posted 3 Aug 2011 02:09 by Ian Aylett
[
updated 3 Aug 2011 06:26 by Ian Aylett
]
By Jon Snow Channel 4 TV 3rd August Not many outside Israel noticed – but it started on the Tel-Aviv
cycle way on July 14th and has only got bigger ever since. The 150,000
strong protest movement that crescendoed last week across every main
town and City in Israel has become a major issue for official disquiet. -
Anyone I spoke to on the ground during the Arab Spring argued
that it would be the Arabs in the Israel/Palestine nexus who would
seize the time – changing for ever the peace dynamic. No one said ‘I
say, look out for Israel’s squeezed middle – I warn you, they’ll be on the streets’. But they are, and so far they look like staying there.
The sense I have always got when visiting Israel is that many have
felt the country cannot afford domestic protest, the ‘threat’ from
beyond is too great. Strangely, what for some has been an economic boom
time in Israel, has persuaded many that enough is enough. The disparity
between rich and poor as in so many raw capitalist economies (our own
included) has grown ever wider, ever deeper. But few can boast what
Reuters have reported of Israel – that a mere sixteen families control some 50% of the economy.
The issues of wider discontent are the same that you find in many
parts of Western Europe and America. Shortages of affordable housing;
rising long term unemployment; and government often out of touch with
the basic aspirations of the people.
So far the ‘Israeli Summer’, is
relatively leaderless. But dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Netanyahu
and many other mainstream politicians is rising. He has just come up
with an ‘affordable housing’ programme. The protesters dismiss it as too
little too late.
The Arab Spring has so far frightened China; stoked rebellion in Malawi; and generated unprecedented domestic protest in Israel.
How many of the world’s political leaders sleep easy in their beds
these days, one wonders. This thing, this web/street based informal,
un-forecastable ‘thing’ is on the move. Where next?
Follow Jon on Twitter: @JonSnowC4 - http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/arab-lessons-israeli-protests/15950
More than 100,000 people took to the streets
Saturday to protest the spiraling costs of living in Israel. Marches and
rallies took place in eleven cities across the country, with the
largest ones taking place in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Be'er Sheva and Haifa.
The protesters chanted "the people demand social justice" and "we want
justice, not charity."
The biggest protest was in Tel Aviv, where tens of thousands march
from HaBima Square to the Tel Aviv Museum. "We are very happy to see the
Israeli people go out into the streets," said Yonatan Levy, one of the
organizers. "We were amazed to see throughout the day that the issues
that were raised on the different stages and tent cities are not so
removed from each other after all."
In Haifa, 8,000 people marched through the city. In Jerusalem, 10,000
protesters marched from Horse Park to the house of Prime Minister,
Benjamin Netanyahu. In Be'er Sheva, 3,000 protesters marched carrying
banners saying "Be'er Sheva is shouting times seven." (Sheva is the
Hebrew word for the number seven)
In Ashdod, protesters marched from City Park. Around 150 people
gathered at Ashdod's tent city on their way to the march. Students from
Beit Barl marched from the tent city at Kfar Sava to central Ra'anana
junction.
For the first time since the beginning of the protests 16 days ago, a
protest involving both Jews and Arabs took place in central Nazareth.
In Kiryat Shmona 1,000 protesters marched in the city's main road,
towards the southern exit of the city.
Many prominent Israeli musicians performed at the rallies, including
Hemi Rodner, Dan Toren, Yehuda Poliker, Barry Sakharov Yishai Levi, Aviv
Geffen, and others. |
posted 28 Jun 2011 01:44 by Ian Aylett
[
updated 28 Jun 2011 01:51
]
By Martin Hart-Landsberg 12 June 2011 Over 3000 participants from 183 countries are attending a two week UN sponsored climate gathering in Bonn, Germany. The talks are supposed
to help prepare the agenda for COP 17, or as it is more formally known,
the 17th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (defenders of the environment have renamed
the meeting the Conference of Polluters) which will take place November 28 to December 9, 2011 in Durban, South Africa.
The cost of climate inaction grows worse. As the Earth Island Journal reports:
Last week, the International Energy Agency announced that
emissions continue to increase unabated. Emissions released in 2010
were the highest in history, despite the economic recession. The report
stated that the “prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature
to 2 degrees Celsius is getting bleaker.”
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced
that the level of CO2 emissions released in May 2010 set another record
high.
The COP meetings have three main goals, all of which remain far from satisfied:
• set emission reductions for developed and developing nations
• secure funding and technology to help developing nations adapt to climate change
• determine how to measure, report and verify emission reductions
The Kyoto Protocol
is the only international treaty that has binding targets for reducing
emissions. It was adopted on December 11, 1997 and entered into force
on February 16, 2005. The implementation rules were adopted at COP 7,
which was held in Marrakesh in 2001. The Protocol targets
are only binding on developed countries (Annex I countries); there are
no binding targets for developing countries. The Annex I countries
agreed to reduce their collective production of greenhouse gas emissions
by 5.2% relative to the 1990 level over the period 2008 to 2012; their
commitments are listed in the Protocol’s Annex B.
Unfortunately, the Protocol does not include any mechanism for
enforcing national action, which is one reason that overall emissions
continue to grow. Another reason is that some important polluters, like
the United States, never signed the Kyoto treaty.
If no action is taken at COP 17, the Kyoto Protocol will expire.
Most developed countries appear content to let this happen. At COP 15,
held in Copenhagen, the United States led the charge for replacing the
Protocol with a less binding agreement, one that included no specific
emission reduction targets. No progress was made at COP 16, which was
held last year in Cancun.
Most third world countries–including the G77, Alliance of Small
Islands States (AOSIS), the Least Developed Countries, the Africa Group,
and ALBA–support a second renewal period as a step toward a
strengthened treaty, one with enforceable national targets and a
commitment by developed countries to pay climate reparations to those
third world countries suffering the consequences of climate change.
One argument made by the United States and other developed countries
against a renewal of Kyoto is that the Protocol does not including
binding targets on the third world, and third world countries like China
and India are themselves now major producers of greenhouse gasses.
