There has been some brutal scenes over the weekend of riot police violently clamping down on protests rising up in the squares of the city from the people who helped over throw their previous dictator Hosni Mubarak
From the BBC:
Clashes are continuing between demonstrators and security forces in the Egyptian capital as protests enter a fourth day.
At least 13 people died and hundreds were injured over the weekend as troops launched a major assault to clear Cairo's Tahrir Square of protesters.
Efforts to clear the square appeared to continue on Monday, with tear gas canisters being thrown at protesters.
The unrest casts a shadow over elections due to start next week.
It is the longest continuous protest since President Hosni Mubarak was ousted in February.
Demonstrators say they fear Egypt's governing Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is trying to retain its grip on power.
The council, led by Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, is charged with overseeing the country's transition to democracy after three decades of autocratic rule under Mr Mubarak.
Calls for his resignation could be heard during th
Parts taken from www.socialistworld.net CWI committee for workers international.
Eight months after the overthrow of Mubarak, workers and youth still face poverty, unemployment, corruption and repression
The court trial of Mubarak continues, together with his sons, Gamal and Alaa, and some of their cronies. Ahmed Ezz owns 70% of Egypt’s iron and steel production (bought cheaply when state-owned industries were privatised) and 50% of ceramics. He was a leading member of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, senior member of the National Assembly and friend of Gamal Mubarak. On 14 September, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison and a fine of LE660million ($111m = £70m) for corruption. For a man reported to own $1.5billion in 2008, the fine is small change. All privatised industries should be renationalised, without compensation to the owners, who made fortunes while paying low wages.
It is estimated that corruption - including bribery, tax evasion, theft, nepotism and extortion – may have cost the economy as much as $57 billion in 2000-2008, or an annual average of $6.4 billion. That’s about $800 a year for every man, woman and child while 40% live on less than a dollar a day.
Unemployment rising
The economy has been hard hit by the fall in tourism, one of Egypt’s largest employers. Revenues are down $1billion a month. Egypt Air is losing 56% of its passenger traffic. This is partly because of fears of insecurity following the violent attempt of the old regime to hang on to power, but also because of the global financial crisis, with falling living standards in many countries.
Withdrawal of foreign capital in the six months after the revolution totalled about $16 billion. A 7% fall in GDP during the first quarter of the year was the equivalent of a $30 billion loss to the economy. These factors have resulted in unemployment, already high, growing to anything between 10-20%. Rising prices also make life a growing struggle.
An opinion poll, last April, found that 63% felt unemployment was the biggest issue facing society. Eighty percent expected their household’s financial situation to get better in the next year. Seventy five percent were confident that the new government was able to address the main issues facing the country. Of those who participated in protests during the eighteen days that overthrew Mubarak (one quarter of respondents), 64% said unemployment and low living standards were their main reasons for doing so, compared to 19% who said lack of democracy and political reform.
Now that it is becoming clearer to working and middle class people that the economic situation is getting worse, and that the government is unable to improve living conditions, growing numbers of workers are taking strike action. They are realising that it is only by their own action that conditions are going to improve and that they cannot rely on the government to change their lives for the better.
Many are angry at the slowness of change and how the military rule are hanging on to power an d the democracy they were promised is simply not happening as far as they can see.
Some weariness after eight months of weekly demonstrations, many of them enormous, is to be expected. But there is also a growing realization that demonstrations are insufficient by themselves to change the situation. Working class solidarity and struggle by striking, and in some cases occupying workplaces, is growing and has the power to force concessions from government and employers. Momentum towards a national general strike needs to be built, to draw all sections of workers and youth together to win real democratic, workplace and social gains. This entails rank and file, democratic control of mass action and creating mass committees of action in the workplaces, communities and colleges that are linked up at local, regional and national levels.
Democratic socialist programme
But wage rises will not last long while prices continue to rise, and do not directly benefit the unemployed, poor farm workers and other sections of the poor. The capitalist system will always try to take back whatever it is forced to concede, while ever it remains in place. The task of active trade unionists, youth and socialists is to raise the idea of a government of workers and the poor to complete the revolution started on January 25th.
The strike wave raises the need for workers in different industries, both public and private sector, to organise their own mass workers’ party. Activists from different struggles need to join together. Youth and students, those fighting for democratic rights and other social and community campaigns also need to join with organised workers.
A democratic socialist programme would include a decent minimum wage of at least LE 1200 linked to rising prices, decent education and healthcare systems, a massive house-building programme and a shorter working week to provide jobs for the unemployed. These must be linked to nationalisation under democratic workers’ control and management of all big companies, large estates and banks. The economy could then be planned to meet the needs of the majority instead of the profits of a tiny minority.
It is time the Egyptian people were given what they demanded in the first place. Freedom, real freedom. Freedom from capitalism and repression .
subscribe to this blog:
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label revolutions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label revolutions. Show all posts
Monday, 21 November 2011
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Egypt and Tunisian revolutions at a crossroads
Starting in Tunisia, a wave of revolutions and protests swept the Middle East and North Africa followed Mohamed Bouazizi's desperate act of self-immolation against poverty and oppression. These movements have now reached turning points.
As protesters in Egypt call for a 'second revolution', ROBERT BECHERT from the Committee for a Workers' International, the socialist world organisation to which the Socialist Party is affiliated, looks at the latest revolutionary, and counter-revolutionary, reverberations. Following Robert's article is an eye-witness report from Tunisia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the heroic mass revolts it seems that in Tunisia and Egypt, notwithstanding the ousting of the old dictators, the bulk of the old elite are still in power, while in other countries the regimes are holding on.
Spiegel, the German news weekly, summed this up: "The Arab revolution has come to a standstill, and all the signs point to the restoration of the status quo".
At the same time, under a 'humanitarian' banner, the US and the European powers are directly intervening, whether it be to help install a pro-western regime in Libya or to help their friends in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc, avoid revolutionary upheavals.
Real revolutions are marked by the entry of the broad masses onto the stage of struggle and mass activity. This is certainly what we have seen in country after country. Revolutions do not develop in a straight line; there are ups and downs, advances and retreats.
But through events and experiences the broad masses learn and draw conclusions, something seen already in the growing opposition to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) that took power in Egypt after Mubarak resigned.
A vivid sign of the continuing radicalisation in Egypt was seen on 27 May. Just over four months since the first mass protest against Mubarak on 25 January, tens of thousands gathered in cities across the country in a "Second Day of Rage" to call for a "second revolution". Despite opposition and warnings from Egypt's military rulers and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)and other Islamic forces, around 100,000 gathered in Cairo's Tahrir Square.
The demands were varied and included quick trials of Mubarak, release of all political detainees arrested since Mubarak's fall and the replacement of the military SCAF by a presidential council to run the country until elections are held.
Above all there was a feeling that the old elite was still in power, summed up by some protesters saying that they "haven't felt the change" since Mubarak had gone.
Two-sided victories
On the one hand there have been big changes, especially the experience of mass movements undermining dictators and the confidence this has given to many workers and youth.
However the big initial victories, Ben Ali's flight from Tunisia and Mubarak's forced resignation, had two, contrasting, sides. They were great victories for the mass movements but at the same time they were also sacrifices made by the Tunisian and Egyptian ruling classes so that they could continue in control. Egypt's military tops made this abundantly clear when they, in reality, put themselves in power by staging a 'cold coup'.
The SCAF made some gestures, formally charging Mubarak and allowing a limited opening of the Rafah crossing into Gaza, just before 27 May. But at the same time one of its advisers was arguing that the military should have a "special status" in the new constitution and parliament should not openly discuss military matters.
Initially, the generals' cold coup was not clear to the millions who celebrated Mubarak's departure. Since then, many have begun to understand that, despite the welcome changes, the fundamental structure of Egypt has not fundamentally altered. This is the background to the 27 May protests.
Corrupt regimes
In practically all North African and Middle Eastern countries, overwhelmingly young populations face corrupt dictatorial, or at best authoritarian, regimes presiding over large-scale unemployment and poverty, now being worsened by inflation. The revolution was made not simply to remove such cliques but to open the way to transform lives.
Inevitably the ruling class, and especially those associated with the old regimes, attempted to stabilise their position, seeking to control mass protests and limit movements.
In these revolutions there was the potential to fundamentally change society, there was a tremendous desire to sweep away the old order, but there was no clarity on what should replace it and what concretely could be done.
A combination of decades of repression, limited independent workers' organisations and the weakness of genuine socialist forces meant that there was no sizeable organisation that could argue for concrete action to implement a programme to secure democratic rights, break the local elite's power and begin the transformation of society.
This is why the huge elemental movements in Tunisia and Egypt have not, so far, resulted in the overthrow of the old ruling class. This is despite the fact that, at their initial peak, these revolutionary struggles of workers and youth could potentially have swept aside all obstacles to transforming society if they had been fully aware of their power.
Especially in Tunisia the leadership of the official trade unions, most of whom were tied to the previous regime, played an important role in helping to hold back the revolution's scope. While in Egypt the old official trade unions had far less standing among workers, already before the revolution, pro-capitalist trade union leaders from Europe and the USA were attempting to influence the leaders of the newly emerging independent trade unions.
While sections of workers and others are using the new, more open situation to press forward their demands there is a growing understanding that elements of the old order are reasserting themselves. This has produced the repeated protests in Tunisia as workers and youth try to resist attempts to 'end' the revolution before all their demands are met, something seen previously in many other revolutions.
Objectively, in today's world dominated by imperialism, these societies cannot develop on the basis of capitalism. In fact, given the relative weakness of capitalism in many of these countries, the ruling classes cannot tolerate for long the existence of real democratic rights, especially the right to organise and struggle.
This is why the question of building a movement that can bring to power a workers' and poor farmers' government is so essential. Only on this basis can the grip of capitalism and landlordism be broken, democratic rights guaranteed and a start made to the democratic planning of the use of society's resources.
Unfortunately, many of the emerging left forces in these countries either do not agree with this analysis or fail to make this idea the basis of their day-to-day activity.
Instead, pointing to the current consciousness of many of the workers and youth, they limit their programme to one that fundamentally attempts to work within capitalism. Not arguing that the government which is needed to complete the revolution is one formed by workers and the poor, opens the door to supporting, directly or indirectly, a pro-capitalist government.
