Alain Badiou responds to Jean-Luc Nancy's Libération article "What the Arab peoples signify to us":
Yes, dear Jean-Luc, the position you adopt in favour of ‘Western' intervention in Libya was indeed a sorry surprise for me.
Didn't you notice right from the start the palpable difference between what is happening in Libya and what is happening elsewhere? How in both Tunisia and Egypt we really did see massive popular gatherings, whereas in Libya there is nothing of the kind? An Arabist friend of mind has concentrated in the last few weeks on translating the placards, banners, posters and flags that were such a feature of the Tunisian and Egyptian demonstrations: he couldn't find a single example of these in Libya, not even in Benghazi. One very striking fact about the Libyan ‘rebels', which I'm surprised you didn't note, is that you don't see a single woman, whereas in Tunisia and Egypt women are very visible. Didn't you know that the French and British secret services have been organising the fall of Gaddafi since last autumn? Aren't you amazed that, in contrast to all the other Arab uprisings, weapons of unknown origin emerged in Libya? That bands of young people immediately began firing volleys in the air, something inconceivable elsewhere? Weren't you struck by the emergence of a supposed ‘revolutionary council' led by a former accomplice of Gaddafi, whereas nowhere else was there any question of the masses who had risen up appointing some people as a replacement government?
Don't you realise how all these details, and many more, chime with the fact that here, and nowhere else, the great powers were called in to support? That such riffraff as Sarkozy and Cameron, whose aims are transparently sordid, were applauded and worshipped - and you suddenly give them support. Isn't it self-evident that Libya provided an entry for these powers, in a situation that elsewhere totally escaped their control? And that their aim, completely clear and completely classic, was to transform a revolution into a war, by putting the people out of the running and making way for arms and armies - for the resources that these powers monopolise? This process is going on before your eyes each day, and you approve it? Don't you see how after the terror from the air, heavy weapons are going to be supplied on the ground, along with instructors, armoured vehicles, strategists, advisers and blue helmets, and in this way the reconquest (hopefully a fitful one) of the Arab world by the despotism of capital and its state servants will recommence?
How can you of all people fall into this trap? How can you accept any kind of ‘rescue' mission being entrusted to those very people for whom the old situation was the good one, and who absolutely want to get back into the game, by forcible means, from motivations of oil and hegemony? Can you simply accept the ‘humanitarian' umbrella, the obscene blackmailing in the name of victims? But our armies kill more people in more countries than the local boss Gaddafi is capable of doing in his. What is this trust suddenly extended to the major butchers of contemporary humanity, to those in charge of the mutilated world that we are familiar with? Do you believe, can you believe, that they represent ‘civilisation', that their monstrous armies can be armies of justice? I am stupefied, I must confess. I ask myself what good is philosophy if it is not immediately the radical critique of this kind of unreflecting opinion, moulded by the propaganda of regimes such as our own, which popular uprisings in regions strategic for them have put on the defensive, and which are seeking their revenge.
You say in your text that it will ‘later' be up to ‘us' (but who is this ‘us', if today it includes Sarkozy, Bernard-Henri Lévy, our bombers and their supporters?) to make sure that oil and arms deals, and the like, don't make their return. Why ‘later'? It is now that we have to make sure, by stopping the great powers as much as we can from interfering in the political processes under way in the Arab world. By doing all that is possible so that these powers, fortunately out of the picture for a number of weeks, cannot reintroduce - under the damaged name of ‘democracy' and the moral and humanitarian pretexts that have been used ever since the first colonial conquests - oil and other deals, which are quite simply the only deals that these powers and their states are interested in.
Dear Jean-Luc, in circumstances of this kind it makes no sense for you or me to go with the grain of the Western consensus that says: ‘we absolutely have to remain in charge of everything happening'. We have to make a stand against the grain, and demonstrate that the real target of Western bombers and soldiers is in no way the wretched Gaddafi, a former client of those who are now getting rid of him as someone in the way of their higher interests. For the target of the bombers is definitely the popular uprising in Egypt and the revolution in Tunisia, it is their unexpected and intolerable character, their political autonomy, in a word: their independence. To oppose the destructive interventions of the powers means supporting the political independence and the future of these uprisings and revolutions. This is something we can do, and it is an unconditional imperative.