A new study, one that acknowledges
the importance of globalization, offers an important perspective on
this developed country claim. In brief, the study seeks to distinguish
between emissions generated by production in a given territory and
emissions generated in a given territory as a result of both production
and consumption. This is an important distinction because developed
country transnational corporations have off-shored manufacturing
activity to the third world. This development has promoted a
significant rise in third world emissions. However, since an ever
growing share of third world manufacturing production is exported to
developed countries, the calculation of territorial based emissions
overstates third world country responsibility and understates developed
country responsibility.
As Glen P. Peters, Jan C. Minx, Christopher L. Weber, and Ottmar Edenhofer, the authors of the study, explain:
Despite the emergence of regional climate policies,
growth in global CO2 emissions has remained strong. From 1990 to 2008
CO2 emissions in developed countries (defined as countries with
emission- reduction commitments in the Kyoto Protocol, Annex B) have
stabilized, but emissions in developing countries (non-Annex B) have
doubled. Some studies suggest that the stabilization of emissions in
developed countries was partially because of growing imports from
developing countries. To quantify the growth in emission transfers via
international trade, we developed a trade-linked global database for CO2
emissions covering 113 countries and 57 economic sectors from 1990 to
2008.
We find that the emissions from the production of traded goods and
services have increased from 4.3 gigatonnes [Gt] CO2 in 1990 (20% of
global emissions) to 7.8 Gt CO2 in 2008 (26%). Most developed countries
have increased their consumption-based emissions faster than their
territorial emissions, and non-energy-intensive manufacturing had a key
role in the emission transfers. The net emission transfers via
international trade from developing to developed countries increased
from 0.4 Gt CO2 in 1990 to 1.6 Gt CO2 in 2008, which exceeds the Kyoto
Protocol emission reductions.
Our results indicate that international trade is a significant factor
in explaining the change in emissions in many countries, from both a
production and consumption perspective. We suggest that countries
monitor emission transfers via international trade, in addition to
territorial emissions, to ensure progress toward stabilization of global
greenhouse gas emissions.
The figure below, which comes from their study, compares the rate of
growth in a number of variables. It shows that “emissions embodied in
trade,” which are emissions generated by the production of exports, has
grown faster than population, GDP, and global CO2 emissions. It also
shows that the growth in “net emission transfers Annex B to non-Annex
B,” which are emissions contained in exports produced in developing
countries but consumed by or used in developed countries, has
outstripped all the variables, even the growth in international trade.
Their study also included the following figure which shows the net
change in territorial emissions over the period 1990 to 2008 along with
the change in the net emission transfer between each country and
developing countries. The small orange star represents pledged
emission reduction commitments.
If we consider only territorial emissions, Europe actually came close
to meeting its target reductions. However, if we take into account the
net emission transfers that come from consuming exports produced in the
third world, Europe actually increased its emissions. U.S. emissions
grew territorially and again because of net emission transfers. Looking
at Annex B countries as a whole, we can see the important role that
China plays as a producer and exporter of manufactured goods to the
developed world.
The authors of the study conclude by noting that their work shows
that “a significant and growing share of global emissions are from the
production of internationally traded goods and services.” This means
that emission reduction cannot fairly or productively be approached
solely through the use of territorial mandates. We need to recognize
that progress in achieving environmentally sustainable economic relations will require national changes that also confront and transform contemporary capitalist globalization dynamics. http://media.lclark.edu/content/hart-landsberg/ |
posted 8 Jun 2011 15:08 by Ian Aylett
The economic
powerhouse of the 20th century emerged stronger from the Depression. But
faced with cultural decay, structural weaknesses and reliance on
finance, can the US do it again?
Larry Elliott, Economics editor The Guardian,
Monday 6 June 2011
Dust-bowl refugees walk towards Los
Angeles during the Great Depression. House prices have now fallen
further than in the 1930s. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis
America clocked up a record last week. The latest drop in house prices meant that the cost of real estate has fallen by 33% since the peak – even bigger than the 31% slide seen when John Steinbeck was writing The Grapes of Wrath. Unemployment
has not returned to Great Depression levels but at 9.1% of the
workforce it is still at levels that will have nerves jangling in the
White House. The last president to be re-elected with unemployment above
7.2% was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The US is a country with
serious problems. Getting on for one in six depend on government food
stamps to ensure they have enough to eat. The budget, which was in
surplus little more than a decade ago, now has a deficit of Greek-style
proportions. There is policy paralysis in Washington. The
assumption is that the problems can be easily solved because the US is
the biggest economy on the planet, the only country with global military
reach, the lucky possessor of the world's reserve currency, and a
nation with a proud record of re-inventing itself once in every
generation or so. All this is true and more. US universities are
superb, attracting the best brains from around the world. It is a
country that pushes the frontiers of technology. So, it may be that the
US is about to emerge stronger than ever from the long nightmare of the
sub-prime mortgage crisis. The strong financial position of American
companies could unleash a wave of new investment over the next couple of
years. Let me put an alternative hypothesis. America in 2011 is Rome in 200AD or Britain on the eve of the first world war: an empire at the zenith of its power but with cracks beginning to show. The
experience of both Rome and Britain suggests that it is hard to stop
the rot once it has set in, so here are the a few of the warning signs
of trouble ahead: military overstretch, a widening gulf between rich and
poor, a hollowed-out economy, citizens using debt to live beyond their
means, and once-effective policies no longer working. The high levels of
violent crime, epidemic of obesity, addiction to pornography and
excessive use of energy may be telling us something: the US is in an
advanced state of cultural decadence. Empires decline for many
different reasons but certain factors recur. There is an initial
reluctance to admit that there is much to fret about, and there is the
arrival of a challenger (or several challengers) to the settled
international order. In Spain's case, the rival was Britain. In
Britain's case, it was America. In America's case, the threat comes from
China. Britain's decline was extremely rapid after 1914. By 1945,
the UK was a bit player in the bipolar world dominated by the US and
the Soviet Union, and sterling – the heart of the 19th-century gold
standard – was rapidly losing its lustre as a reserve currency. There
had been concerns, voiced as far back as the 1851 Great Exhibition, that
the hungrier, more efficient producers in Germany and the US threatened
Britain's industrial hegemony. But no serious policy action was taken.
