities. These are not separate (yet) but the Libyan war contains the different physiognomy of at least three separable wars. They include a war fought by NATO, which has the crystal clear objective of first safeguarding and if at all possible then increasing the European grip on Libya's oil reserves.

Oil reserves in Libya, as of 2008, were the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world giving Libya 23 years of reserves at current production rates if no new reserves were to be found. Britain and France can scarcely conceal their glee at the 'real politique' errors of China and Russia in not backing the rebels.

NATO's war has always been the most separate of the three wars. It was separately led. Its own spies were on the ground identifying targets. Its leaders dreamed up how to avoid giving the rebellion top class weapons on the one hand while simultaneously breaking up those that NATO countries had sold to Gaddafi on the other. However, without NATO's war it is doubtful whether the second war and perhaps even the third, would have had a chance of winning.

The second war is, in its essence, a faction fight. When Gaddafi opened up the country to the West, a layer of his previously nationalist leadership began to peel away not in defense of the 1969 revolution and its gains but rather aiming to go further and faster in the master's new direction! Most importantly (from their point of view) was the wall that Gaddafi was building between his intimate, family circle and the rest. While the bribes and contracts offered for Libyan oil got bigger and the trough got deeper, the number of Libyan snouts with access stayed depressingly few.  Using the slogans of the Arab spring- and an idealised version of life in western countries - the faction that had broken with their erstwhile leader made an alliance with a significant section of the people for the removal of the Gaddafi clique.

What is the third war, the people's war?

In the early 1790s, when the Parisian 'San Cullottes' began to raise their slogans of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality no one knew the outcome of this, first, daring and self conscious act by the majority in its own history. In the event monarchs and aristos were swept away to be replaced by the Kings and Queens and Lords and Ladies of big money. But the power and the danger of the slogans remains. The third war, the peoples' war joined up with the second and even with NATO's war as a result of the power of those mighty words. The people's war, the war by the majority, did all the fighting, took all the risks (if we discount NATO pilots bumping into each other in the dark.) And now, as in Egypt, as in Tunisia, there will be another struggle, wherein different social and political interests will come to display themselves among those who today seem united in their opposition to Gaddafi.


It is easy (and would be foolish) to meld the developing revolutions in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, the Gulf states and Libya into the same mix. Libya, by contrast to others mentioned, has been through a significant social change on the back of its oil wealth and the reforms of Gaddafi's regime - particularly in its earlier phase. By 1997, agriculture accounted for only 7 percent of the country's economic activity, while industry and services accounted for 47 percent and 46 percent respectively. The state is a huge employer. Real social welfare and educational advances are the experience of younger Libyans. It is the decay of those advantages, coupled with increasing corruption, the militarisation of society and the state terror that accompanies it that have brought the people, particularly the youth, onto the streets. The people's revolution is aimed at those enemies.

Anybody with any sense supports the people battling for their political freedom and for the defense of their social and economic well-being. But now the Libyan' war will untangle its various threads - and the world will see which of its three strands produces the understanding, the strength and courage and the necessary support to take the inevitable next step.

Here's a hint. The British media are baying for assurances that contracts negotiated with Gaddafi will be upheld by the National Transitional Council. Council spokespeople have so far fallen over themselves to reassure. From the point of view of the interests of the majority of the Libyan people, the old contracts need to be torn up now. New negotiations - starting with the necessary assurances that the whole Libyan people need for their future well-being - need to be arranged.

Watch this particular space!