With friendly greetings,
Alain
15 comments
When does Western liberals learn that the best thing to do
for people’s freedom is to treat them as free autonomous agents? Badiou
pressed his figure on the problem. It seems to be intrinsic in the
Imperial mentality to see itself in the position of God (just as Islamists see themselves
as the spokesmen of God – apparently Islamism also has a long history in “saving”
people by force-. This is just another thing totalitarian liberalism and religious
fundamentalism has in common). Let us suppose all these interventions are not
for oil and the expansion of the capitalist market. Let us take the claims of
totalitarian liberalism seriously, i.e. assuming that its main motivating goal
is human rights and liberty everywhere in the world! When Europe and the US
wanted to save the world from the Iranian Islamic Regime, they supported Saddam
in a war the victims of which were more than a million. When Saddam became a
threat (actually at that time he was not so much of a threat to anyone other
than the peoples of Iraq, but let us go on with the assumption), they again
dropped more than a million tons of explosions on Iraq. Going further back in
history, when the American government tried to push Japan out of WWII, they deliberately
committed a mass murder unique of its kind using nuclear weapons against
Japanese civilians. When they, again supposedly, wanted to save the Afghans
from the Soviet occupation, they armed and funded Islamist networks from all
over the Arab world to fight the communists in Afghanistan. When these
Islamists became a threat to Israel and Western interests in the Middle East
and North Africa, the West supported bloody Arab dictators of all forms and
shapes. Now, as the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa are more than
ever determined to bring down those regimes, the US continues to support some
of those regimes, such as the regimes in Yemen, Bahrain, and Jordan. In the Libyan case, however, freedom required
from its guardians to support the uprising people, but again by dropping bombs
and sending more weapons into the country.
Saladdin Ahmed
According to the Internation Criminal Court, Libya preplanned to kill civilians who demonstrated: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12983054
Women were very much part of the initial protests, up until Gaddafi's men started the killing.
Once cities freed themselves, we saw women return the to protests.
Put that through your head, Libyans had to fight just to protest.
Here is a CNN reporter showing a demonstation in Benghazi, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qyb1uXUbJWY
Libyan civilians are not allowed to own weapons. All those weapons you see, they fought and died for. The youth of Benghazi, in response to being fired at by snipers and later anti-aircraft guns (you don't want to see the videos of those killed by such high caliber ammo), picked up pipes and bats.
They fought armed gunmen for their guns. The response was tanks and aircraft from Gaddafi. They raided the weapons stores in the east, to get at the guns that the author of this piece are of "unknown origin"
My word. I remember following every bit of news that was coming out of Libya. The TNC wasn't around for a long time. When Gaddafi's army upped the killing ante, firing rockets at cities and attacking civilians with tanks, I was sitting in a cafe with a bunch of other Libyan families in the Bay Area. After a Libyan commentator made the case for it, most Libyans had agreed that there was a really big need for a official point of contact that represented the free Libyans.
We recognized we needed this if we were going to ask for assistance from other nations. The TNC was formed in response to this. It didn't just spring up spontaneously
A popular uprising in Libya is a concept that needs to be redefined for the sake of accuracy through interpretation. A good attempt to do so is to consider it as "any number of a group of people who have the courage to mobilize in taking a stand against Gadaffi." Reality augments this definition and provides plentiful evidence in support of my argument. Is it not enough for you to see the entire east liberated with thousands upon thousands of deaths as a result of popular uprising; in the Libyan sense of the word? Is it not enough for you to see different parts of the west continually struggling in resistance as a result of their uprising? Is it not enough for you to know that those whose voices have been silenced in non-liberated areas, are united in heart with the rest of the country? Is it not enough for you to know that those voices that do indeed travel the media waves and land on ears like yours, are non-representative of the popular majority and representative of an unpopular minority?
