In a Press TV interview, the rush transcript of which follows, James Petras, a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, the United States, shared his thoughts on the ongoing turmoil in Libya, believing it is yet too soon to witness the Libyan tyrant's fall.
Press TV: Give us your opinion about this idea of the civil war that is being thrown about, which in many cases the ingredients seem to be there for such a scenario to perhaps play out in Libya.
Petras: If we talk about a mass uprising, it is an uprising that hits regions of the country. Apparently, Gaddafi still controls Tripoli, and has the capacity to convoke a significant turnout. He has supporters in other cities. It is not absolutely clear how this will work itself out. There is no question that Gaddafi is not going to fall tomorrow or the day after. So I presume, on the basis of this, and the division in the military and other institutions, that this is shaping up to be something more than a dictatorship fighting a mass population. I think it is an approximate civil war, though it is not absolutely clear, beyond the slogans, what kind of regimes will evolve out of this.
It is clear that Gaddafi has been running an authoritarian government, but one which has changed over time. If we go back to the 1970's, Gaddafi was very supportive of the anti-dictatorial movements in Latin America. He provided material support. He opposed French, British and American intervention in Africa, particularly Southern Africa. He supported the Muslim movements in Mindanao, the Philippines, and elsewhere. So over time, his regime evolved in a much more conservative direction culminating in negotiations with Washington (United States); and through his son, Saif Al-Islam, the liberalization of the economy and major oil pacts with the West. So I think it is in the context of his move from left to right; his move from relying on revolutionary movements to a more militarily repressive regime, that one has to put this conflict. He still retains a support among social groups which benefited earlier from his wealth and paternalistic subsidies and I think one has to think that they still remain loyal to Gaddafi. Having said that, I do not think one can say that he is the demon that the opposition paints him as.
Press TV: Could you give us a perspective of the past ten years when he was in line with the West and the United States in terms of interests that were being pursued, especially with a look at the war on terror as they have wanted to line themselves in that regard?
Petras: He has especially been eager to get in the good graces of the United States and Western Europe. He has collaborated with the United States in pursuit of what is called Islamic insurgency against Al Qaida. He has been improving his relations with the Middle Eastern potentates that have been under stress recently because of popular revolts. It is fat of a general picture of trying to move from being isolated by the Western imperial powers in putting distance to his past and his collaboration with all sorts of insurgencies; both secular and clerical; Islamic and non-Islamic. I think it is in that context that there is certain confusion about who he represents today. One of the paradoxes in this is precisely his rapprochement with the West, which has led to a good deal of the unrest, because the liberalization has not created jobs; the privatizations have not lessened unemployment. In fact, it has exacerbated and forced greater numbers of people to emigrate out of the country.
The World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) policies that are being implemented have increased discontent, and therefore Gaddafi falls between the two chairs; he has given up the paternalistic policies of the past and exceeded to liberalization without securing any firm alliances with the West. So here he is now; exposed to the consequences of his policies, and abandoned by large sectors of his population and his erstwhile new allies in Europe, who see Gaddafi as a transitional figure, and are moving on now. What is not absolutely clear is the politics of the opposition, because they vary from opportunist Gaddafiites to pro-Western and stooges - I would call them so - that invite Western intervention and neo-colonialism and oil grabs, and Democrats and Socialists and others. It is not clear. There are even some supports of the most discredited monarch, Idris (of Libya) - a pre-1969 tyrant; corrupt individual - and they flying his old flag. The idea that all these people are united is a very temporary phenomenon, because there is no agreement among these diverse forces of where to go. There are even divergences now - a no-fly zone, which is an act of violation of sovereignty, and the United States used that in Iraq to bomb and later occupy that country with over one million people dead.
Press TV: Would you give us your assessment of the United States' reaction to the recent developments in Libya?
Petras: The reaction is like the one they practiced in Yugoslavia of using a humanitarian crisis to impose their own imperial agenda. It is the same policy they used against Iraq of a no-fly zone, then bombing and then invading. I think they are after the oil interest. The pro-Israel forces in the United States are pushing very hard for invasion, because they act on behalf of Israeli interest. Anybody that weakens any Arab government that is least critical of Israel always gets a hundred percent support from Israel. So we have a lot of interplay here between national and international forces, and while there is genuine demand for democracy inside the country, there are individuals within this revolt who are acting on behalf of United States' interest, and we should not discount that all together.
/106