"Left-wing" groups and "social movements" support US war against Libya?!

This article examines the explicit support of NATO's bombing by the UK 'Trotskyist' organisation, the Alliance for Workers' Liberty and the ineffectiveness of other supposed left-wing groups who claim to oppose the war. It is a response to a statement cited in "Dissecting a global empire and the US 'war on terror'" of 8 July of Global Research editor Michel Chossudovsky. He criticized social movements including leftist political parties that supported the US-led wars dubbed as 'war on terrorism'. For the truth about the current war against Libya and other international conflicts, please visit Global Research, one of the free news services committed to speaking the truth.

Workers' Liberty - an unapologetic 'Trotskyist' supporter of NATO bombing

The following is from Dissecting a global empire and the US 'war on terror' of 8 July by Marya Salamat:

(Michel) Chossudovsky criticized Northern governments and social movements including leftist political parties that supported the US-led wars dubbed as war on terrorism, when these are actually wars of conquests to maintain US imperialism and capitalism itself. ...

An example of one such "leftist political party" that is supporting the current war against Libya is the British 'Trotskyist' group Worker's Liberty, or, more formally, the Alliance for Workers Liberty (AWL). Examples of the AWL's explicit support for the war in Libya can be found in its current front page articles 'Why we should not denounce intervention in Libya' of 23 March, Peter Taaffe equates Libya's rebels with Nicaragua's contras of 24 May and An encounter with the shy Bishop Taaffe of 5 July.

The last of the previously mentioned articles is fluff in which I could find no substantial content about the actual war against Libya. It is an unfunny attempt to ridicule the Socialist Party (formerly known as Militant).

The UK Socialist Party - an opponent of NATO's bombing, if you know where to look

The Socialist Partyat least publicly opposes the war against Libya. Why they won't publicly debate AWL, if the AWL is to believed, is a mystery. However, news of the Libyan conflict is very hard to find on the Socialist Party's web-sites. On its front page, as of 9 July there is only one instance of the word 'Libya'. The link, made over small font text in a small right column, leads to its What's On page, where one Libya-related event on 14 July does get prominent mention.

On its Anti-war campaign page, found only after further searching the site, Libya gets a mention, but only right at the end, in an article Libya: the no-fly zone and the left of 20 April.

So, whilst the Socialist Party of the UK could justifiably be held by the AWL of being opposed to the NATO-backed 'rebels', they could not, by any means, be accused of being overly strident in their opposition.

They are, however, critical of other left-wing organisations which support NATO action against Libya:

The linked article, which explains the SP's stated opposition to NATO's military action against Libya can also be found on another SP site at ttp://www.socialismtoday.org/148/libya.html . It includes the following denuciation of other supposed left-wing organistions, including the AWL, which support the war:

Incredibly, this policy (of support for the NATO "no-fly zone") 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 (links added -- presumably the article to which I have linked is what was being referred to, - Ed.) 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)

Workers' Liberty explains why it supports NATO's bombing

The Workers' Liberty article Peter Taaffe equates Libya's rebels with Nicaragua's contras, referred to above, explicitly explains AWL's stance:

AWL sides with the rebels against Qaddafi. Although the evidence is that the rebel leadership includes a miscellany of bourgeois tendencies, they lead an elemental democratic revolt, with potential for development and liberation, against the dead hand of Qaddafi's autocratic police state.

For their own reasons, the NATO powers have intervened on the side of the rebels, bombing Qaddafi's air bases, tanks, and command centres. Because we support the rebels, we welcome that.

The article continues:

We do not endorse or support the NATO powers, because we know that they will serve their own interests.

But, because AWL holds the 'rebels' to be popularly supported and fighting for the benefit of the Libyan people "against the dead hand of Qaddafi's autocratic police state", NATO's support for those 'rebels' must be defended, but only if the NATO war does not become an outright invasion. In the word's of Workers' Liberty:

It would be different if one NATO power or another were to invade Libya and try to establish a colonial-type occupation there.

The article continued:

But they are not doing that. There is no sign of them doing that.

AWL evidently believes itself able to draw the fine distinction that no-one else is capable of drawing. On the one hand, AWL supports NATO's aerial bombing campaign, including, presumably, the use of helicopters capable of carrying ground combat troops, the use of NATO warships off Libyan waters, the dropping of supplies and to the Transitional National Council (TNC) 'rebels' and supporting them with financial donations, but on the other, if that were expanded to become an outright invasion involving US/NATO ground forces they would oppose it.