It was through this kind of transitional approach that the Bolsheviks were able to link together immediate slogans like "Bread, Peace, Land" with the idea of overthrowing capitalism in Russia. They were able to build the mass movement that led to the 1917 October revolution when workers took power. Today this means building a movement that fights on both the immediate economic, social and political issues and for the overthrow of capitalism.
Inevitably there is a competition to build support and in both Tunisia and Egypt Islamic forces have also been gaining. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood leadership has striven to gain the confidence of the military rulers, opposing the 27 May rally and praising the generals' role.
Partly this growth stems from their roots in society and existing organisation as well as the relative weakness of genuine socialist forces. They also campaign on the questions of poverty and corruption while exploiting the disappointment with the failure of other more secular nationalist and left forces, some of which once had mass support, to develop society and their subsequent degeneration.
Divisions
But these Islamic forces are not immune from broader developments. Immediately after the 27 May protests the MB leadership attacked their youth wing for participating in the protests and at the same time sacked the editor of the MB's website for writing, amongst other things, that there was a "low turnout" at the protests. A skilful and principled approach by the workers' movement could win over many of those currently looking towards the MB and other such forces.
However, the recent religious clashes in Egypt between Salafist mobilised Muslims and Coptic Christians are a warning of how deep sectarian divisions could develop in the absence of a strong united workers' movement able to defend minorities while showing a socialist way out of society's crisis.
The current weakness of socialist forces has also shaped the development of the revolution more generally. The situations that have unfolded in Bahrain, Libya, Syria and Yemen, while all having their own individual features, have shown the limits of simply demonstrating or occupying open spaces.
Working class
It should be recalled that there were moments in Egypt before Mubarak's departure when it was not clear whether or not the revolution had lost momentum and vital questions of what to do next, including appealing to the armed forces' rank and file and taking initiatives to oust the Mubarak regime, were posed. The mobilisation of the working class hastened the international and military pressure on Mubarak to go.
Events will not develop in a straight line, as already seen in many countries. But they will test all political forces, including those of political Islam, and provide opportunities for socialists to build support for the programme of breaking with capitalism.
If, on this basis, the working class is able to build sizeable forces of its own, especially a mass party, it will have the opportunity to reach out to the rest of the oppressed and also those seeking fundamental change to create a workers' and poor farmers' government.
Then there would be the opportunity for the revolution in North Africa and the Middle East to not only set an example of struggle but start to create a socialist model that can inspire working people around the world that there is an alternative to oppression and the dictates of capitalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tunisia: Decisive working class action urgently needed
CWI reporter
Four months after former president Ben Ali was ousted there is still an atmosphere of revolution and mass politicisation in Tunisia. Suspicious moves from remnants of the old elite face immediate reaction from the streets. But the joy and optimism of the initial stages have partially been overshadowed by growing dissatisfaction that little has actually changed in the country.
At first, the revolutionary heat was powerful enough to bring down two transitional governments; to topple a number of local 'bosses' in Ben Ali's RCD party as well as corrupt bosses in the private and state sectors; to impose the dismantling of the RCD; and to organise the first elections for a Constituent Assembly. Thanks to a surge in social protests and strike action, some important social gains, such as wage rises, were also conceded.
However, the revolution did not bring down the backbone of the dictatorship's powerful state apparatus. Nor did it change the economic relations upon which the old hated regime flourished.
In the first weeks of May, a brutal police crackdown reminded many Tunisians that the counter-revolution is determined not to give up without a merciless fight.
Despite the official claims, the political police, as well as its networks of snitches, spies, plain clothes cops and provocateurs have not disappeared from the scene.
Tension
Some ex-high ranking RCD officials have been organising through new political parties, registered legally under new names. Meanwhile there has been no serious effort to judge Ben Ali, along with his family and cronies, for their crimes, or to seize their colossal fortunes.
No moves have been taken against most of the torturers or those who opened fire on demonstrators during the uprising. Acts of violence are being encouraged by police thugs and counter-revolutionary militias. Their aim is to create tension that could 'justify' the return to authoritarian methods.
For weeks the government has been campaigning to restore the confidence in the 'profitability' of Tunisia among imperialist countries. The daily demonstrations, strikes and sit-ins are increasingly targeted as an obstacle to the country's development and a threat to national security.
The provisional government of Caïd Essebsi is increasingly exploiting the weaknesses of the revolutionary camp to reaffirm the authority of the state and capitalist rule over the economy. While the majority of the population is struggling to keep its head above water, the government continues to pay back the billions of external debt contracted by Ben Ali's ruling clan. At the same time Essebsi has threatened to withhold civil servants' wages if strikes and sit-ins continue.
United struggle needed
In a situation of mounting social marginalisation and explosive levels of unemployment, all sorts of divisions can develop. Reactionary forces will try to capitalise on this. Deadly tribal clashes have taken place in the region of Gafsa. Elsewhere some unemployed, in desperation, are invading workplaces to dislodge workers and take their place.
These are warning examples of what could develop if a bold lead is not given to unify the different layers of the working and downtrodden masses in a common struggle against capitalism, imperialism and landlordism.
Ennahda, the Islamist party, although it did not take any active part in the revolution, enjoys rising popularity and organisational strength. Its convoys of humanitarian aid sent to the poorest regions of the country contribute to this process.
This is of growing concern to many left activists. However, it is only by building working class unity around a programme addressing the deep social needs of the masses, as well as the aspirations for real democratic rights, and by unveiling the real increasingly pro-big business and divisive character of Ennahda and other Islamist forces, that their impact can be seriously undermined.
A recent initiative, a broad Front of the Forces of Progress and Modernity adds further confusion and obfuscation. Worryingly this initiative involves large parts of the left in an alliance with discredited pro-capitalist forces. It is supposedly aimed at challenging Ennahda's growing influence. However, disconnected from the social and economic concerns of the majority, it instead contributes only in polarising the whole debate around the place of religion in society, and is used by right wing forces to mask their pro-capitalist agenda.
A new political party called the Party of Tunisian Work (PTT) has recently been launched by some trade union leaders. However, the PTT's programme seems to be weak. Indeed, businessmen and notoriously corrupt high-ranking UGTT union bureaucrats are part of the PTT leadership.
The CWI is in favour of resurrecting the idea of a mass party fighting for the interests of the working class and all the poor masses. But such a party should be democratically built from below, bringing together all the genuine revolutionary activists. It must openly challenge the compromised leadership of the UGTT trade union congress to avoid becoming a 'left refuge' for union careerists and for bosses 'praising the virtue of class collaboration'.
What direction?
As long as the revolution has not accomplished its fundamental aims, and the counter-revolutionary threat remains alive, all the local rank-and-file revolutionary committees and collective bodies of defence, that emerged in the initial stage of the revolution, must be maintained.
They must also be consolidated, structured, and extended in all workplaces and communities. This is vital to prevent the dislocation of the revolutionary movement, and to coordinate discussions and actions on a mass scale.
Such committees could also discuss the contents of the new constitution and the future of the country, exercising a real control over the electoral process.
The majority of ordinary Tunisian people share common objectives: to clear out the spectre of the dictatorship once and for all, to get rid of poverty and unemployment, and to achieve real social and democratic freedom for all.
To fulfil these tasks, the revolutionary movement will have to break the power of the minority of rich capitalists and foreign imperialist vultures who perpetuate their control over Tunisia's major companies, banks and big land properties. It must bring these resources into public ownership, to be run democratically by and for the majority.
As the international repercussions of the Tunisian revolution have already shown, such a decisive breakthrough would soon be emulated by millions across the region.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See socialistworld.net for a longer version of these articles and www.paulmurphymep.eu for reports from the Irish Socialist Party MEP's recent visit to Tunisia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As protesters in Egypt call for a 'second revolution', ROBERT BECHERT from the Committee for a Workers' International, the socialist world organisation to which the Socialist Party is affiliated, looks at the latest revolutionary, and counter-revolutionary, reverberations. Following Robert's article is an eye-witness report from Tunisia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the heroic mass revolts it seems that in Tunisia and Egypt, notwithstanding the ousting of the old dictators, the bulk of the old elite are still in power, while in other countries the regimes are holding on.
Spiegel, the German news weekly, summed this up: "The Arab revolution has come to a standstill, and all the signs point to the restoration of the status quo".
At the same time, under a 'humanitarian' banner, the US and the European powers are directly intervening, whether it be to help install a pro-western regime in Libya or to help their friends in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc, avoid revolutionary upheavals.
Real revolutions are marked by the entry of the broad masses onto the stage of struggle and mass activity. This is certainly what we have seen in country after country. Revolutions do not develop in a straight line; there are ups and downs, advances and retreats.
But through events and experiences the broad masses learn and draw conclusions, something seen already in the growing opposition to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) that took power in Egypt after Mubarak resigned.
A vivid sign of the continuing radicalisation in Egypt was seen on 27 May. Just over four months since the first mass protest against Mubarak on 25 January, tens of thousands gathered in cities across the country in a "Second Day of Rage" to call for a "second revolution". Despite opposition and warnings from Egypt's military rulers and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)and other Islamic forces, around 100,000 gathered in Cairo's Tahrir Square.
The demands were varied and included quick trials of Mubarak, release of all political detainees arrested since Mubarak's fall and the replacement of the military SCAF by a presidential council to run the country until elections are held.
Above all there was a feeling that the old elite was still in power, summed up by some protesters saying that they "haven't felt the change" since Mubarak had gone.
Two-sided victories
On the one hand there have been big changes, especially the experience of mass movements undermining dictators and the confidence this has given to many workers and youth.
However the big initial victories, Ben Ali's flight from Tunisia and Mubarak's forced resignation, had two, contrasting, sides. They were great victories for the mass movements but at the same time they were also sacrifices made by the Tunisian and Egyptian ruling classes so that they could continue in control. Egypt's military tops made this abundantly clear when they, in reality, put themselves in power by staging a 'cold coup'.
The SCAF made some gestures, formally charging Mubarak and allowing a limited opening of the Rafah crossing into Gaza, just before 27 May. But at the same time one of its advisers was arguing that the military should have a "special status" in the new constitution and parliament should not openly discuss military matters.