In the second half of the 19th century there was a subtle shift in the
economy, from the north of England to the south, from manufacturing to
finance, from making things to living off investment income. By 1914,
the writing was on the wall. In two important respects, the US
today differs from Britain a century ago. It is much bigger, which means
that it benefits from continent-wide economies of scale, and it has a
presence in the industries that will be strategically important in the
first half of the 21st century. Britain in 1914 was over-reliant on coal
and shipbuilding, industries that struggled between the world wars, and
had failed to grasp early enough the importance of emerging new
technologies. Even so, there are parallels. There has been a long-term shift of emphasis in the US economy away from manufacturing and towards finance. There is a growing challenge from producers in other parts of the world. FrenzyNow
consider the stark contrast between this economic recovery and the
pattern of previous cycles. Traditionally, a US economic recovery sees
unemployment coming down smartly as lower interest rates encourage
consumers to spend and the construction industry to build more homes.
This time, it has been different. There was a building frenzy during the
bubble years, which left an overhang of supply even before plunging
prices and rising unemployment led to a blitz of foreclosures. America has more homes than it knows what to do with, and that state of affairs is not going to change for years. Over
the past couple of months, there has been a steady drip-feed of poor
economic news that has dented hopes of a sustained recovery. Optimism
has now been replaced by concern that the United States could be heading for the dreaded double-dip recession. In the real estate
market, which is the symptom of America's deep-seated economic malaise,
the double dip has already arrived. Tax breaks to homeowners provided
only a temporary respite for a falling market and millions of Americans
are living in homes worth less than they paid for them. The latest
figures show that more than 28% of homes with a mortgage are in negative
equity. Unsurprisingly, that has made Americans far more cautious about
spending money. Rising commodity prices exacerbate the problem, since
they push up inflation and reduce the spending power of wages and
salaries. Macro-economic policy has proved less effective than
normal. That's not for want of trying, though. The US has had zero
short-term interest rates for well over two years. It has had two big
doses of quantitative easing, the second of which is now ending. Its
budget deficit is so big it has led to warnings from the credit-rating
agencies, in spite of the dollar's reserve currency status. And
Washington has adopted a policy of benign neglect towards the currency,
despite the strong-dollar rhetoric, in the hope that cheaper exports
will make up for the squeeze on consumer spending. Policy, as
ever, is geared towards growth because the great existential fear of the
Fed, the Treasury and whoever occupies the White House is a return to
the 1930s. Back then, the economic malaise could be largely attributed
to deflationary economic policies that deepened the recession caused by
the popping of the 1920s stock market bubble. The feeble response to
today's growth medicine suggests that the US is structurally far weaker
than it was in the 1930s. Tackling these weaknesses will require
breaking finance's stranglehold over the economy and measures to boost
ordinary families' spending power and so cut their reliance on debt. It
will require an amnesty for the housing market. Above all, America must
rediscover the qualities that originally made it great. That will not be
easy. http://www.guardian.co.uk
|
posted 3 May 2011 09:59 by Ian Aylett
[
updated 5 May 2011 09:13
]
After the Victory
By Heiko Khoo
The arrogant fashion in which questions
about details of the killing of Osama bin Laden are being swept aside by
the U.S. Government and many journalists is disturbing. Assertion
replaces evidence, no material is presented to back up the assertion,
and if you still ask questions, you are a labelled a conspiracy
theorist.
Actually it is true that there is no
need for the U.S to release video or photographic evidence, recover the
body, or prove they killed bin Laden. All the evidence is still in-situ
at the scene of the assassination. The compound is covered in the blood
and brains of bin Laden, and his fingerprints must be all over the
building. Therefore any team of forensic scientists could gather the
evidence and use it to make detailed tests on DNA and fingerprints. This
would leave no room for doubt. It is quite astounding that conducting
such a simple investigation, at the scene of the compound in Abbottabad,
has apparently not crossed the mind of anyone in the White House. For a
nation suckled on forensic crime shows this is an astounding oversight!
Perhaps there is a pattern to the
concealment of facts and interests that is so ingrained in the behaviour
of U.S. leaders that they are captives of their own arrogance?
A correspondence of interests between
Washington and Islamic terrorism blossomed in the 1980s when the war
against the Afghan communists saw Osama bin Laden hailed as a "freedom
fighter". A brutal and bloody trail of such unsavoury friendships and
alliances is presently unravelling all over North Africa and the Middle
East.
The characteristic behaviour of the
United States can be assessed by its actions on the ground in many
locations. A cursory examination of a few examples should suffice to
illustrate patterns evident over recent decades; the war on Afghanistan,
on Iraq, on Libya, the bombings of Sudan and Yugoslavia, the
occupations of Haiti, Panama and Grenada. Each separate event was
explained plausibly, requiring no serious justification to the U.S.
public beyond the assertion of "national interests" and the defence of
"human rights". But in the affected countries many saw
these actions as akin to the behaviour of a Mafia boss; others saw it as
the pursuit of global geo-strategic hegemony. The great democracies
were able to isolate the voices of their internal opponents and win the
silent acquiescence of the majority by invoking material well-being. "We
live OK don't we?" This was the standard retort to any questioning of
the barbarity inflicted on the world by western military and economic
dominance.
While a few hundred billionaires came to
own more wealth than half of the world's population and corrupt rulers
backed by the West plundered the wretched of the earth, the powerful
impact of rising living standards silenced the dissent of the majority.
In the context of dictatorial plunder of
the Middle East and North Africa by pro-U.S. rulers, Osama bin Laden
provided a moral compass and heroic model for the Al-Qaeda network of
terrorists. The movement was given a powerful boost by U.S. intervention
in Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq in 2003.
But the decisive blow that undermined
Al-Qaeda was delivered not by U.S. armies of occupation, but by the Arab
youth and the urban poor in their revolts across the region since last
December. These revolts did what Al-Qaeda was incapable of doing,
raising the non-religious flag of revolutionary political and social
change.
The killing of Osama bin Laden is a
symbolic act that stimulates noisy, triumphant cheers, but
simultaneously drowns out a rational assessment of the failure of the
Afghan and Iraq wars and wider U.S. policy throughout the region. The
continuing weakness of international capitalism means the moods of
cheering crowds are not supplemented by the feel-good factor that
silenced dissent in the past.
