Editorial White House OF course it was terrorism - and on a grand, global scale. It began with the coolly calculated provocation when the US Sixth Fleet steamed into the Libyan Gulf of Sirte. It culminated in the brutal bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi, slaughtering men, women and children.
The initial exchange of fire at the end of March set the scene for the events which were planned to follow.
In the kind of sick, slick, cynical provocation which the US media loves to retail to its most jingoistic audience, Ronald Reagan's confrontation with Libya in the Gulf of Sirte killed three birds with one stone:
• It helped stampede through a Senate vote for a massive $ 100m aid package to the murderous "contra" guerillas attacking Nicaragua, after an initial defeat for the proposal in the House of Representatives;
•It inflicted a bullying blow against Libya's Gaddafi in the eyes of the world;
• And by asserting the US Navy's "right" to invade the coastal waters of a country 3,000 miles away and with a population less than 1% of that of the USA, Reagan struck a new blow for old-fashioned imperialism and its "gunboat diplomacy*.
It could have been worse. The move came after setbacks in joint planning with Egypt's President Mubarak for a possible joint USEgyptian invasion of Libya to topple Gaddafi.
Various options included US bombing runs to back up an Egyptian land assault across the border. Mubarak - no friend of Gaddafi - appears to have been reluctant to act as such an open stooge of imperialism and run into a storm of Arab hostility.
The pretext on whch the American Navy provoked the shooting was transparently ridiculous. A massive fleet, including no less than three aircraft carriers, deliberately sailed into Libyan waters, defying Libyan forces to act.
Various comparisons have been made which show what an outrage this intrusion was. It is similar to the Soviet fleet sailing into the Gulf of Mexico; or the Chinese into Cardigan Bay. While Thatcher claims a 200-mile exclusion zone around the Malvinas fortress on behalf of British imperialism, she supports Reagan's refusal to recognise more than a 12-mile limit around the coast of Libya.
Nor is this the first such provocation by the US Navy. The last 5 years of Ronald Rambo's Presidency have seen no less than 35 deliberate
Socialist Viewpoint No. 12 May 1986 pl
NAVY Reagan - pushing through aid for "contras". incursions into disputed coastal waters around the world. This was the first to meet armed resistance.
When Libya's Soviet-supplied missile batteries eventually fired on the intruding US task force, the predictable rain of fire was unleashed - and then followed up by further airborne attacks. Gaddafi was left with up to 100 dead, holding a bloody nose and making unconvincing claims of "victory". • Reagan's cowboys rode off into the sunset, looking for other targets - or an excuse to return.
As a military exploit from vastly superior odds, the Libyan episode is even less glamorous than the squalid invasion of Grenada in 1984.
The incident had to be provoked in this way because for Reagan to be seen to take the offensive would require him to answer first to Congress under the War Powers Act. And he needed
Leader of the Pack: Thatcher some bloodletting to hit the headlines in order to raise the temperature for forcing through his aid package to the Contras.
For Reagan the hyper-terrorist, with his finger on the button of Armageddon, and daily funnelling arms and cash to pathological murderers (such as Pol Pot on the borders of Kampuchea; the Contras in Nicaragua; CIA-sponsored guerrillas in Afghanistan; and the mercenary UNITA terrorists in Angola) to accuse Gaddafi of "terrorism" is sheer hypocrisy.
The difference is that while Gaddafi supports the struggles of the dispossessed Palestinian people, Reagan backs the brutal Zionist state which robbed them of their land. And while Egypt, Jordan and other reactionary Arab regimes obediently look to deals with US imperialism, Gaddafi is an outspoken ally of the Soviet Union.
Gaddafi is also a substantial focus of anti-imperialist resistance in both the Middle East and in Africa. He has intervened in Chad, formed links with the Sudanese regime and charted a foreign policy course which consistently brings him into conflict with the US warmongers.
Now Reagan has decided to take the gamble of possibly wrecking years of careful US military and diplomatic strategy in the Middle East by frontally attacking Gaddafi.
He has felt confident that the European bourgeoisie - whatever its various whimpers and grumbles - would eventually fall into line behind the US offensive.
Thatcher of course led the pack, volunteering political support and instantly agreeing to the use of US bases in Britain for the launching of the
murderous bombing raids. The right wing French government on the other hand initially took an obstructive line.
But as the dust settles the bodies are buried and the blood congeals, the EEC ministers have swung obediently behind the fait accompli, with the ever-helpful Neil Kinnock in Britain even arguing that Thatcher should go much further by imposing economic sanctions and expelling Libyan students from Britain.
The storm of protest in Britain against the US attack has given a new sense of urgency to the peace movement and delivererd a timely reminder of the central role of NATO as an anticommunist, anti-working class alliance. The demand for the scrapping of US bases in Britain and withdrawal from NATO must be brought to the fore once again at this year's Labour Party Conference and in every possible forum in the labour movement.
It is no accident that along with Thatcher and the Canadian government, the mainstay of Reagan's support came from the Zionist regime in Israel: they see the crushing of Gaddafi as another blow against the liberation struggle of the dispossessed Palestinian people. Support for the Palestinian cause and opposition to Zionism must be incorporated in the campaigns and demonstrations in defence of Libya against the imperialist offensive.
Socialists, as defenders of the right of nations to self-determination and opponents of im-
unconditionally defend Libya against US aggression and provocations. But that does not mean we must politically endorse Gaddafi or his positions on other issues.
Having risen to power in a military coup in 1969, Gaddafi has used the country's oil wealth and a blend of populism and intimidation to preserve his own base among the 2 million population. Despite his links with Moscow he viciously represses all Marxist organisations -and indeed any independent organisations of the working class in Libya. The guerrillaist groupings which Gaddafi is alleged to sponsor around the world, and the style of politics he advocates internationally. nothing to organisation or mass struggle of the working class or the Palestinian masses.
One thing is clear, however: no puppet regime installed in Tripoli under the guns of the Sixth Fleet or before the bayonets of the Egyptian army will offer any kind of socialist or revolutionary programme for the Libyan people. Finding a political answer to Gaddafi is a problem which the Libyans, together with the international
movement, must take the lead in
Meanwhile as Reagan shelters the deposed Marcos and protects the ousted Baby Doc Duvalier; flies "emergency aid" to the Contras and backs up the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, few class conscious workers will be taken in by this latest display of "combatting terrorism" and the peace movement will take on a new lease of life. Socialist Viewpoint No. 12 May 1986 p2
STEP UP THE FIGHT FOR UNION RIGHTS!
Wapping FROM the crossroads a few weeks ago, print union leaders have driven the