Initially, the generals' cold coup was not clear to the millions who celebrated Mubarak's departure. Since then, many have begun to understand that, despite the welcome changes, the fundamental structure of Egypt has not fundamentally altered. This is the background to the 27 May protests.
Corrupt regimes
In practically all North African and Middle Eastern countries, overwhelmingly young populations face corrupt dictatorial, or at best authoritarian, regimes presiding over large-scale unemployment and poverty, now being worsened by inflation. The revolution was made not simply to remove such cliques but to open the way to transform lives.
Inevitably the ruling class, and especially those associated with the old regimes, attempted to stabilise their position, seeking to control mass protests and limit movements.
In these revolutions there was the potential to fundamentally change society, there was a tremendous desire to sweep away the old order, but there was no clarity on what should replace it and what concretely could be done.
A combination of decades of repression, limited independent workers' organisations and the weakness of genuine socialist forces meant that there was no sizeable organisation that could argue for concrete action to implement a programme to secure democratic rights, break the local elite's power and begin the transformation of society.
This is why the huge elemental movements in Tunisia and Egypt have not, so far, resulted in the overthrow of the old ruling class. This is despite the fact that, at their initial peak, these revolutionary struggles of workers and youth could potentially have swept aside all obstacles to transforming society if they had been fully aware of their power.
Especially in Tunisia the leadership of the official trade unions, most of whom were tied to the previous regime, played an important role in helping to hold back the revolution's scope. While in Egypt the old official trade unions had far less standing among workers, already before the revolution, pro-capitalist trade union leaders from Europe and the USA were attempting to influence the leaders of the newly emerging independent trade unions.
While sections of workers and others are using the new, more open situation to press forward their demands there is a growing understanding that elements of the old order are reasserting themselves. This has produced the repeated protests in Tunisia as workers and youth try to resist attempts to 'end' the revolution before all their demands are met, something seen previously in many other revolutions.
Objectively, in today's world dominated by imperialism, these societies cannot develop on the basis of capitalism. In fact, given the relative weakness of capitalism in many of these countries, the ruling classes cannot tolerate for long the existence of real democratic rights, especially the right to organise and struggle.
This is why the question of building a movement that can bring to power a workers' and poor farmers' government is so essential. Only on this basis can the grip of capitalism and landlordism be broken, democratic rights guaranteed and a start made to the democratic planning of the use of society's resources.
Unfortunately, many of the emerging left forces in these countries either do not agree with this analysis or fail to make this idea the basis of their day-to-day activity.
Instead, pointing to the current consciousness of many of the workers and youth, they limit their programme to one that fundamentally attempts to work within capitalism. Not arguing that the government which is needed to complete the revolution is one formed by workers and the poor, opens the door to supporting, directly or indirectly, a pro-capitalist government.
It was through this kind of transitional approach that the Bolsheviks were able to link together immediate slogans like "Bread, Peace, Land" with the idea of overthrowing capitalism in Russia. They were able to build the mass movement that led to the 1917 October revolution when workers took power. Today this means building a movement that fights on both the immediate economic, social and political issues and for the overthrow of capitalism.
Inevitably there is a competition to build support and in both Tunisia and Egypt Islamic forces have also been gaining. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood leadership has striven to gain the confidence of the military rulers, opposing the 27 May rally and praising the generals' role.
Partly this growth stems from their roots in society and existing organisation as well as the relative weakness of genuine socialist forces. They also campaign on the questions of poverty and corruption while exploiting the disappointment with the failure of other more secular nationalist and left forces, some of which once had mass support, to develop society and their subsequent degeneration.
Divisions
But these Islamic forces are not immune from broader developments. Immediately after the 27 May protests the MB leadership attacked their youth wing for participating in the protests and at the same time sacked the editor of the MB's website for writing, amongst other things, that there was a "low turnout" at the protests. A skilful and principled approach by the workers' movement could win over many of those currently looking towards the MB and other such forces.
However, the recent religious clashes in Egypt between Salafist mobilised Muslims and Coptic Christians are a warning of how deep sectarian divisions could develop in the absence of a strong united workers' movement able to defend minorities while showing a socialist way out of society's crisis.
The current weakness of socialist forces has also shaped the development of the revolution more generally. The situations that have unfolded in Bahrain, Libya, Syria and Yemen, while all having their own individual features, have shown the limits of simply demonstrating or occupying open spaces.
Working class
It should be recalled that there were moments in Egypt before Mubarak's departure when it was not clear whether or not the revolution had lost momentum and vital questions of what to do next, including appealing to the armed forces' rank and file and taking initiatives to oust the Mubarak regime, were posed. The mobilisation of the working class hastened the international and military pressure on Mubarak to go.
Events will not develop in a straight line, as already seen in many countries. But they will test all political forces, including those of political Islam, and provide opportunities for socialists to build support for the programme of breaking with capitalism.
If, on this basis, the working class is able to build sizeable forces of its own, especially a mass party, it will have the opportunity to reach out to the rest of the oppressed and also those seeking fundamental change to create a workers' and poor farmers' government.
Then there would be the opportunity for the revolution in North Africa and the Middle East to not only set an example of struggle but start to create a socialist model that can inspire working people around the world that there is an alternative to oppression and the dictates of capitalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tunisia: Decisive working class action urgently needed
CWI reporter
Four months after former president Ben Ali was ousted there is still an atmosphere of revolution and mass politicisation in Tunisia. Suspicious moves from remnants of the old elite face immediate reaction from the streets. But the joy and optimism of the initial stages have partially been overshadowed by growing dissatisfaction that little has actually changed in the country.
At first, the revolutionary heat was powerful enough to bring down two transitional governments; to topple a number of local 'bosses' in Ben Ali's RCD party as well as corrupt bosses in the private and state sectors; to impose the dismantling of the RCD; and to organise the first elections for a Constituent Assembly. Thanks to a surge in social protests and strike action, some important social gains, such as wage rises, were also conceded.
However, the revolution did not bring down the backbone of the dictatorship's powerful state apparatus. Nor did it change the economic relations upon which the old hated regime flourished.
In the first weeks of May, a brutal police crackdown reminded many Tunisians that the counter-revolution is determined not to give up without a merciless fight.
Despite the official claims, the political police, as well as its networks of snitches, spies, plain clothes cops and provocateurs have not disappeared from the scene.
Tension
Some ex-high ranking RCD officials have been organising through new political parties, registered legally under new names. Meanwhile there has been no serious effort to judge Ben Ali, along with his family and cronies, for their crimes, or to seize their colossal fortunes.
No moves have been taken against most of the torturers or those who opened fire on demonstrators during the uprising. Acts of violence are being encouraged by police thugs and counter-revolutionary militias. Their aim is to create tension that could 'justify' the return to authoritarian methods.
For weeks the government has been campaigning to restore the confidence in the 'profitability' of Tunisia among imperialist countries. The daily demonstrations, strikes and sit-ins are increasingly targeted as an obstacle to the country's development and a threat to national security.
The provisional government of Caïd Essebsi is increasingly exploiting the weaknesses of the revolutionary camp to reaffirm the authority of the state and capitalist rule over the economy. While the majority of the population is struggling to keep its head above water, the government continues to pay back the billions of external debt contracted by Ben Ali's ruling clan. At the same time Essebsi has threatened to withhold civil servants' wages if strikes and sit-ins continue.
United struggle needed
In a situation of mounting social marginalisation and explosive levels of unemployment, all sorts of divisions can develop. Reactionary forces will try to capitalise on this. Deadly tribal clashes have taken place in the region of Gafsa. Elsewhere some unemployed, in desperation, are invading workplaces to dislodge workers and take their place.
These are warning examples of what could develop if a bold lead is not given to unify the different layers of the working and downtrodden masses in a common struggle against capitalism, imperialism and landlordism.
Ennahda, the Islamist party, although it did not take any active part in the revolution, enjoys rising popularity and organisational strength. Its convoys of humanitarian aid sent to the poorest regions of the country contribute to this process.
This is of growing concern to many left activists. However, it is only by building working class unity around a programme addressing the deep social needs of the masses, as well as the aspirations for real democratic rights, and by unveiling the real increasingly pro-big business and divisive character of Ennahda and other Islamist forces, that their impact can be seriously undermined.
A recent initiative, a broad Front of the Forces of Progress and Modernity adds further confusion and obfuscation. Worryingly this initiative involves large parts of the left in an alliance with discredited pro-capitalist forces. It is supposedly aimed at challenging Ennahda's growing influence. However, disconnected from the social and economic concerns of the majority, it instead contributes only in polarising the whole debate around the place of religion in society, and is used by right wing forces to mask their pro-capitalist agenda.
A new political party called the Party of Tunisian Work (PTT) has recently been launched by some trade union leaders. However, the PTT's programme seems to be weak. Indeed, businessmen and notoriously corrupt high-ranking UGTT union bureaucrats are part of the PTT leadership.
The CWI is in favour of resurrecting the idea of a mass party fighting for the interests of the working class and all the poor masses. But such a party should be democratically built from below, bringing together all the genuine revolutionary activists. It must openly challenge the compromised leadership of the UGTT trade union congress to avoid becoming a 'left refuge' for union careerists and for bosses 'praising the virtue of class collaboration'.
What direction?
As long as the revolution has not accomplished its fundamental aims, and the counter-revolutionary threat remains alive, all the local rank-and-file revolutionary committees and collective bodies of defence, that emerged in the initial stage of the revolution, must be maintained.
They must also be consolidated, structured, and extended in all workplaces and communities. This is vital to prevent the dislocation of the revolutionary movement, and to coordinate discussions and actions on a mass scale.
Such committees could also discuss the contents of the new constitution and the future of the country, exercising a real control over the electoral process.
The majority of ordinary Tunisian people share common objectives: to clear out the spectre of the dictatorship once and for all, to get rid of poverty and unemployment, and to achieve real social and democratic freedom for all.
To fulfil these tasks, the revolutionary movement will have to break the power of the minority of rich capitalists and foreign imperialist vultures who perpetuate their control over Tunisia's major companies, banks and big land properties. It must bring these resources into public ownership, to be run democratically by and for the majority.