Presumably, until "Workers' Liberty" is presented with incontrovertible evidence that US/NATO ground troops have been used on Libyan soil, they will continue to cheer on the NATO attacks against Libya and denounce opponents of the war as uncritical apologists for Qaddafi's tyranny.

But judging from the front cover of "Workers' Liberty" as of 9 July, they aren't too attentively following the war. So, AWL could well miss timely evidence and fail to raise its voice against an outright invasion and "colonial-type occupation" in time for AWL to raise its voice to make a difference.

So who could reasonably hold AWL responsible for doing nothing to prevent the murder of hundreds of thousands of Africans, when their reasoning has been so soundly thought out and so well explained on their web site?

Australian 'Marxist' groups fail to speak effectively against war

Australia's 'Marxist' organisations could, like the UK Socialist Party, stand accused, by the AWL, of not providing effective support for the Libyan 'rebels', however their opposition to the NATO's bombing campaign has been even harder to find than on the UK Socialist Party's web-sites.

The Australian Federal 'Labor' Government is currently a participant in the 10 year old war against Afghanistan, which it inherited, in 2007, from the Liberal/National Government of John Howard. It continues Australia's participation in the war, because it claims to accept the fraudulent claim made by the US Bush administration in 2001 that Islamist extremists based in Afghanistan launched the September 11 terrorist attacks against the US.

Australia also participated in two illegal wars against Iraq. The first was the 1991 war, which was started as a result of US Ambasador April Glaspie setting up Saddam Hussein who was led to believe by Glaspie that the US, which had been on good terms with him until then, would not object to Iraq using military force against neighbouring Kuwait to stop Kuwait slant-drilling into Iraq's oil-fields. Public opposition to the US/Australian/UK war against Iraq was screamed down with the lie of the Kuwaiti "incubator babies".

The main pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the claim that Iraq was attempting to build nuclear weapons. This has been shown to be a lie. As has been mentioned before on Candobetter.net, the truth about the WMD lie can be found in the Hollywood movie Fair Game which concludes with live footage of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, (played by Naomi Watts in the movie), testifying to US congress about the WMD lie.

Now, in 2001, The Australian Federal 'Labor' Government is doing its utmost to fan the flames of yet more wars, this time against Libya and Syria. This is exemplified by Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd's recognition of "Libya's rebel council as the country's legitimate political representative".

For their part, not one of Australia's 'Marxist' parties have shown itself able to raise its voice effectively against NATO's new wars nor the Australian Government's complicity. As of 9 July, neither the words 'Libya' nor 'Syria' can even found on the front pages of greenleft.org.au or directaction.org.au. www.socialist-alliance.org/ has a long way down on its front page, the equivocating headline Support the Libyan uprising but reject foreign military intervention dated 18 March.

Of much more urgency to these groups, than the threatened wars which could easily cause the loss of hundreds of thousands more lives in North Africa and the Middle East and turn hundreds of thousands more inhabitants of this region into refugees, is the plight of the far smaller number of asylum seekers who have been able to reach Australia's shores with the help of people smugglers.

At the very top of greenleft.org.au is the story Cruelty to refugees in the spotlight of 25 June. Near the top of directaction.org.au is Self-harm on the rise at detention centres of "Issue 33 June-July 2011". Well before the equivocating story about Libya on www.socialist-alliance.org are the stories about aylum seekers: Nauru refugee detention extreme, inhumane of 18 June, We're not being swamped by refugees of 11 June, Refugees are not commodities: No outsourcing refugee obligations to Malaysia! (Joint statement of the Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) and the Socialist Alliance (Australia)) of (undated). Next to the article on Libya is a further article on asylum seekers, Mandatory detention is the problem of 18 May.

In 2011, the Australian left, along with nearly all of Australia's "social movements" remain committed to precisely the same priorities that have allowed Australian Governments to inflict so much harm on the rest of the world, as well as its own people, for at least the past two decades.

For the truth about the current war against Libya and other international conflicts, please visit Global Research, one of the free news services committed to speaking the truth. See also: The US House of Representatives has voted to prevent the Pentagon from supplying weapons, training or advice to Libyan rebels. of 8 Jul 11 .