A Black Agenda Radio commentary by executive editor Glen Ford

The imperial offensive in North Africa and Syria “was designed to put a Euro-American spin on the momentum of change” with the advent of the Arab Spring. But it has actually empowered Islamist forces and their royal Persian Gulf patrons. This house of cards must ultimately collapse.

“Although the NATO powers account for about 70 percent of total worldwide arms spending, they are by no means fully in charge of their own offensive in North Africa and the Middle East.”

The French intervention in Mali and the deadly Salafist assault on an Algerian natural gas facility on the border with Libya reveal the deepening crisis of U.S. and European imperialism in northern Africa. What is playing out in the western Sahel is the direct, and broadly predictable, result of the aggressive Euro-American response to the outbreak of the so-called Arab Spring.

Two years ago, Washington, Paris and London were swept by panic at the prospect of a realignment of forces in the Arab world. With Egypt’s Mubarak on the way out, the West’s henchman in Tunisia overthrown, and America’s warlord in Yemen facing opposition from all quarters, the NATO powers decided to alter the regional chessboard to what they thought would be their own advantage with a mass application of force against Libya. The assault on Muammar Gaddafi’s government, with absolutely no provocation and no basis in international law, was designed to put a Euro-American spin on the momentum of change. Almost simultaneously, Syria was targeted for massive subversion, and it was universally assumed that Algeria was next on the hit list.

This scheme for wholesale game-changer in the region necessitated an even deeper alliance with the royal regimes of the Persian Gulf. In practice, it was the West that became dependent on the Saudis and Qataris to provide Arab cover for NATO’s military and, much more importantly, to provide the Islamist fighters who would actually seize power on the ground in Libya and then Syria and beyond. Moreover, the Saudis and Qataris are rich, and can afford to pursue their own political objectives.

“The Islamists hate them with far more intensity than the secular leftists and Arab nationalists that the U.S. and Europe are so keen to destroy.”

This fundamental reordering of the relationship between the West and its royalist Arab allies is reflected on the ground in Libya, where it is Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s Islamist friends who wield the guns. The real crisis in Benghazi was that the Islamist fighters for whom NATO had provided an air force were not totally dependent on the U.S., Britain and France. They have rich friends in the Persian Gulf, on whom the West is now also dependent. Although the NATO powers account for about 70 percent of total worldwide arms spending, they are by no means fully in charge of their own offensive in North Africa and the Middle East. The Islamist fighters and their Persian Gulf patrons have their own agendas.

Ultimately, the Pentagon and the CIA and their counterparts in Europe cannot win this game. They are racist imperialists who will always make themselves hated. Certainly, the Islamists hate them with far more intensity than the secular leftists and Arab nationalists that the U.S. and Europe are so keen to destroy. That’s why the Americans can’t operate safely in Benghazi.

The great contradiction is that the Islamic fundamentalism with which the West is now allied and critically dependent behaves, in practice, like a nationalism without borders. And, like nationalism, it is ultimately incompatible with imperialism, which today is corporate rule without borders.

The fighters that attacked the gas facility in secular-ruled Algeria surely entered through Libya, partially controlled by fellow Islamists who are friends with the guys who killed the U.S. ambassador, and who are also friends with the Saudis and Qataris who are supposed to be America’s allies. The Arab Spring is far from played out, and nowhere near under U.S. control. For the West, it will end in a huge implosion, because this house of cards cannot stand.

•
For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

By Black Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford | 03/30/2011

Whatever happens to Moammar Gaddafi, an independent Libya is not on the U.S. agenda. “Obama hopes to ‘stabilize’ Libya under indirect U.S. dominion through a kind of protectorate involving various ‘international’ entities, on the Haitian model.” The president’s doctrine of “humanitarian” warfare – like his rhetoric – is merely a sweetened derivative of George Bush’s more crudely presented policies. “In the final analysis, Euro-American hegemony means crushing the aspirations of all Arabs in the sand.”

“Imperialism’s refreshed Obama-face is looking more than ever like a grotesque Halloween mask, and he knows it.”

In Libya, Barack Obama now faces the central contradiction of his presidency: How to accomplish George Bush’s strategic objective, to wrest back America’s post-Soviet global supremacy – a goal Obama has always, and openly, shared – while avoiding becoming embroiled in another Bush-style “dumb war.” This was the trick that Obama promised he alone was equipped to pull off by adorning the U.S. empire with a new, engaging, articulate, colored “face.”