As the international repercussions of the Tunisian revolution have already shown, such a decisive breakthrough would soon be emulated by millions across the region.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See socialistworld.net for a longer version of these articles and www.paulmurphymep.eu for reports from the Irish Socialist Party MEP's recent visit to Tunisia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, 25 April 2011
The hypocrisy of the west when it comes to Syria
As we have been watching on our tv's today the Syrian government is trying to crush the dissent from the anti government protesters today with huge force.
Syria's army has advanced into the southern city of Deraa, using tanks to support troops amid an intensified effort to curb popular protests.
One activist was quoted as saying that security forces were "firing in all directions", and at least five people were reportedly killed.
Witnesses also said security forces had opened fire in a suburb of Damascus.
A prominent human rights campaigner said President Bashar al-Assad had launched a "savage war" on protesters.
In the US, the Obama administration is considering imposing sanctions on senior Syrian officials to pressure the regime to stop its violent crackdown, Reuters news agency quoted a government official as saying.
The official said steps taken could include a freeze on assets and a ban on business dealings in the US, but gave no time-scale for the measures.
According to a UN Security Council diplomat, the UK and other European states are circulating a draft statement condemning the violence in Syria.
There have been numerous reports of crackdowns and arrests around Syria over recent days, despite the lifting of an emergency law last week.
Deraa is the city in which protesters, many of whom are now demanding that President Assad step down, began calling for political reforms last month.
It is just a few miles from the border with Jordan, which has been closed by the Syrians, according to Jordan's information minister.
Opposition activists said Monday morning's raid on Deraa involved as many as 5,000 soldiers and seven T-55 tanks.
This is a big move by the government, an attempt to sort this out once and for all I think. We'll now have to see if the protesters are going to be forced back into their homes, or whether they will remain defiant despite what's happened.
Syria is a one-party state and it has been extremely repressive in the past. The last time this happened was 1982 when there was an insurgency in just one town, Hama. The father of the current president sent in troops and they killed possibly 10,000 people and razed a whole quarter.
That is the history of this government. We may not be seeing anything on that scale but we are seeing something of that character, with troops being moved in to make sure the government remains the government.
The US has suggested that sanctions may be imposed on Syrian regime officials in response to the crackdown, but I don't think many people in Syria think targeted sanctions will make a difference in a situation like this.
Tanks surrounded the Omari mosque in the old city with snipers firing from rooftops, anonymous opposition sources said. The opposition reported than more than 25 people were killed, and their bodies could not be reached because of the fierce gunfire. This claim could not be independently verified.
One activist, Abdullah al-Harriri, told AFP: "The men are firing in all directions and advancing behind the armour which is protecting them."
"Electricity is cut off and telephone communications are virtually impossible."
While there are reports of growing strife among Syrian army officers on different levels - with suggestions that some soldiers have changed sides and are now fighting with the people of Deraa - foreign journalists have been prevented from entering the country, making information hard to verify.
But the BBC's Owen Bennett-Jones, in neighbouring Lebanon, says the use of tanks has not been reported elsewhere in Syria, and would mark a scaling up in the government's response to protests.
It appears from the latest reports that the government is absolutely determined to use force to suppress the protest movement, he says.
All this news is very worrying for the good people of Syria. Several questions come to mind though firstly will this finnish off this uprising by the good people of Syria or will they cease for now but come back and defy the governments orders at a later date looking to push back the government more ?
also the key here again just like in the Egyptian uprisings the army could be key here. In Egypt as we saw the army split and a lot downed guns and joined the rebels in trying to over over throw the government which ended up in a success in that instance.
Many questions still there for me and what is most notable is the western hypocrisy on this situation. When you looka cross the region to Libya where NATO planes continue to bomb Tripoli and Libya itself enforcing their "no fly zone " which i think they have destroyed all targets now so no idea why they are still there is striking when you look at Syria and American, British and french polititains are not calling for intervention there this time ? this all seems very wrong and why Libya is deamed nessesary to enforce a no fly zone yet Syria is looked at ok to let it carry on while putting up silly sanctions which have no affect at all.
So it will be interesting to see how this one develops. I do hope the government is over thrown in Syria and the power is given to the workers in a trade union movement to brin about a socialist society but i am guessing if there is any chance of that the imperialist west will not like to see that and will act then.
Syria's army has advanced into the southern city of Deraa, using tanks to support troops amid an intensified effort to curb popular protests.
One activist was quoted as saying that security forces were "firing in all directions", and at least five people were reportedly killed.
Witnesses also said security forces had opened fire in a suburb of Damascus.
A prominent human rights campaigner said President Bashar al-Assad had launched a "savage war" on protesters.
In the US, the Obama administration is considering imposing sanctions on senior Syrian officials to pressure the regime to stop its violent crackdown, Reuters news agency quoted a government official as saying.
The official said steps taken could include a freeze on assets and a ban on business dealings in the US, but gave no time-scale for the measures.
According to a UN Security Council diplomat, the UK and other European states are circulating a draft statement condemning the violence in Syria.
There have been numerous reports of crackdowns and arrests around Syria over recent days, despite the lifting of an emergency law last week.
Deraa is the city in which protesters, many of whom are now demanding that President Assad step down, began calling for political reforms last month.
It is just a few miles from the border with Jordan, which has been closed by the Syrians, according to Jordan's information minister.
Opposition activists said Monday morning's raid on Deraa involved as many as 5,000 soldiers and seven T-55 tanks.
This is a big move by the government, an attempt to sort this out once and for all I think. We'll now have to see if the protesters are going to be forced back into their homes, or whether they will remain defiant despite what's happened.
Syria is a one-party state and it has been extremely repressive in the past. The last time this happened was 1982 when there was an insurgency in just one town, Hama. The father of the current president sent in troops and they killed possibly 10,000 people and razed a whole quarter.
That is the history of this government. We may not be seeing anything on that scale but we are seeing something of that character, with troops being moved in to make sure the government remains the government.
The US has suggested that sanctions may be imposed on Syrian regime officials in response to the crackdown, but I don't think many people in Syria think targeted sanctions will make a difference in a situation like this.
Tanks surrounded the Omari mosque in the old city with snipers firing from rooftops, anonymous opposition sources said. The opposition reported than more than 25 people were killed, and their bodies could not be reached because of the fierce gunfire. This claim could not be independently verified.
One activist, Abdullah al-Harriri, told AFP: "The men are firing in all directions and advancing behind the armour which is protecting them."
"Electricity is cut off and telephone communications are virtually impossible."
While there are reports of growing strife among Syrian army officers on different levels - with suggestions that some soldiers have changed sides and are now fighting with the people of Deraa - foreign journalists have been prevented from entering the country, making information hard to verify.
But the BBC's Owen Bennett-Jones, in neighbouring Lebanon, says the use of tanks has not been reported elsewhere in Syria, and would mark a scaling up in the government's response to protests.
It appears from the latest reports that the government is absolutely determined to use force to suppress the protest movement, he says.
All this news is very worrying for the good people of Syria. Several questions come to mind though firstly will this finnish off this uprising by the good people of Syria or will they cease for now but come back and defy the governments orders at a later date looking to push back the government more ?
also the key here again just like in the Egyptian uprisings the army could be key here. In Egypt as we saw the army split and a lot downed guns and joined the rebels in trying to over over throw the government which ended up in a success in that instance.
Many questions still there for me and what is most notable is the western hypocrisy on this situation. When you looka cross the region to Libya where NATO planes continue to bomb Tripoli and Libya itself enforcing their "no fly zone " which i think they have destroyed all targets now so no idea why they are still there is striking when you look at Syria and American, British and french polititains are not calling for intervention there this time ? this all seems very wrong and why Libya is deamed nessesary to enforce a no fly zone yet Syria is looked at ok to let it carry on while putting up silly sanctions which have no affect at all.
So it will be interesting to see how this one develops. I do hope the government is over thrown in Syria and the power is given to the workers in a trade union movement to brin about a socialist society but i am guessing if there is any chance of that the imperialist west will not like to see that and will act then.
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa at a cross roads
Recent days have again shown that, despite the masses' yearning for real change, freedom and the heroic events of the past months, none of the revolutions in North Africa have so far secured a certain victory.
In Egypt and Tunisia, the countries where dictators were ousted, the ruling classes are making desperate attempts to hang onto their wealth and power.
While Tunisia has seen three governments since Ben Ali's flight in January and been forced to agree to elections for a constituent assembly, the regime is using what means it can to maintain the rule of the elite. For example, forced to dissolve the old secret police, the State Security Department, they have appointed a new Interior Minister, Habib Essid, who was "chief of cabinet" in the Interior Ministry between 1997 and 2001. As such, he was obviously involved in the tortures, repression and dirty work of the Ben Ali regime.
There is a growing mood among workers and youth that the revolution's future is at stake which is preparing the ground for new struggles to secure their demands.
Similarly in Egypt the military government that replaced Mubarak has been waging dogged resistance to stem the revolution's tide. But, as in Tunisia, increasing numbers of workers and youth are seeing, as the CWI warned from the moment of Mubarak's overthrow, that the military tops are no friend of the revolution. Already the military has announced plans to criminalise many strikes, protests, sit-ins and gatherings of workers and youth.
As seen before in many other countries' revolutions, Egyptian workers and youth feel that control over events is slipping away and that the old order is attempting to reassert itself.
They poured into Tahrir Square again on Friday 8 April in an attempt to regain the initiative. Hundreds of thousands, numbers not seen since immediately after Mubarak's removal, of workers, youth and some military officers rallied for a "Friday of Cleansing".
The presence of army officers, disobeying orders not to participate, is a sign that a call to the military rank and file to support the revolution would get a strong response. In the Square calls were made for the replacement of the military regime by a civilian council, the arrest and trial of Mubarak and other gangsters and torturers from the old regime.
Textile workers present put forward their own demands including removal of the old, state run, Egyptian Federation of Trade Unions; renationalisation of privatised companies; a LE1,200 (Egyptian pounds) minimum wage (US$ 200) and trial of the corrupt gang including Mubarak and the former head of the official textile workers' trade union.