In this context, small chinks in the armour of the most powerful
imperialist nation in history can acquire an explosive character. Over
the next years, disillusioned and impoverished returning soldiers will
be a significant factor shaping consciousness in the "Land of the Free".
A volatile discontent with the falling living standards of the working
class in the USA was revealed in recent mass protests in Wisconsin. The
evidence of how U.S soldiers and workers are treated compared with the
protection of bankers and corporate swindlers will lead to a profound
shift in consciousness. There will be a realisation that the rulers of
the United States are no more concerned about the rights of the majority
inside their own country than for the rights of the poor in foreign
lands.
The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:
http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/node_7084903.htm
Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn Robert Fisk: Was he betrayed? Of course. Pakistan knew Bin Laden's hiding place all along
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
A middle-aged nonentity, a political failure
outstripped by history – by the millions of Arabs demanding freedom and
democracy in the Middle East – died in Pakistan yesterday. And then the
world went mad.
Fresh from providing us with a copy of his birth certificate, the American
President turned up in the middle of the night to provide us with a
live-time death certificate for Osama bin Laden, killed in a town named
after a major in the army of the old British Empire. A single shot to the
head, we were told. But the body's secret flight to Afghanistan, an equally
secret burial at sea? The weird and creepy disposal of the body – no
shrines, please – was almost as creepy as the man and his vicious
organisation.
The Americans were drunk with joy. David Cameron thought it "a massive
step forward". India described it as a "victorious milestone".
"A resounding triumph," Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu boasted.
But after 3,000 American dead on 9/11, countless more in the Middle East, up
to half a million Muslims dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and 10 years trying
to find Bin Laden, pray let us have no more "resounding triumphs".
Revenge attacks? Perhaps they will come, by the little groupuscules in the
West, who have no direct contact with al-Qa'ida. Be sure, someone is already
dreaming up a "Brigade of the Martyr Osama bin Laden". Maybe in
Afghanistan, among the Taliban.
But the mass revolutions in the Arab world over the past four months mean that
al-Qa'ida was already politically dead. Bin Laden told the world – indeed,
he told me personally – that he wanted to destroy the pro-Western regimes in
the Arab world, the dictatorships of the Mubaraks and the Ben Alis. He
wanted to create a new Islamic Caliphate. But these past few months,
millions of Arab Muslims rose up and were prepared for their own martyrdom –
not for Islam but for freedom and liberty and democracy. Bin Laden didn't
get rid of the tyrants. The people did. And they didn't want a caliph.
I met the man three times and have only one question left unasked: what did he
think as he watched those revolutions unfold this year – under the flags of
nations rather than Islam, Christians and Muslims together, the kind of
people his own al-Qa'ida men were happy to butcher?
In his own eyes, his achievement was the creation of al-Qa'ida, the
institution which had no card-carrying membership. You just woke up in the
morning, wanted to be in al-Qa'ida – and you were. He was the founder. But
he was never a hands-on warrior. There was no computer in his cave, no phone
calls to set bombs off. While the Arab dictators ruled uncontested with our
support, they largely avoided condemning American policy; only Bin Laden
said these things. Arabs never wanted to fly planes into tall buildings, but
they did admire a man who said what they wanted to say. But now,
increasingly, they can say these things. They don't need Bin Laden. He had
become a nonentity.
But talking of caves, Bin Laden's demise does bring Pakistan into grim focus.
For months, President Ali Zardari has been telling us that Bin Laden was
living in a cave in Afghanistan. Now it turns out he was living in a mansion
in Pakistan. Betrayed? Of course he was. By the Pakistan military or the
Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence? Quite possibly both. Pakistan knew
where he was.
Not only was Abbottabad the home of the country's military college – the town
was founded by Major James Abbott of the British Army in 1853 – but it is
headquarters of Pakistan's Northern Army Corps' 2nd Division. Scarcely a
year ago, I sought an interview with another "most wanted man" –
the leader of the group believed responsible for the Mumbai massacres. I
found him in the Pakistani city of Lahore – guarded by uniformed Pakistani
policemen holding machine guns.
Of course, there is one more obvious question unanswered: couldn't they have
captured Bin Laden? Didn't the CIA or the Navy Seals or the US Special
Forces or whatever American outfit killed him have the means to throw a net
over the tiger? "Justice," Barack Obama called his death. In the
old days, of course, "justice" meant due process, a court, a
hearing, a defence, a trial. Like the sons of Saddam, Bin Laden was gunned
down. Sure, he never wanted to be taken alive – and there were buckets of
blood in the room in which he died.
But a court would have worried more people than Bin Laden. After all, he might
have talked about his contacts with the CIA during the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan, or about his cosy meetings in Islamabad with Prince Turki,
Saudi Arabia's head of intelligence. Just as Saddam – who was tried for the
murder of a mere 153 people rather than thousands of gassed Kurds – was
hanged before he had the chance to tell us about the gas components that
came from America, his friendship with Donald Rumsfeld, the US military
assistance he received when he invaded Iran in 1980.
Oddly, he was not the "most wanted man" for the international crimes
against humanity of 11 September 2001. He gained his Wild West status by
al-Qa'ida's earlier attacks on the US embassies in Africa and the attack on
the US barracks in Dhahran. He was always waiting for Cruise missiles – so
was I when I met him. He had waited for death before, in the caves of Tora
Bora in 2001 when his bodyguards refused to let him stand and fight and
forced him to walk over the mountains to Pakistan. Some of his time he would
spend in Karachi – he was obsessed with Karachi; he even, weirdly, gave me
photographs of pro-Bin Laden graffiti on the walls of the former Pakistani
capital and praised the city's imams.
His relations with other Muslims were mysterious; when I met him in
Afghanistan, he initially feared the Taliban, refusing to let me travel to
Jalalabad at night from his training camp – he handed me over to his
al-Qa'ida lieutenants to protect me on the journey next day. His followers
hated all Shia Muslims as heretics and all dictators as infidels – though he
was prepared to cooperate with Iraq's ex-Baathists against the country's
American occupiers, and said so in an audiotape which the CIA typically
ignored. He never praised Hamas and was scarcely worthy of their "holy
warrior" definition yesterday which played – as usual – straight into
Israel's hands.