Obama strains to maintain that prefabricated face in the midst of an explosive and wholly unexpected political earthquake in the Arab world. The United States, as we wrote on March 23 [8], “wants desperately to position itself on the ‘right’ side” of the unfolding Arab Reawakening and, if possible, to “appropriate to itself a section of the ‘Arab revolt.’” Having found – and helped create – that opportunity in Libya, the Americans and their European co-conspirators rushed in with a reenactment of George Bush’s “Shock and Awe” – a “full spectrum dominance” assault involving hundreds of cruise missiles that reminded even Moammar Gaddafi’s worst enemies that, in the final analysis, Euro-American hegemony means crushing the aspirations of all Arabs in the sand.

As the U.S. discovered in 2003, “Shock and Awe” repels as much as it impresses. Like the Bush Middle East/Western Asia offensive that initially targeted over 30 governments for overthrow (including Libya) but got bogged down in Iraq, Obama and the French and British are in danger of having “reached too far.” Imperialism’s refreshed Obama-face is looking more than ever like a grotesque Halloween mask, and he knows it.

“The Americans and their European co-conspirators rushed in with a reenactment of George Bush’s ‘Shock and Awe.’”

The president’s Monday press conference was an effort to reposition the United States, and to readjust his own face to the Arab world. The lull that followed in “coalition” air strikes on Gaddafi forces, which allowed battered Libyan units to retake ground briefly held by the highly disorganized and foreign-dependent rebels, could serve as a means for the U.S. to squeeze the bravado out of the Benghazi-based fighters – a kind of discipline by denial. Despite the West’s boundless praise for these purportedly democratic “freedom fighters,” the imperial plan does not include allowing them – whoever they are – to form a regime with authority over the country. More cautious elements within the Obama administration may have arrived at an accommodation with NATO member Turkey, whose own interests in the region are incompatible with those of the British and French – and, ultimately, the United States.

Obama acknowledged that the all-out assault on Libya too overtly resembles Bush-style regime change: “To be blunt,” he said, “we went down that road in Iraq…. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.” Yet, regime change is a defining privilege of imperialism and, therefore, Obama reiterated that the American position is that Gaddafi must go.

The contradiction, which causes Obama grief in Manifest Destiny America, is exponentially more acute in the midst of the Arab Re-Awakening. The president’s carefully crafted language indicates that Obama hopes to “stabilize” Libya under indirect U.S. dominion through a kind of protectorate involving various “international” entities, on the Haitian model. The key paragraph is:

“Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves.”

“Obama hopes to draw an illusory line between his and Bush’s worldviews, that will be palatable to a new an emboldened Arab audience.”

This is not a formula for rule by the Benghazi crowd, whose Islamist elements are indigestible, if not anathema, to U.S. policymakers and image-spinners. It is a rationale for a long, Haiti-like occupation under a compliant United Nations or improvised multi-national façade. Arab nationalism cannot be allowed free rein anywhere, since imperial rule abhors all nationalisms but its own.

Since the campaign days, Obama has struggled to infuse his deceptive rhetoric – which is really all that separates him from Bush – with the language of “Responsibility to Protect,” or R2P [3]. Cloaked in the cynical camouflage of “humanitarian” objectives, Obama hopes to draw an illusory line between his and Bush’s worldviews, that will be palatable to a new an emboldened Arab audience. It is a doomed mission, not only because of the inherent contradictions between Arab aspirations and imperial dominance, but because American rulers are incapable of speaking to a warlike U.S. nationalism and addressing Arab aspirations at the same time. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the top U.S. diplomat, cannot even maintain the discipline of a consistent lie. She admitted that widespread bloodletting by Gaddafi’s forces was a fantasy and invention:

“I know that the nightly news cannot cover a humanitarian crisis that thankfully did not happen, but it is important to remember that many, many Libyans are safer today because the international community took action.”

There was no humanitarian crisis, and it will become increasingly impossible to frame the Euro-American assault in North Africa as anything other than an imperial offensive, designed to keep the Arab world in its place and to usurp African sovereignty over the continent’s resources.

Obama’s “face” is melting.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com [9].

[10]

Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/content/obama%E2%80%99s-north-african-war-face
Links:

[1] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/africom
[2] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/oil-and-resource-wars
[3] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/r2p
[4] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/us-war-libya
[5] http://blackagendareport.com/category/africa/libya
[6] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/obamarama
[7] http://blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/obama_war_face.jpg
[8] http://blackagendareport.com/content/update-american-dilemma-libya-bomb-invade-partition-or-all-above-0
[9] mailto:Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com