The military regime's response was, after the mass of demonstrators had temporarily left the Square, repression. Denouncing some of the protesters as "thugs" the military brutally attempted to clear the Square late on the Friday night, killing at least one protester. Significantly the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Bayoumi, supported the military's move saying nothing should "jeopardise the unity between the people and the army".
What he really meant by "unity" was the continuing attempt of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership to reach a deal with the military tops. The crackdown continued afterwards. On April 11 a blogger, Mikel Nabil, was sentenced to three years in jail for "publishing false information" and "insulting the armed forces" by publishing an article quoting international news reports that the army had tortured detainees during the revolution.
The military tops may be forced to retreat a bit, Mubarak and others may go on trial, but their main aim is to safeguard their privileges and the reign of the ruling class. This is why, from the very moment of Mubarak's removal, the Socialist Party and the world socialist organisation to which we are affiliated, the Committee for a Workers' International, warned: "No trust in the military chiefs! For a government of the representatives of workers, small farmers and the poor" (issue 658).
Building the working masses' independent power is the key to these revolutions succeeding in transforming the lives of the majority of Egyptians and Tunisians. Without this, control will remain in the hands of the ruling class and elites, who will inevitably move sooner or later towards repression to maintain their rule.
Only through building mass organisations, including free, combative trade unions and especially an independent party, can the genuine revolutionaries, workers, youth, small farmers and the poor create the instruments with which to fight the old guard's attempts to retain power and to create a real alternative, namely a government formed by representatives of workers, small farmers and the poor.
Libya
The absence of such organisations in Libya has contributed to the present derailment of the revolution there as February's initial mass upsurge did not succeed in the western part of the country around Tripoli. Partly this was because the Gaddafi regime still has some basis of support, but mainly as a result of the revolution having no clear leadership.
An important factor was when some of the rebels in eastern Libya adopted the old monarchist flag. The former king had come from Benghazi, and the flag had limited appeal in Libya's largest city, Tripoli, and was seen by many as opening the door to renewed foreign control, not just in Libya but throughout the region.
The sidelining of the more radical elements in Benghazi and the formation of the self-appointed, imperialist backed, Interim National Council (INC) by a combination of pro-capitalist forces and defectors from the Gaddafi regime also limited the revolt's appeal to those who, while opposing Gaddafi's gang, feared a loss of the improvements made in education, health and other areas over the last 40 years.
With only limited anti-Gaddafi movements in western Libya, where two-thirds of the population live, there is, for now, effectively a stalemate. While the African Union's peace plan was rejected it is now increasingly likely that, for at least a limited period, Libya will effectively be divided.
Despite the original claim that it was intervening to defend civilians, it is now increasingly clear that the UN/Nato intervention is supporting the more reliably pro-imperialist side in this conflict in an attempt to remove Gaddafi who, at best, they previously regarded as an unreliable ally.
The Financial Times, a strong supporter of the intervention in Libya, accidentally revealed its real motives when it argued that "further military action in the region to protect UK interests" is possible (Editorial, 8 April, 2011). As the CWI previously argued, Tunisia and Egypt showed that tyranny can be overthrown by mass movements.
The world powers' near-silence on the continuing repression in Bahrain, and their only limited criticism of the Syrian regime's increasingly bloody crackdown, shows how their concern for civilians is limited to when it is in their own class imperialist interests.
In different ways the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East are at or approaching new turning points. In countries like Bahrain, Libya, Syria and Yemen the immediate questions are how to move forward, overthrow the dictatorships and what then needs to be done to meet the demands and aspirations of the mass of the population. How the latter can be achieved, along with removing the remaining vestiges of the old regimes, is the central issue facing the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.
The answer to these questions, and saving the revolutions, lies in the hands of the working masses. Tunisia and Egypt have already shown that determined struggle can overthrow dictatorships. However the events this year have shown that, on its own, willingness to struggle is not enough.
The working masses need to independently and democratically organise in trade unions and a mass party of workers and the poor with a clear programme, to be able to struggle to prevent the gains of their revolutions being snatched away by remnants of the old elite or a new elite in formation, in collaboration with imperialism.
Genuinely revolutionary forces of the working masses need to reject any alliance with pro-capitalist forces or reliance on the UN or Nato. To defeat dictatorial regimes workers and youth need to build their own forces that can carry the revolutions to victory, victories that not only win democratic rights but which ensure that society's wealth is genuinely owned and democratically controlled and managed in the masses' interests.
This would lay the basis for liberation and a genuine democratic socialism, not the fake versions of Gaddafi and Syria, that could then be an example to the working masses in the Middle East, Africa and beyond to follow in order to end the rule of autocrats and the misery of capitalist rule.
In Egypt and Tunisia, the countries where dictators were ousted, the ruling classes are making desperate attempts to hang onto their wealth and power.
While Tunisia has seen three governments since Ben Ali's flight in January and been forced to agree to elections for a constituent assembly, the regime is using what means it can to maintain the rule of the elite. For example, forced to dissolve the old secret police, the State Security Department, they have appointed a new Interior Minister, Habib Essid, who was "chief of cabinet" in the Interior Ministry between 1997 and 2001. As such, he was obviously involved in the tortures, repression and dirty work of the Ben Ali regime.
There is a growing mood among workers and youth that the revolution's future is at stake which is preparing the ground for new struggles to secure their demands.
Similarly in Egypt the military government that replaced Mubarak has been waging dogged resistance to stem the revolution's tide. But, as in Tunisia, increasing numbers of workers and youth are seeing, as the CWI warned from the moment of Mubarak's overthrow, that the military tops are no friend of the revolution. Already the military has announced plans to criminalise many strikes, protests, sit-ins and gatherings of workers and youth.
As seen before in many other countries' revolutions, Egyptian workers and youth feel that control over events is slipping away and that the old order is attempting to reassert itself.
They poured into Tahrir Square again on Friday 8 April in an attempt to regain the initiative. Hundreds of thousands, numbers not seen since immediately after Mubarak's removal, of workers, youth and some military officers rallied for a "Friday of Cleansing".
The presence of army officers, disobeying orders not to participate, is a sign that a call to the military rank and file to support the revolution would get a strong response. In the Square calls were made for the replacement of the military regime by a civilian council, the arrest and trial of Mubarak and other gangsters and torturers from the old regime.
Textile workers present put forward their own demands including removal of the old, state run, Egyptian Federation of Trade Unions; renationalisation of privatised companies; a LE1,200 (Egyptian pounds) minimum wage (US$ 200) and trial of the corrupt gang including Mubarak and the former head of the official textile workers' trade union.
The military regime's response was, after the mass of demonstrators had temporarily left the Square, repression. Denouncing some of the protesters as "thugs" the military brutally attempted to clear the Square late on the Friday night, killing at least one protester. Significantly the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Bayoumi, supported the military's move saying nothing should "jeopardise the unity between the people and the army".
What he really meant by "unity" was the continuing attempt of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership to reach a deal with the military tops. The crackdown continued afterwards. On April 11 a blogger, Mikel Nabil, was sentenced to three years in jail for "publishing false information" and "insulting the armed forces" by publishing an article quoting international news reports that the army had tortured detainees during the revolution.
The military tops may be forced to retreat a bit, Mubarak and others may go on trial, but their main aim is to safeguard their privileges and the reign of the ruling class. This is why, from the very moment of Mubarak's removal, the Socialist Party and the world socialist organisation to which we are affiliated, the Committee for a Workers' International, warned: "No trust in the military chiefs! For a government of the representatives of workers, small farmers and the poor" (issue 658).
Building the working masses' independent power is the key to these revolutions succeeding in transforming the lives of the majority of Egyptians and Tunisians. Without this, control will remain in the hands of the ruling class and elites, who will inevitably move sooner or later towards repression to maintain their rule.
Only through building mass organisations, including free, combative trade unions and especially an independent party, can the genuine revolutionaries, workers, youth, small farmers and the poor create the instruments with which to fight the old guard's attempts to retain power and to create a real alternative, namely a government formed by representatives of workers, small farmers and the poor.
Libya
The absence of such organisations in Libya has contributed to the present derailment of the revolution there as February's initial mass upsurge did not succeed in the western part of the country around Tripoli. Partly this was because the Gaddafi regime still has some basis of support, but mainly as a result of the revolution having no clear leadership.
An important factor was when some of the rebels in eastern Libya adopted the old monarchist flag. The former king had come from Benghazi, and the flag had limited appeal in Libya's largest city, Tripoli, and was seen by many as opening the door to renewed foreign control, not just in Libya but throughout the region.
The sidelining of the more radical elements in Benghazi and the formation of the self-appointed, imperialist backed, Interim National Council (INC) by a combination of pro-capitalist forces and defectors from the Gaddafi regime also limited the revolt's appeal to those who, while opposing Gaddafi's gang, feared a loss of the improvements made in education, health and other areas over the last 40 years.
With only limited anti-Gaddafi movements in western Libya, where two-thirds of the population live, there is, for now, effectively a stalemate. While the African Union's peace plan was rejected it is now increasingly likely that, for at least a limited period, Libya will effectively be divided.
Despite the original claim that it was intervening to defend civilians, it is now increasingly clear that the UN/Nato intervention is supporting the more reliably pro-imperialist side in this conflict in an attempt to remove Gaddafi who, at best, they previously regarded as an unreliable ally.
The Financial Times, a strong supporter of the intervention in Libya, accidentally revealed its real motives when it argued that "further military action in the region to protect UK interests" is possible (Editorial, 8 April, 2011). As the CWI previously argued, Tunisia and Egypt showed that tyranny can be overthrown by mass movements.
The world powers' near-silence on the continuing repression in Bahrain, and their only limited criticism of the Syrian regime's increasingly bloody crackdown, shows how their concern for civilians is limited to when it is in their own class imperialist interests.
In different ways the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East are at or approaching new turning points. In countries like Bahrain, Libya, Syria and Yemen the immediate questions are how to move forward, overthrow the dictatorships and what then needs to be done to meet the demands and aspirations of the mass of the population. How the latter can be achieved, along with removing the remaining vestiges of the old regimes, is the central issue facing the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.