In the years after 2001, I maintained a faint indirect communication with Bin
Laden, once meeting one of his trusted al-Qa'ida associates at a secret
location in Pakistan. I wrote out a list of 12 questions, the first of which
was obvious: what kind of victory could he claim when his actions resulted
in the US occupation of two Muslim countries? There was no reply for weeks.
Then one weekend, waiting to give a lecture in Saint Louis in the US, I was
told that Al Jazeera had produced a new audiotape from Bin Laden. And one by
one – without mentioning me – he answered my 12 questions. And yes, he
wanted the Americans to come to the Muslim world – so he could destroy them.
When Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl was kidnapped, I wrote a long article
in The Independent, pleading with Bin Laden to try to save his life. Pearl
and his wife had looked after me when I was beaten on the Afghan border in
2001; he even gave me the contents of his contacts book. Much later, I was
told that Bin Laden had read my report with sadness. But Pearl had already
been murdered. Or so he said.
Yet Bin Laden's own obsessions blighted even his family. One wife left him,
two more appeared to have been killed in Sunday's American attack. I met one
of his sons, Omar, in Afghanistan with his father in 1994. He was a handsome
little boy and I asked him if he was happy. He said "yes" in
English. But last year, he published a book called Living Bin Laden and –
recalling how his father killed his beloved dogs in a chemical warfare
experiment – described him as an "evil man". In his book, he too
remembered our meeting; and concluded that he should have told me that no,
he was not a happy child.
By midday yesterday, I had three phone calls from Arabs, all certain that it
was Bin Laden's double who was killed by the Americans – just as I know many
Iraqis who still believe that Saddam's sons were not killed in 2003, nor
Saddam really hanged. In due course, al-Qa'ida will tell us. Of course, if
we are all wrong and it was a double, we're going to be treated to yet
another videotape from the real Bin Laden – and President Barack Obama will
lose the next election.
http:www.independent.co.uk
|
posted 26 Apr 2011 11:26 by Ian Aylett
by Nadim Mahjoub In both Tunisia and Egypt the potential of a revolutionary change was
palpable on 14 January and 25 February respectively, those days saw two
Arab dictators give up power under the pressure of a mass movement,
which rapidly took the regimes in the two countries by surprise. This
refuted the propaganda of the Islamist threat that the Arab regimes, as
well as the Western counterparts, have used to protect and further their
"national" and strategic interests. It is not a
coincidence that cumulative factors, internally and internationally,
have led to the most profound social explosions the Arab world has never
seen. The global ‘great recession’ served to deepen the conflicts
between classes and unleashed new revolutionary layers, the youth, the
unemployed and the marginalised, to demand change. What was needed was a
spark and it came from the town of Sidi Bouzid in Tunisia. On the 17
December 2010 a street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, who was harassed and
humiliated by the police and a municipality employee, got his wares
confiscated on the claims he did not have a vendor's permit,
self-immolated himself in front of the local government building. Bouazizi
died in the beginning of January, but his act was a catalyst for an
uprising and a beginning of a revolutionary movement that engulfed not
only Tunisia but other Arab countries too. Other men and women emulated
Bouazizi's act. Three months on after a mass movement was able to force
the regimes in Tunisia and Egypt to sacrifice Ben Ali and Mubabrak, the
situation in both country is still fluid, both regimes have been
weakened and the masses after achieving some gains are filled with mixed
emotions; of hope and uncertainty; of determination and doubt; of
cynicism and good will. Politically speaking, and without
falling into a single tailor-made definition of revolution, history has
provided us with at least three types of bottom-up regime change: the
reformist change, the insurrectional change and the 'regime implosion'. The
reformist change happens when an opposition movement exerts pressure on
the existing power to carry out reforms (of laws and institutions)
within the framework of the existing system; the political elite and the
ruling class is compelled to make concessions, though the change in
general may turn out to be superficial or even gradually be taken back.
Such a change was the one that Mexico (1910-1929) and Brazil (1964-1985)
, for example, witnessed when they got rid of dictatorship. One might
argue that the "Green Movement" in Iran is attempting to achieve such a
change. A second type of change takes an insurrectional
character. Over a relative long period a revolutionary movement throws
up a leadership and organisation with a project aimed at overthrowing
the existing order, proposing a new social and political structure.
During the revolutionary process the pressure from below causes cracks
to open up in the regime, splits occur in the state apparatus, some
sections of the regime defect to the side of the revolutionary movement,
alternative organs of power emerge leading to a state of ‘dual power’. A
violent battle between two opposite forces ends with the take over of
the state by the revolutionary forces. The Russian, the Chinese and the
Cuban revolutions are examples of this type of change. A
third type of revolutionary change happens when a regime implodes under
the pressure of a mass movement that strangles the regime through
strikes and civil disobedience until the regime collapses. The
Ceausescu's regime in Romania, for example, collapsed amid chaos and
violence. The Libya could have experienced the same process had the
movement succeeded in toppling the regime in Tripoli before any foreign
intervention took place. In the case of Romania in 1989 the brutal
Stalinist regime was replaced by a very different political and economic
system: a capitalist one. In Tunisia and Egypt powerful
uprisings were linked to previous unrest that developed over several
years into the revolutionary movement of 2010-11, but without a
revolutionary organisation in the classical sense and form. After
compelling the ruling elites and imperialism to remove the authoritarian
rulers in both countries, the most advanced layers of the movement now
call for an overthrow of the entire regime in both countries. Under this
pressure a process of "dismantling" of some institutions has begun.
However, the method and the actual process of this 'dismantling' has
been marred by manoeuvres and manipulation from the old order seeking to
hold power, and thus success so far has been limited. In
Tunisia and Egypt the movement has been peaceful and civil, violence
came from the regimes and its counter-revolutionary forces. The movement
put constant increasing pressure on the state apparatuses through its
marches, sit-ins, rallies, strikes and finally a general strike, until
Ben Ali had to be flown outside the country, and Mubarak resigned. However,
the opposition in both countries has not achieved in creating a state
of ‘dual-power’ where revolutionary organs on a national level threaten
to take over state power. What we see is an interim government in
Tunisia which calls for a constituent assembly, a major demand of the
opposition. In Egypt, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF),
‘has taken up’ the task to carry out reforms. In both countries these
reforms consist mainly of the freedom to form political parties, a
rewriting the constitution, the organisation of free elections, etc in
order to establish democratic governments. There is a
parallel with 1989 in that we are witnessing revolutionary mass
movements that encompass several countries simultaneously. These
protests are fighting against dictatorships and for democratic rights.
