> * Castro presents the matter as a
> counterrevolutionary movement in the
> interests of European imperialism
> against a revolutionary soldier of the
> highest ideals.
With all due respect, I believe you are overinterpreting what Fidel Castro literally wrote.
He is quite capable of expressing himself in writing. If he had meant that, he would have written it. Nowhere did he write that this is a "counterrevolutionary" movement or "in the interests of European imperialism." Nowhere. Actually, he said quite clearly that he was unsure. But, go ahead, quote him literally, or show the direct logical implication following from what he wrote, and prove me wrong.
The fact is that Castro is *entirely correct* in warning about NATO (US-led) imperialism taking advantage of the situation, because the potential benefits of doing so are large for the NATO bloc, being what it is (the still leading capitalist force in the planet, increasingly threatened by the emergence of the BRICS, etc., i.e. more desperate to cling on to its hegemony), to pass on them. A pre-capitalist tyrant in a Third World country is certainly a danger to the survival of the human race, *but* it pales by comparison with the danger represented by US-led imperialism nowadays. Do I need to argue this?
Fidel has shown capable of defending lost causes without any compunction. We saw him *defend* Chavez when the coupsters hijacked him in 2002. Fidel has faced defiantly the largest military power in human history for over 50 years. I believe that if Fidel Castro wanted to defend Gaddafi, he would have defended him explicitly. He would not have understated or hidden his support. But he is *not* defending Gaddafi or Gaddafi's rule here! He is clearly, sharply, and explicitly defending the right of the Libyans to rule themselves on their own accord, free from the interference of foreign powers, which (with due respect) includes your own government, and that's that.
The reason why Fidel is not explicitly defending Gaddafi can be inferred by anybody with an cubic inch of brain. If Fidel were to voice any criticism of the way Gaddafi has comported himself as a leader, he would be sabotaging what he considers his main argument in his statement. Fidel is not completely misinformed about what has happened in Libya under Gaddafi rule. But he's not going to express any criticism against Gaddafi that might be used to help the designs of US imperialism. He is just not going to give the imperialists the satisfaction of piling on against a Third World figure, however corrupt he/she may be, just as he did with Saddam Hussein; it doesn't matter if people in the Western left who see things differently attack him for that.
And by so doing, I believe (although we need to allow for time to elapse in order to have empirical proof of this) he will be doing *more* for the long-run interest of the Arab working people than he were just simply rah-rahing the uprising, something that (with a high dose of distortion and manipulation) the Western mass media appears to be doing. Do we need to allude to their motives?
Moreover, I believe that Fidel is not doing this in order to selfishly protect the interest of the Cuban state, in any narrowly conceived way, throwing under the bus a legitimate popular revolutionary movement. There are many analogies in the recent history of Cuba's foreign policy and internationalist conduct, and they show remarkable consistency. I can think of Grenada, Panama, even Cuba's relationship with Mexico. Fidel is doing what he's doing because he truly believes that the Libyan people should be left alone to settle this dispute, and that US-led imperialism is the largest present danger to the survival of the human race. And, again, that is a pretty good point!
If I were a Libyan fighting against Gaddafi and I had a minimal understanding of the true nature of how global capitalism functions, then I'd completely appreciate Fidel's stance and would be trying to explain it to my comrades in the struggle. Politics is situational. I would *not* be expecting Fidel, from his place in Cuba, to call for Gaddafi's overthrow or to supply us with weaponry or guerrilla training, or asking Cuban citizens to volunteer as an international military force in Libya, as he (successfully) did for Angola, in what appeared to many (the Soviet Union included) as a lost cause, in their struggle against the Apartheid regime in South Africa (supported by NATO and Israel).
> * He presents Gaddafi as part of a
> tradition of Libyan warrior greatness
> that stretches back to ancient Libyan
> soldiers who took part in Hannibal's
> campaign against the Roman Empire.
That is a verifiable historical fact. Gaddafi raised to power on his anti-colonial revolutionary bona fides. But, in fairness, Fidel is explicitly referring to the "inhabitants" of Libya, not only to Gaddafi. If you are comfortable with logic, then you will recognize that this praise extends to the internal opposition to Gaddafi as well!
> * Castro stresses that "As for me, I
> cannot imagine that the Libyan leader
> would abandon his country; escaping
> the responsibilities he is charged
> with".
Fidel knows Gaddafi personally. Now, if we see Gaddafi fly soon to seek refuge abroad, then Fidel's prediction will be proven wrong. But, so far, every media report I know indicates that, indeed, Gaddafi -- rightly or wrongly -- intends to fight to stay in power. Whatever our assessment of Gaddafi's rule (and take that formulation as you wish), that defiant stance alone is meaningful in the context of the struggle against imperialism. I am not saying whether that is sufficient to vindicate him or anything of the sort (I express no opinion on that here), but it does have a meaning in that context.
> The Cuban government has thus described
> the slaughter of protesters as the
> people of Libya trying to solve their
> problems peacefully. This makes Castro
> into an apologist for this slaughter.
No. This is again you wrongly attributing things to the Cuban government's statement that are just not there. The Cuban government did not say (nor did I, in my idiosyncratic summary of their official statement) that the conflict *is being* peacefully settled, but that it *should be* managed that way. "Is" is not the same as "should be."
> It's notable that Castro sees an uprising
> against an oppressive government,
> and identifies with the government. He
> says not a word about how the Libyan
> government is actually seeking to "resolve
> this dispute"; he doesn't see, in the
> masses rising, anything to inspire him; but
> he does worry about the bad press which the
> Libyan government is getting.
I'm not going to disagree with everything you wrote here. But you are right that Fidel chose not to emphasize the positive aspects of the popular uprising in Libya, aspects that we in the Western left have an obligation to emphasize. Our situation and our political needs are different. But Fidel has decided to bend the stick that way because he's understandably trying to look at what's next, how this may play out in the context of the actually existing imperialist system.
I am as enthusiastic as anybody here about this massive regional event. It's very encouraging to see the masses in the Arab world, so demonized and racially and ethnically stereotyped, taking history in their own hands, but that is not going to make me ignore other realities.
> Of course the EU and US imperialism are
> despicable. But so is the Libyan government,
> as revealed by its reaction to the uprising.
You obviously have much more certainty about the nature of the events in Libya than I do. I grant you that. You are much more certain than Fidel himself (nothing wrong with that), who more modestly says: "One has to wait the necessary length of time in order to learn precisely what is the truth and what are lies, or a mixture of events of every kind that, in the midst of chaos, were produced in Libya."
> Castro was making a definitive political
> judgement.
Indeed. He may be proven wrong, but that is yet to be seen.