The answer to these questions, and saving the revolutions, lies in the hands of the working masses. Tunisia and Egypt have already shown that determined struggle can overthrow dictatorships. However the events this year have shown that, on its own, willingness to struggle is not enough.
The working masses need to independently and democratically organise in trade unions and a mass party of workers and the poor with a clear programme, to be able to struggle to prevent the gains of their revolutions being snatched away by remnants of the old elite or a new elite in formation, in collaboration with imperialism.
Genuinely revolutionary forces of the working masses need to reject any alliance with pro-capitalist forces or reliance on the UN or Nato. To defeat dictatorial regimes workers and youth need to build their own forces that can carry the revolutions to victory, victories that not only win democratic rights but which ensure that society's wealth is genuinely owned and democratically controlled and managed in the masses' interests.
This would lay the basis for liberation and a genuine democratic socialism, not the fake versions of Gaddafi and Syria, that could then be an example to the working masses in the Middle East, Africa and beyond to follow in order to end the rule of autocrats and the misery of capitalist rule.
Monday, 21 March 2011
No to imperialist military intervention in Libya
I found this excellent article really detailed and spot on on the socilaist party's website at www.socilaistparty.org.uk and thought i'd share it on here if you havent seen it yet. I think it puts things into perspective in LIbya and offers a real solution to the problems in that oil rich country.
If you enjoy articles like this and would like to learn more or join the socialist party please visit this link here :
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/main/join
The UN Security Council's majority decision to enact a militarily-imposed 'no-fly-zone' against Libya, while greeted with joy on the streets of Benghazi and Tobruk, is in no way intended to defend the Libyan revolution.
Revolutionaries in Libya may think that this decision will help them, but they are mistaken. Naked economic and political calculations lay behind the imperialist powers' decision.
It is not a lifeline that could 'save' the revolution, in the real sense of the word, against Gaddafi. Major imperialist powers decided that they wanted now to exploit the revolution and try to replace Gaddafi with a more reliable regime.
However the Libyan foreign minster's announcement of an immediate ceasefire has complicated imperialism's position.
Faced with a rapid eastwards advance of Gaddafi's forces, many in eastern Libya seized hold of the idea of a no-fly-zone to help stem this tide, but this is not the way to defend and extend the revolution.
Unfortunately, the revolution's initial drive towards the west, where two-thirds of Libyans live, was not based on a movement, built upon popular, democratic committees that could offer a clear programme to win support from the masses and the rank and file soldiers, while waging a revolutionary war.
This gave Gaddafi an opportunity to regroup.
The growing support for a no-fly-zone was a reversal of the sentiment expressed in the English language posters put up in Benghazi, in February, declaring: "No To Foreign Intervention - Libyans Can Do It By Themselves".
This followed the wonderful examples of Tunisia and Egypt, where sustained mass action completely undermined totalitarian regimes. The Libyan masses were confident that their momentum would secure victory.
But Gaddafi was able to retain a grip in Tripoli. This, at least, relative stabilisation of the regime and its counter-offensive led to a change in attitude towards foreign intervention that allowed the largely pro-Western leadership of the rebel 'Interim Transitional National Council' to overcome youth opposition to asking the West for aid.
However, despite the Gaddafi regime's blood-curdling words, it is not at all certain that its relatively small forces could have launched an all-out assault on Benghazi, Libya's second largest city, with around a million living in its environs.
A mass defence of the city would have blunted the attack of Gaddafi's relatively small forces. Now, if the ceasefire holds and Gaddafi remains in power in Tripoli, a de-facto breakup of the country could occur, returning to something like the separate entities that existed before Italy first created Libya after 1912 and which Britain recreated in the late 1940s.
Whatever the immediate effect the 'no fly zone', any trust placed in either the UN or the imperialist powers threatens to undermine all the genuine hopes and aspirations of the revolution that began last month.
This is because the powers that have imposed threatened military action are no friends of the Libyan masses. Until recently, they were quite happy to deal with, and pander to, the murderous Gaddafi ruling clique, to maintain a 'partnership', especially concerning Libya's oil and gas industries.
Indeed, the day after the UN took its decision, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal lamented that "the close partnership between the Libyan leader Col.
"Muammar Gaddafi's intelligence service and the CIA has been severed" (18 March, 2011). The Journal reported "according to a senior US official" the previous 'partnership' was "especially productive".
Now, having lost former dictatorial allies Mubarak, in Egypt, and Ben Ali, in Tunisia, imperialism is trying to take advantage of the popular uprising in Libya to both refurbish its "democratic" image and to help install a more "reliable" regime, or at least a part of Libya.
As before, North Africa and the Middle East, with its oil and strategic location, are of tremendous importance to the imperialist powers.
This reveals the absolute hypocrisy of the main imperialist powers, which have shamelessly supported repressive dictatorial regimes throughout the Middle East for decades.
At the very same time that they were deciding the No Fly Zone, the same powers did absolutely nothing to prevent Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies' increasingly brutal suppression of the majority of the Bahraini population and their attempt to ferment sectarianism.
Within 12 hours of the UN decision, the armed forces another regional ally, Yemeni, ally shot dead at least 39 protesters in the capital city, Sanaa. The UN was only able to take its decision on Libya because the Arab League supported a no fly zone, but of course these mainly reactionary rulers say nothing about repression in Bahrain, Yemen or other Arab countries.
Cameron and Sarkozy's "concern" for Libya is at least partly motivated by domestic unpopularity and the hope that a foreign success will strengthen their standing.
Cameron clearly hopes for a boost similar to that which Thatcher enjoyed after her victory in the 1983 Falklands war. But Thatcher achieved a quick military victory - the no fly zone operation will not will produce a similar military win.
Sarkozy, after the disaster of his Tunisia policy that led to the resignation of the French Foreign Minister, needs a "success" to lift his low poll ratings as next year's Presidential election looms closer.
Gaddafi zig-zags
Despite the imperialist powers' recent rapprochement with Gaddafi, the tyrant always remained an unreliable ally. Throughout his nearly 42 years in power, Gaddafi zig-zagged in policy, sometimes violently.
In 1971, he helped the Sudanese dictator, Nimeiry, crush a left coup that took place in reaction to the earlier suppression of the left, including the banning of the one-million member Sudanese communist party.
Six years later, Gaddafi proclaimed a "people's revolution" and changed the country's official name from the Libyan Arab Republic to the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah.
Despite the name change and the formation of so-called "revolutionary committees", this was not genuine democratic socialism or a move towards it. The Libyan working people and youth were not running their country.
Gaddafi remained in control. This was underlined by the increasingly prominent role that many of his children played in the regime.
Nevertheless, since 1969, on the basis of a large oil income and a small population, there was a big improvement in most Libyans' lives, especially in education and health, which at least partly explains why Gaddafi still has some basis of support amongst the population.
Even while there is growing opposition to the Gaddafi clique, especially amongst Libya's overwhelmingly young and educated population, there is also fear about who might replace him and opposition to anything that smells of foreign rule.
The revolutionaries' widespread use of the old ruling monarchy's flag was bound to alienate those who do not want to return to the past and was used by Gaddafi to justify his rule.
Flying the old flag also risked alienating Libyans in the west of the country because the former king came from the east and had no historic roots in the area around Tripoli.
But these factors are not a complete explanation as to why Gaddafi was able, at least temporally, to stabilise his position. While there was a popular uprising in eastern Libya, Gaddafi was able to maintain his position in the west, where two-thirds of the population live, despite large protests in Tripoli and uprisings in Misrata, Zuwarah and a few other areas.
Role of the working class
Unlike in Egypt and Tunisia, the working class in Libya has not, so far, begun to play an independent role in the revolution. Furthermore, many workers in Libya are migrants who have fled the country in recent weeks.
The absence of a national focal point which, for example, the Tunisian UGTT trade union federation provided (despite its pro-Ben Ali national leadership), complicated the situation in Libya.
The huge revolutionary enthusiasm of the population has not, so far, been given an organised expression. The largely self-appointed 'National Council' that emerged in Benghazi is a combination of elements from the old regime and more pro-imperialist elements.
For example, the Council's foreign spokesman, Mahmoud Jibril, the former head of Gaddafi's National Economic Development Board, was described by the US Ambassador, in November 2009, as a "serious interlocutor who 'gets' the US perspective".
It is easy for Gaddafi to present these people as a threat to Libyan living standards and agents of foreign powers. At the same time, this propaganda will have only a limited effect, as population's living standards worsening and unemployment increased (standing at 10%) since from the end of the 1980s oil boom and the start of privatisation back in 2003.
Gaddafi's use of the threat of imperialist intervention did gather some support and if the country becomes divided may gain more. How long this can sustain Gaddafi is another question.
In addition to anti-imperialist rhetoric, Gaddafi made concessions to maintain support. Each family has been given the equivalent of $450.
Some public sector workers have been given 150% wage increases and taxes and customs duties on food have been abolished. But these steps do not answer the demands for freedom or end the growing frustration of Libya's youthful population, with an average age of 24, over the regime's corruption and suffocating grip.
Around the world, millions of people follow, and are inspired by, the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. These events inspired protests against the effects of the continuing capitalist crisis in many countries.
Some of those welcoming the revolutionary events in the region may support the UN's 'no fly zone' but socialists argue that it is primarily made in the interests of the imperialist powers - the same powers that no nothing substantially to restrain the repressive actions of Gulf states against mass protests in their countries.
But what then can be done internationally to genuinely help the Libyan revolution? First of all, trade unions should block the export of Libyan oil and gas.
Secondly, bank workers should organise the freezing of all the Gaddafi regime's financial assets.
The 'no fly zone' will not automatically lead to the overthrow of Gaddafi, in fact, like Saddam Hussein, the Libyan leader could entrench his position for a time in those parts of the country he controls.
As the experience of Egypt and Tunisia shows, the key to overthrow dictatorships is the movement of the working masses and youth.
A revolutionary programme
Thus the fate of the revolution will be decided inside Libya itself. Its victory requires a programme that can cut across tribal and regional divisions and unite the mass of the population against the Gaddafi clique and for a struggle for a better future.