They are inspired by each other, they feed off each other’s successes,
and they adopt slogans from each other. In this sense the revolutions
emulate 1989. But one also might draw parallels with the 1848
revolutions in Europe, where the working class began to emerge as a
major political force in revolutions that demanded democratic rights,
constituent assemblies, and end to autocracy. However, no
analogy is sufficient to explain an event. What has been achieved in
Tunisia and Egypt amounts to a huge triumph. In future it will be a
reference point for social transformations of world historic importance.
The social layers that participated in the revolutionary movement, the
youth, the unemployed, the workers, the students and sections of the
middle class, have demonstrated the power of the downtrodden. Above all
this brought to the surface the revolutionary character of the
overwhelming majority of the youth who represent the largest age group
in the Arab world. Political parties and independent
organisations have mushroomed (more than 50 in Tunisia and the number is
growing), people have removed a number of officials or rejected newly
appointed ones in local areas, a trade union federation has been
established in Egypt, a union for the unemployed graduates have been
created in Tunisia, the State Security apparatus has been officially
"dissolved" (in Egypt the secret police HQ was stormed by protesters),
the Chamber of Deputies in Tunisia and People's Assembly and Shura
Council in Egypt have been dissolved, public spaces have become arenas
for political discussions and workshops, embryonic neighbourhood
committees which emerged in the first few weeks still exist in Tunisia.
In the slums of Cairo the first organisation of the residents has been
formed, the workers are involved in daily struggles, organising sit-ins
and strikes, demanding wage increases and better conditions (a strike by
the street cleaners went on for 3 weeks in Tunis and other towns until
the workers won part of their demands), demand for an elected editorial
board of the Tunisian National TV has been raised… All these processes
reveal that society is experiencing profound revolutionary
transformation. Because the revolution has not adequately
challenged state institutions, the regimes continue to stand. Even
though they are weak, they utilise their ability to manoeuvre,
manipulate, and entangle and thus entice and compel the opposition to
work within the existing institutions. In Tunisia, it is the interim
government (a one that was not born from within the revolutionary
movement) has called for a constituent assembly and initiated a
committee of parties and individuals called the High Committee For the Realisation of the Revolutions' Objectives, the Democratic Transition and Political Reform.
Although Ben Ali's party the RCD, was officially dissolved, it has now
been resurrected into a handful of separate political parties. The new
arrangements make the Islamist Alnahda and the RCDist parties,
the most well-organised and funded parties. These are the parties most
likely to benefit in any future elections. There are unconfirmed reports
of a possible alliance between these two poles. In Egypt a
referendum to modify the constitution has been organised. The Muslim
Brotherhood and the National Democratic Party (Mubarak's party)
remnants, who are in favour of the constitutional amendments, have been
the best organised forces and are likely to emerge as the main
beneficiaries. However, only a minority of the eligible voters voted in
favour for the proposed constitutional amendments (41.2 % turn out and
22.73 % voted No). Those who oppose the amendments want a completely new
constitution. In Tunisia it is a wing of the bourgeoisie headed by the
PM Essebssi that advocates a ‘liberal’ economy and political freedoms
and works work alongside the “technocrats” and the old officials behind
the scenes to make sure that things do not go beyond reform. In Egypt it
is the army that is holding power and claiming to carry out reform ‘on
behalf of’ the revolutionary masses. As in any profound
revolutionary movement is difficult to read and predict the future of
the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia. In both countries the army played a
decisive role in preserving the old order against the revolutionary
momentum of mass unrest. Thus while the presidents fell, the state
regime did not follow the fate of the ruling clique. The outcome has
been an unstable equilibrium: the revolution is holding neither power
nor determining the decision-making process, simultaneously, the army is
not controlling power, as it wishes. The army in Tunisia played the
role of a balancing force appearing to stand between the classes, but in
reality it contributed to the preservation of the regime. In Egypt the
army is at the head of the counter-revolution, but claims neutrality. It
is an inseparable wing of the dominant class in Egypt and it controls
up to 45 % of the Egyptian economy. Thus we have a
transitional situation with two main forces pulling towards two
different directions: the counter-revolutionary forces have been
weakened, but are still nested in the army. This institution retains its
anchor and support in the market and in wider society. These forces
want to prevent any fundamental change from occurring as a consequence
of the revolutionary movement, and wish to do everything possible to
sustain and reproduce the same fundamental socio-economic order, but one
with minor changes. They seek to balance the interests of the ruling
class that they represent, and the interests of imperialism (including
the Israeli state) to which it is inextricably linked whilst holding the
masses in check with democratic and constitutional manoeuvres. On
the opposite side, there are the masses that have begun a revolutionary
process and want a real change of the regime. These masses have proved
that life is richer than theoretical frames. They have achieved these
changes without a leadership in the classical revolutionary sense. These
are the masses who organise themselves on a daily basis to gain spaces
and rights making many mini-revolutions in the process. They are
establishing their own independent organs and trying to push reform
forward by exerting pressure both outside and inside existing
institutions. For that reason, it would be accurate to describe what is
happening now in Tunisia and Egypt as a revolution that seeks to reform
the existing order. 22 April 2011 |
posted 11 Apr 2011 04:40 by Ian Aylett
[
updated 11 Apr 2011 04:42
]
Sunday 10 April 2011
Hundreds of protesters remained in Tahrir Square in Cairo today despite
warnings by the military on Saturday night that "the square will be
emptied of protesters with firmness and force to ensure life goes back
to normal."
Thousands of demonstrators had barricaded themselves in the square and
demanded the removal of the military council after soldiers stormed
their protest camp in the early hours of Saturday morning, killing at
least one person and injuring 71 others.