Just because the placards, banners, posters and flags that were featured in the Tunisian and Egyptian demonstrations aren't found in Libya, does not indicate anything of significance; apart from the fact that you assume that Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are all one and the same thing. They are not and any person with common knowledge of the sociocultural factors and particularly the politics of the region knows this; your lack of awareness surprises me and I am sure would surprise many.
One very striking fact about the Libyan ‘rebels' are that they are not rebels at all; except in the eye of the beholder. This is something that the majority of the global community fail to realize as a result of their subjective dependance on manipulative media and lack of objective reasoning based on facts. Let us look at the word rebel. In its simplest terms, rebels resist authority and control. This was not the case in Libya. Those people who struggle against the regime in fact resisted laxity as opposed to authority. 42 years of lax disorder and misrepresentation under the regime. They also resisted weakness as opposed to control. 42 years of a government with no concern for strengthening what is in the common interest of the people; through the most basic of rights and amenities.
With regards to women, Eman Al-Obeidi is a single woman that 'you' out of millions upon millions of people have obviously not seen. A woman who speaks for millions through noble action and not just through words. Her visibility stands as clear as the sun in a sky that hovers above all populations struggling for freedom and a better way. There are many just like her and even more are those who are united with her in heart; not just in Libya but around the world.
The only people organizing the fall of Gaddafi are those who directly oppose him on the ground and around the world in thought and heart. This was not the initiative or issue for any secret service men from France or the UK, but rather an issue for the Libyan people. This has established by misrule and mobilized by technology and trend but I doubt such an argument can be understood by a conspiracy theorist like yourself.
There are no weapons of unknown origin that emerged in Libya, asides from those being being used by the regime against the people of Libya and being paid for with their money. However, one weapon is of certain origin; the weapon of common belief and struggle that originates in the hearts of those who have had enough. It is this weapon that will beat any weapons of unknown origin, in the present... and in the future...
Your view is highly disconnected from the reality of affairs in Libya; and as such, it is a great shame. It is highly recommended that you do more extensive research or at least, speak to some Libyans... that is the very least you can do, before speaking on their behalf... speak to some who are representative of the common-folk and not the regime; it will make a world of difference for you and those who believe in what you say.
Badiou's argument blames the free Libyans for not having done what the Tunisians and Egyptians did. He blames them, in other words, for the fact that they were slaughtered by Gaddafi's forces, and that, with incredible, almost super-human bravery - the tales of self-sacrifice and struggle against overwhelming odds that I have heard tell of from a friend back from Benghazi would shame even the bravest of us - they nevertheless carried on.
So: Badiou blames the victims. Congratulations: how very 'radical'. What tremendous 'solidarity'.
I won't dwell on the other perfidious and utterly-unevidenced aspects of Badiou's letter. This (the above) alone is clearly enough to condemn it.
This just means, of course, that the UN blue-helmets (likely the usual mercenaries that serve those peacekeeping forces) or NATO will put troops on the ground, and make the Libyan people suffer more, while their rebel imperial lackeys privatize the national central bank, the Libyan people's water, oil and uranium.
By the way, Al Jazeera, where you (without any critical thought in your head) were getting your ridiculous propaganda from, is owned by Qatar emirate. Qatar got an exclusive deal with the rebels to sell their oil on the international market. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED indeed.
This just means, of course, that the UN blue-helmets (likely the usual mercenaries that serve those peacekeeping forces) or NATO will put troops on the ground, and make the Libyan people suffer more, while their rebel imperial lackeys privatize the national central bank, the Libyan people's water, oil and uranium.
By the way, Al Jazeera, where you (without any critical thought in your head) were getting your ridiculous propaganda from, is owned by Qatar emirate. Qatar got an exclusive deal with the rebels to sell their oil on the international market. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED indeed.