A programme for the Libyan revolution that would genuinely benefit the mass of the population would be based on winning and defending real democratic rights; an end to corruption and privilege; the safeguarding and further development of the social gains made since the discovery of oil; opposition to any form of re-colonisation and for a democratically-controlled, publicly-owned, economic plan to use the country's resources for the future benefit of the mass of people.
The creation of an independent movement of Libyan workers, poor and youth that could implement such a real revolutionary transformation of the country, is the only way to thwart the imperialists' plans, end dictatorship and to transform the lives of the people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee for
If you enjoy articles like this and would like to learn more or join the socialist party please visit this link here :
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/main/join
The UN Security Council's majority decision to enact a militarily-imposed 'no-fly-zone' against Libya, while greeted with joy on the streets of Benghazi and Tobruk, is in no way intended to defend the Libyan revolution.
Revolutionaries in Libya may think that this decision will help them, but they are mistaken. Naked economic and political calculations lay behind the imperialist powers' decision.
It is not a lifeline that could 'save' the revolution, in the real sense of the word, against Gaddafi. Major imperialist powers decided that they wanted now to exploit the revolution and try to replace Gaddafi with a more reliable regime.
However the Libyan foreign minster's announcement of an immediate ceasefire has complicated imperialism's position.
Faced with a rapid eastwards advance of Gaddafi's forces, many in eastern Libya seized hold of the idea of a no-fly-zone to help stem this tide, but this is not the way to defend and extend the revolution.
Unfortunately, the revolution's initial drive towards the west, where two-thirds of Libyans live, was not based on a movement, built upon popular, democratic committees that could offer a clear programme to win support from the masses and the rank and file soldiers, while waging a revolutionary war.
This gave Gaddafi an opportunity to regroup.
The growing support for a no-fly-zone was a reversal of the sentiment expressed in the English language posters put up in Benghazi, in February, declaring: "No To Foreign Intervention - Libyans Can Do It By Themselves".
This followed the wonderful examples of Tunisia and Egypt, where sustained mass action completely undermined totalitarian regimes. The Libyan masses were confident that their momentum would secure victory.
But Gaddafi was able to retain a grip in Tripoli. This, at least, relative stabilisation of the regime and its counter-offensive led to a change in attitude towards foreign intervention that allowed the largely pro-Western leadership of the rebel 'Interim Transitional National Council' to overcome youth opposition to asking the West for aid.
However, despite the Gaddafi regime's blood-curdling words, it is not at all certain that its relatively small forces could have launched an all-out assault on Benghazi, Libya's second largest city, with around a million living in its environs.
A mass defence of the city would have blunted the attack of Gaddafi's relatively small forces. Now, if the ceasefire holds and Gaddafi remains in power in Tripoli, a de-facto breakup of the country could occur, returning to something like the separate entities that existed before Italy first created Libya after 1912 and which Britain recreated in the late 1940s.
Whatever the immediate effect the 'no fly zone', any trust placed in either the UN or the imperialist powers threatens to undermine all the genuine hopes and aspirations of the revolution that began last month.
This is because the powers that have imposed threatened military action are no friends of the Libyan masses. Until recently, they were quite happy to deal with, and pander to, the murderous Gaddafi ruling clique, to maintain a 'partnership', especially concerning Libya's oil and gas industries.
Indeed, the day after the UN took its decision, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal lamented that "the close partnership between the Libyan leader Col.
"Muammar Gaddafi's intelligence service and the CIA has been severed" (18 March, 2011). The Journal reported "according to a senior US official" the previous 'partnership' was "especially productive".
Now, having lost former dictatorial allies Mubarak, in Egypt, and Ben Ali, in Tunisia, imperialism is trying to take advantage of the popular uprising in Libya to both refurbish its "democratic" image and to help install a more "reliable" regime, or at least a part of Libya.
As before, North Africa and the Middle East, with its oil and strategic location, are of tremendous importance to the imperialist powers.
This reveals the absolute hypocrisy of the main imperialist powers, which have shamelessly supported repressive dictatorial regimes throughout the Middle East for decades.
At the very same time that they were deciding the No Fly Zone, the same powers did absolutely nothing to prevent Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies' increasingly brutal suppression of the majority of the Bahraini population and their attempt to ferment sectarianism.
Within 12 hours of the UN decision, the armed forces another regional ally, Yemeni, ally shot dead at least 39 protesters in the capital city, Sanaa. The UN was only able to take its decision on Libya because the Arab League supported a no fly zone, but of course these mainly reactionary rulers say nothing about repression in Bahrain, Yemen or other Arab countries.
Cameron and Sarkozy's "concern" for Libya is at least partly motivated by domestic unpopularity and the hope that a foreign success will strengthen their standing.
Cameron clearly hopes for a boost similar to that which Thatcher enjoyed after her victory in the 1983 Falklands war. But Thatcher achieved a quick military victory - the no fly zone operation will not will produce a similar military win.
Sarkozy, after the disaster of his Tunisia policy that led to the resignation of the French Foreign Minister, needs a "success" to lift his low poll ratings as next year's Presidential election looms closer.
Gaddafi zig-zags
Despite the imperialist powers' recent rapprochement with Gaddafi, the tyrant always remained an unreliable ally. Throughout his nearly 42 years in power, Gaddafi zig-zagged in policy, sometimes violently.
In 1971, he helped the Sudanese dictator, Nimeiry, crush a left coup that took place in reaction to the earlier suppression of the left, including the banning of the one-million member Sudanese communist party.
Six years later, Gaddafi proclaimed a "people's revolution" and changed the country's official name from the Libyan Arab Republic to the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah.
Despite the name change and the formation of so-called "revolutionary committees", this was not genuine democratic socialism or a move towards it. The Libyan working people and youth were not running their country.
Gaddafi remained in control. This was underlined by the increasingly prominent role that many of his children played in the regime.
Nevertheless, since 1969, on the basis of a large oil income and a small population, there was a big improvement in most Libyans' lives, especially in education and health, which at least partly explains why Gaddafi still has some basis of support amongst the population.
Even while there is growing opposition to the Gaddafi clique, especially amongst Libya's overwhelmingly young and educated population, there is also fear about who might replace him and opposition to anything that smells of foreign rule.
The revolutionaries' widespread use of the old ruling monarchy's flag was bound to alienate those who do not want to return to the past and was used by Gaddafi to justify his rule.
Flying the old flag also risked alienating Libyans in the west of the country because the former king came from the east and had no historic roots in the area around Tripoli.
But these factors are not a complete explanation as to why Gaddafi was able, at least temporally, to stabilise his position. While there was a popular uprising in eastern Libya, Gaddafi was able to maintain his position in the west, where two-thirds of the population live, despite large protests in Tripoli and uprisings in Misrata, Zuwarah and a few other areas.
Role of the working class
Unlike in Egypt and Tunisia, the working class in Libya has not, so far, begun to play an independent role in the revolution. Furthermore, many workers in Libya are migrants who have fled the country in recent weeks.
The absence of a national focal point which, for example, the Tunisian UGTT trade union federation provided (despite its pro-Ben Ali national leadership), complicated the situation in Libya.
The huge revolutionary enthusiasm of the population has not, so far, been given an organised expression. The largely self-appointed 'National Council' that emerged in Benghazi is a combination of elements from the old regime and more pro-imperialist elements.
For example, the Council's foreign spokesman, Mahmoud Jibril, the former head of Gaddafi's National Economic Development Board, was described by the US Ambassador, in November 2009, as a "serious interlocutor who 'gets' the US perspective".
It is easy for Gaddafi to present these people as a threat to Libyan living standards and agents of foreign powers. At the same time, this propaganda will have only a limited effect, as population's living standards worsening and unemployment increased (standing at 10%) since from the end of the 1980s oil boom and the start of privatisation back in 2003.
Gaddafi's use of the threat of imperialist intervention did gather some support and if the country becomes divided may gain more. How long this can sustain Gaddafi is another question.
In addition to anti-imperialist rhetoric, Gaddafi made concessions to maintain support. Each family has been given the equivalent of $450.
Some public sector workers have been given 150% wage increases and taxes and customs duties on food have been abolished. But these steps do not answer the demands for freedom or end the growing frustration of Libya's youthful population, with an average age of 24, over the regime's corruption and suffocating grip.
Around the world, millions of people follow, and are inspired by, the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. These events inspired protests against the effects of the continuing capitalist crisis in many countries.
Some of those welcoming the revolutionary events in the region may support the UN's 'no fly zone' but socialists argue that it is primarily made in the interests of the imperialist powers - the same powers that no nothing substantially to restrain the repressive actions of Gulf states against mass protests in their countries.
But what then can be done internationally to genuinely help the Libyan revolution? First of all, trade unions should block the export of Libyan oil and gas.
Secondly, bank workers should organise the freezing of all the Gaddafi regime's financial assets.
The 'no fly zone' will not automatically lead to the overthrow of Gaddafi, in fact, like Saddam Hussein, the Libyan leader could entrench his position for a time in those parts of the country he controls.
As the experience of Egypt and Tunisia shows, the key to overthrow dictatorships is the movement of the working masses and youth.
A revolutionary programme
Thus the fate of the revolution will be decided inside Libya itself. Its victory requires a programme that can cut across tribal and regional divisions and unite the mass of the population against the Gaddafi clique and for a struggle for a better future.
A programme for the Libyan revolution that would genuinely benefit the mass of the population would be based on winning and defending real democratic rights; an end to corruption and privilege; the safeguarding and further development of the social gains made since the discovery of oil; opposition to any form of re-colonisation and for a democratically-controlled, publicly-owned, economic plan to use the country's resources for the future benefit of the mass of people.
The creation of an independent movement of Libyan workers, poor and youth that could implement such a real revolutionary transformation of the country, is the only way to thwart the imperialists' plans, end dictatorship and to transform the lives of the people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee for
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Where is the western intervention heading ?
So last nightand today we have heard and seen reports of French and British military aircraft bombing Libyian targets that Gadaffi wilkl use to further opress his people. But what is really going on there and what is the west's real objective.
The most important thing to do in Britain now is to oppose the Western military intervention, and expose its real aims and its hypocrisy.