Hundreds of soldiers had swarmed into the square, firing in the air,
beating protesters with clubs and shocking others with electrical
batons.
Troops dragged away some people while others staggered away bleeding from beatings and gunshot wounds.
Soldiers had detained 42 youth protesters, said human rights lawyer
Mohammed al-Ansari, and they now face military tribunals for violating a
ban on gatherings.
The sharp military response appeared to have been triggered by the
presence at Friday's rally of around 25 army officers, despite a ban on
military personnel participating.
Mr Ansari said that eight of the dissenting army officers had been arrested.
Witnesses said that the remainder had escaped disguised in civilian clothes and protected by the protesters.
The protest movement appeared deeply divided over how to react.
Some demanded confrontation with the military, while others warned a
conflict with the army would be disastrous for the movement, saying some
form of coexistence must be found.
Mohammed El Baradei said that "dialogue is the only alternative."
He said "confidence between the people and army" must be preserved "for the sake of the nation."
Egypt's largest Islamic group, the Muslim Brotherhood, also warned
against any attempt to cause divisions between the people and the army.
But Khaled Abdel-Hamid, a member of the coalition of youth activists
that organised the anti-Mubarak campaign, denounced a series of
incidents where excessive force had been used by the military against
protesters.
"Now there is blood between the people and the armed forces. Why are
they not prosecuting those responsible for it," he asked, sparking
shouting matches among some defending the military and others demanding
the killers be put on trial.
Meanwhile, military council member General Adel Amara claimed protesters
had been carrying Molotov cocktails and automatic weapons and had
attacked army vehicles.
editor@peoples-press.com
|
posted 20 Mar 2011 10:23 by Ian Aylett
[
updated 20 Mar 2011 10:27
]
by Nadim Mahjoub
Are the Islamists “ready for their close-up”? In an article
published on Al-Jazeera.net (10.3.11) the writer D. Parvaz, extensively
quoting observers on Islamism and the Arab world like Ed Hussain, Tareq
Ramadan, George Joffe, and Amina Elbendary, poses this question and
points to the misrepresentation of the Islamists by the West. A West, he
says, that tends to “put all the people in the same box.”
He distinguishes Al-Nahda in Tunisia and
the Muslim Bortherhood (MB) in Egypt among the Islamist movements to
assert that they played no role in the revolutions in both countries.
And also to paint the features which reflect that they are moderate
organisations. He concludes that even if these two countries end up with
Islamist governments, it would not be “a catastrophe” as people do not
want a religious-based system.
However, in this long article, we cannot
find one word or hint as to the economic programme of the Islamists.
Indeed the analysis does not mention whether the “moderate Islamists”
have an economic programme and solutions to socio-economic issues which
have been the root of the revolutions.
Are the “moderate Islamists” moderate in
their economic alternative, too? Do they have different economic
policies from the ones the Iranian regime has pursued, for example? More
importantly, there is no background behind the reasons why the
Islamists are “moderate.” Have they been always “moderate”?
Today the Islamists have not been in the
forefront of the revolutionary movement that is sweeping the Arab world.
The field has been taken by the youth, the women and the labour
movement. This has obliged the Islamists to change and try to adapt to
the new situation, but at the same time they do not wish the movement to
become too radical. Their project is to ameliorate the situation within
the confinement of a liberal capitalist environment, but with some care
for the poor and the unemployed, etc.
From the Government Square in Tunis to
Tahrir Square in Cairo, the economic issues have been sidelined in most
recent analyses. The focus has been on political issues whereas the workers themselves have been fighting for better wages, independent unions, etc. Surely the economic aspects are fundamental?
In the Tunisian revolt in December 2010
in Sidi Bouzid economic and social slogans prevailed. In the case of
Egypt, the roots of the Revolution are socio-economic and are in many
ways a continuation of 2005 middle class Kifaya Movement and
2006-2008 strike waves by workers. It was during this that the April 6
Youth Movement emerged, so named, because the mostly educated young
activists initiated a general strike in support of the textile workers
on 6 April 2008.
It is also not correct to consider Ben
Ali and Mubarak as secular leaders, as D. Parvaz does. Both of them used
religion and religious institutions for their own interests; they both repackaged the language of religion to marginalise the Islamists. Mubarak went further when he opened the TV stations for Islamic preachers as well as using the morality police against “offenders
of the moral codes, the homosexuals for example, as well as against the
trash-recycling pig farmers, single women, Shia' and Christians.” Ben Ali, on the other hand, was even given the tile of “the protector of the motherland and religion” (Ha'mi Alhima' wa Eddeen).
Some analysts describe Rachid Al-Gahnnoushi, the leader of the Tunisia Al-Nahda
Movement, as “a progressive.” Al-Ghannoushi claims to defend democracy
and he is for a democratic constitution and his model is the Justice and
Development Party (AKP) in Turkey. He believes that “The successful AKP experience has influenced Islamists everywhere.”
The AKP advocates and defends the liberal free market economy,
maintains close relationships with the Zionist state of Israel, and
Turkey is still a member of NATO despite an apparent weakening of the
army. So much for “a progressive” defending “a progressive” ruling
party! The rise of the AKP was fuelled by the emergence of a
conservative middle class that undermined military rule, and it remains
an integral part of the Turkish bourgeoisie.
Turkey still refuses to remove repressive
labour laws that limit workers’ rights; nearly 20 per cent of the
population of Turkey lives below the poverty line. According to a 2009
report by the Turkish Statistical Institute approximately 15 million
people (out of a population of about 88 million) are struggling to
obtain the basic necessities of life, 6 per cent of children between the
age of 6 and 17 are working an average of 51 hours a week! The majority
of Turkey's wealth is in the private sector.
Since his return to Tunisia,
Al-Ghannoushi has barely addressed the economic alternative for Tunisia.
In an interview with “International Movement for a Just World”
(www.just-international.org) he stated: “In the economic sphere Islam is
closer to the left-wing outlook, without violating the right to private
property. The Scandinavian socio-economic model is closest to the
Islamic vision.”