The West is intervening to strangle the Arab revolution, not to save it. This i feel is down to the west not wanting to have its base for major oil source tapped by the Chinese or Russians if they stay out and Gadaffi falls to the revolution they will not be situated to take advantage of the oil and any subsequent
new leader put in place in Libya.
But this seemingly paradoxical state of affairs should come as no surprise. On the contrary, when it comes to the issue of governance across the Arab and Muslim world, in the eyes of the West it isn’t important whether or not an Arab state is ruled by democracy or dictatorship. All that matters is whether or not it is ruled by the right kind of democracy or dictatorship. Democratically elected governments in places like Palestine, Iran and as is increasingly the case, Lebanon, are deemed pariahs, while dictatorships in places like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and up until very recently, Tunisia and Egypt, are allies and friends.
The problem for the West vis-à-vis Gaddafi isn’t a philosophical or moral one over the fact he happens to be a dictator – indeed, how could it be given the West’s eagerness to embrace his regime when he declared Libya open for business in 2004? – instead it is over the fact he’s proved an unreliable dictator. Like Saddam before him, another former ally and a dictator at one time willing to do business with the West, Gaddafi has proved prone to bouts of independent policy and, as recent events prove, brutality. This has rendered him unstable in the eyes of western political and business elites for whom stability across the Arab world is not just preferable but crucial to their interests, both strategic and economic.
What worries me the most is the whole hypocrisy of this whole invasion and war i guess you could now call it. THe fact that the west has backed Gadaffi for years and years while he has been their puppet in the area serving us with oil and playing ball we've been ok for him to stay put.
Latest news i'm hearing is that the Arab league made up of Arab countries who initially backed a colaition plan to go into Libya and enforce a "no fly zone" have now condemed the violence and have said the west appear to be going too fara nd way beyond what the no fly zone entailed for them.
I think opposition to our western intervention in Libya will continue to grow and grow.
Unlike either Ben Ali in Tunisia or Mubarak in Egypt, Gaddafi had been astute enough to dispense enough of Libya’s wealth to enough of his people to cement a social base of support for his regime. It has been this base of support which has enabled him to retain the loyalty of the bulk of his armed forces by which he was well on the way to crushing the revolt prior to the UN resolution authorising a no fly zone.
The question facing the West now, after Gaddafi announced a ceasefire almost immediately after the UN resolution was passed, is how to proceed without alienating further an Arab street which has awoken after decades of being politically infantilised? Moreover, the West’s ability to do so hinges on the extent to which the revolutionary wave which swept through the Arab world - one make no mistake which saw uprisings take place not only against autocracy and dictatorship but against the West’s stranglehold over the region – has deepened the consciousness of the millions involved.
Gaddafi may be many things but madman he is not. The fact he’s been able to rule Libya for over 40 years without any serious threat to his regime until now proves this is so. His continued survival may well depend on how effectively he takes the opportunity just handed him by the UN to parade his anti colonial and anti imperialist credentials not just in Libya but throughout both Africa and the Arab world. Further, the more successful he is in this regard the more the Libyan opposition will find itself tarnished and discredited by association. For in the last analysis, nothing positive can come of the West’s continued intervention in the region. The clutch of dictators who have and continue to scar the region’s social, political and economic landscape are a symptom of this intervention, regardless of whether it has come via the agency of soft or hard power, and it is a system of control that must be broken if the Arab world is to progress and develop. This is also why any military intervention must be opposed by progressive forces in the West itself.
Malcolm X put it simply when he said, “In order to understand what’s going on in Mississippi you have to understand what’s going on in the Congo.” To this can be added that in order to understand what’s going on in the Congo you have to understand what’s going on in Mississippi. In other words there is a circular relationship between social and economic injustice at home and a policy of imperialism and colonialism overseas.
For David Cameron, whose government is under increasing pressure over a domestic economic policy that amounts to a vast experiment in human despair, military intervention in Libya if successful could provide him with the kind of bounce in popularity which Thatcher enjoyed in the aftermath of the Falklands War. Failure on the other hand could see another Iraq unfold with similarly tragic consequences. In either scenario David Cameron gains or loses political credibility, while potentially tens of thousands of Libyans of every stripe, both pro and anti regime, will certainly lose their lives.
But such considerations have always been small beer when it comes to putting recalcitrant regimes in their rightful place. The old certainties whereby the West was able to prop up assorted dictatorships throughout the Arab world safe in the knowledge they would control their people while they set about the noble task of picking their collective pockets, were for an all too brief but historic period cast aside during the wave of Arab revolts just passed. Now, with both the West’s tacit approval of the repression taking place in Bahrain and Yemen, along with the prospect of military intervention in Libya, could it be that we are looking at those certainties being returned?
All in all i dont see this being a quick process and i do eventually see American and British troops being deployed to Libya as the attacks get stronger and stronger and Gadaffi's forces play hard to geta nd end up hiding in the towns and cities in amoungst innocent civilians using them as human shields . I am really hoping this doesnt turn into a mass blood bath but sadly i cant see it going any other way. As they say it is easy to start a war but a lot harder to finnish one as we've seen in Iraq and Afganistan .
The most important thing to do in Britain now is to oppose the Western military intervention, and expose its real aims and its hypocrisy.
The West is intervening to strangle the Arab revolution, not to save it. This i feel is down to the west not wanting to have its base for major oil source tapped by the Chinese or Russians if they stay out and Gadaffi falls to the revolution they will not be situated to take advantage of the oil and any subsequent
new leader put in place in Libya.
But this seemingly paradoxical state of affairs should come as no surprise. On the contrary, when it comes to the issue of governance across the Arab and Muslim world, in the eyes of the West it isn’t important whether or not an Arab state is ruled by democracy or dictatorship. All that matters is whether or not it is ruled by the right kind of democracy or dictatorship. Democratically elected governments in places like Palestine, Iran and as is increasingly the case, Lebanon, are deemed pariahs, while dictatorships in places like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and up until very recently, Tunisia and Egypt, are allies and friends.
The problem for the West vis-à-vis Gaddafi isn’t a philosophical or moral one over the fact he happens to be a dictator – indeed, how could it be given the West’s eagerness to embrace his regime when he declared Libya open for business in 2004? – instead it is over the fact he’s proved an unreliable dictator. Like Saddam before him, another former ally and a dictator at one time willing to do business with the West, Gaddafi has proved prone to bouts of independent policy and, as recent events prove, brutality. This has rendered him unstable in the eyes of western political and business elites for whom stability across the Arab world is not just preferable but crucial to their interests, both strategic and economic.
What worries me the most is the whole hypocrisy of this whole invasion and war i guess you could now call it. THe fact that the west has backed Gadaffi for years and years while he has been their puppet in the area serving us with oil and playing ball we've been ok for him to stay put.
Latest news i'm hearing is that the Arab league made up of Arab countries who initially backed a colaition plan to go into Libya and enforce a "no fly zone" have now condemed the violence and have said the west appear to be going too fara nd way beyond what the no fly zone entailed for them.
I think opposition to our western intervention in Libya will continue to grow and grow.
Unlike either Ben Ali in Tunisia or Mubarak in Egypt, Gaddafi had been astute enough to dispense enough of Libya’s wealth to enough of his people to cement a social base of support for his regime. It has been this base of support which has enabled him to retain the loyalty of the bulk of his armed forces by which he was well on the way to crushing the revolt prior to the UN resolution authorising a no fly zone.
The question facing the West now, after Gaddafi announced a ceasefire almost immediately after the UN resolution was passed, is how to proceed without alienating further an Arab street which has awoken after decades of being politically infantilised? Moreover, the West’s ability to do so hinges on the extent to which the revolutionary wave which swept through the Arab world - one make no mistake which saw uprisings take place not only against autocracy and dictatorship but against the West’s stranglehold over the region – has deepened the consciousness of the millions involved.
Gaddafi may be many things but madman he is not. The fact he’s been able to rule Libya for over 40 years without any serious threat to his regime until now proves this is so. His continued survival may well depend on how effectively he takes the opportunity just handed him by the UN to parade his anti colonial and anti imperialist credentials not just in Libya but throughout both Africa and the Arab world. Further, the more successful he is in this regard the more the Libyan opposition will find itself tarnished and discredited by association. For in the last analysis, nothing positive can come of the West’s continued intervention in the region. The clutch of dictators who have and continue to scar the region’s social, political and economic landscape are a symptom of this intervention, regardless of whether it has come via the agency of soft or hard power, and it is a system of control that must be broken if the Arab world is to progress and develop. This is also why any military intervention must be opposed by progressive forces in the West itself.
Malcolm X put it simply when he said, “In order to understand what’s going on in Mississippi you have to understand what’s going on in the Congo.” To this can be added that in order to understand what’s going on in the Congo you have to understand what’s going on in Mississippi. In other words there is a circular relationship between social and economic injustice at home and a policy of imperialism and colonialism overseas.
For David Cameron, whose government is under increasing pressure over a domestic economic policy that amounts to a vast experiment in human despair, military intervention in Libya if successful could provide him with the kind of bounce in popularity which Thatcher enjoyed in the aftermath of the Falklands War. Failure on the other hand could see another Iraq unfold with similarly tragic consequences. In either scenario David Cameron gains or loses political credibility, while potentially tens of thousands of Libyans of every stripe, both pro and anti regime, will certainly lose their lives.
But such considerations have always been small beer when it comes to putting recalcitrant regimes in their rightful place. The old certainties whereby the West was able to prop up assorted dictatorships throughout the Arab world safe in the knowledge they would control their people while they set about the noble task of picking their collective pockets, were for an all too brief but historic period cast aside during the wave of Arab revolts just passed. Now, with both the West’s tacit approval of the repression taking place in Bahrain and Yemen, along with the prospect of military intervention in Libya, could it be that we are looking at those certainties being returned?
All in all i dont see this being a quick process and i do eventually see American and British troops being deployed to Libya as the attacks get stronger and stronger and Gadaffi's forces play hard to geta nd end up hiding in the towns and cities in amoungst innocent civilians using them as human shields . I am really hoping this doesnt turn into a mass blood bath but sadly i cant see it going any other way. As they say it is easy to start a war but a lot harder to finnish one as we've seen in Iraq and Afganistan .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)