The “left-wing outlook” Al-Ghannouchi
refers to is the Social Democratic project, but this Social Democratic
Welfare State project is in crisis throughout Europe. It is questionable
how much of the social-democratic welfare model will remain in Western
Europe in 5 years time. There have been general strikes to protect the
rights of the majority in Greece, Portugal, France, and Spain. There is a
general malaise across Europe. Is this really a model North Africa can
create or should aspire to?
Europe faces massive privatisation,
attacks on the welfare system, involvement in wars abroad and
anti-immigration policies at home. If it happens that the average
Scandinavian countries is slightly better off than the average German
for example, it does not mean such a model can be emulated in North
Africa. In fact even in the case of Sweden, one third of the national
wealth is owned by one family.
If this is the private property that Al-Nahda's leader
is defending then his economic project is constrained within the
framework of the existing division of wealth and power. A system
established under the dictatorship of crony capitalism serving a tiny
minority. What Al-Ghannoushi advocates is class collaboration, a
collaboration that unites “the nation”, “rich and poor.”
Such unity is the unity of an aspirant
democratic bourgeoisie eager to cuddle up and unite with the bourgeoisie
of the dictatorship. Under these plans those who robbed and plundered
the people for generations will have their ill-gotten gains cleaned by
“the democratic process” and this in the name of peace and unity!
Nothing better expresses the willingness to collaborate with the
bourgeoisie than what Al-Ghannoushi said after he was amnestied in 1987:
“I have trust in Allah and in Ben Ali.” Later, Al-Nahda, an nearly all
the political parties signed "The National Pact" with Ben Ali's regime
In an event organised by the School of
Oriental and African Studies (04 February 2011), Mohamed Ali from the
Islam Channel replying to a question on development and employment said:
“the question is not about creating employment, but about creating
wealth.” Ali did not elaborate on this and such a statement is unclear.
However, if he means that creating wealth precedes employment or that
priority should be given to wealth, then this is a reversal of
fundamental facts and reflects a whole outlook on
economic laws. In fact, wealth is created by human hands and brains.
Providing useful employment creates wealth, not the other way around,
the wealthy only invest to make profits from the sweat and toil of the
poor.
The Trabelsi family had the wealth but did not create employment for the unemployed. The banks and capitalists in the West sit on the money instead of investing it in employment
until they find a profitable means of exploiting the people.
Simultaneously, the world has an ever rising number of US Dollar
Billionaires; the interests of their economic empires tend to dominate
politics. This is true even in well-established West European
democracies, as the sinister and clown-like antics of Silvio Berlusconi
in Italy reveal.
In the 1950s to 1980s the Muslim
Brotherhood represented disenchanted elements of the national
bourgeoisie. In fact one can argue that these people are tainted with
Mubarak's “pluralism.” The “new-old” guard of the Brotherhood have
participated and benefited from the recent “economic boom.” These
leaders now own cell-phone companies and real estate developments, for
example, and have joined the upper-middle class.
Politically, the MB has suffered internal
divisions, and this is one of the reasons that they tail-ended the
revolutionary movement. In Tunisia, Abd Al-Fattah Morou, a leading and
historical figure in Al-Nahda Movement has been expelled from the Movement and he is in the process of forming what he calls “an Islamist centre party.”
With its core drawn from worse-off middle
class layers, the Islamist movement succeeded in mobilising significant
numbers of a discontented population using the language of religion,
cultural purity and identity, as a substitute for politics. The failure
of the modernisation project in the 1960s and 1970s bred and mobilized
'middle class over-achievers' who were marginalised economically,
politically and culturally. The failure of the left and the nationalist
project, and the support of imperialism for the Islamist movement, saw
the latter filling the vacuum.
When Anouar Assadat took over after the
death of Nasser in 1970, he helped to prop the MB up in order to use
them to counter the left Nasserists and the radicals. They were
completely drawn into the “Opening” , the economic policy of
privatisation pursued by Assadat. As a result the MB saw an increase in
the influence of men who belong to “the new bourgeoisie.” At the same
time these men condemned and attacked corruption by expressing piety,
which effectively found ground among the petit bourgeoisie, the MB’s
main base.
Essam El-Errian, a member of the guidance
council of the MB, expressed the Brotherhood’s demands in a statement
published by the New York Times (09 February 2011), “In more than
eight decades of activism, the MB has consistently promoted an agenda
of gradual reform... We have repeatedly tried to engage with the
political system, yet these efforts have been largely rejected based on
the assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood is a banned organization...”.
Clearly, the MB does not challenge the whole regime in Egypt, it merely
wants recognition and believes in reform.
In fact, the MB demonstrated that it was
ready to accept Mubarak's regime if the latter met people's demands;
they wanted the regime to stay but without Mubarak: “The Mubarak regime
has yet to show serious commitment to meeting these demands or to moving
toward substantive, guaranteed change,” pledged El-Errian.
Like their brothers in Tunisia the MB
leadership believes in class collaboration. On 17 March Aljazeera.net
reported that the MB, with a certain number of political parties, has
agreed on an initiative: “For Egypt.” The initiative's mission is to
push for constitutional amendments and to draft an electoral programme
for the coming parliamentary elections. MB leader, Mohamed Badie, said
that the initiative comes as a conclusion of the revolution. Let's
remember that before 25th January the MB refused to take part in the
revolutionary movement that had already gathered pace without the
Brothers.
In fact, the initiative aims at limiting
the revolution to a set of reforms. For instance, what the MB and the
other parties, including a nationalist leftist party (Hizb Attajamou),
which are part of the initiative have agreed upon is: an investigation
of the plunder carried out by the regime, restructuring the budget, less
taxation on the small investors, implementing the court's decision in
relation to the minimum wage and the writing off of the farmers' debts
towards the Agricultural Bank. The initiative also calls for the
creation of a fund to support the martys' families and an independent
institution of Al-Zakaat (a fund to help the poor).
Two days before this initiative, Issam
Sharef, the Egyptian Prime Minister, asserted that his country would
continue to follow the free market economy, but making sure that social
justice be achieved. Now, if for decades the most developed economies on
earth have not achieved social justice by implementing free market,
i.e. capitalist, economic policies, one would only hope for Moses' stick
to create social justice in a poor country like Egypt.
Politically, the Supreme Military Council
(SMC) in Egypt have decided to push forward for a coalition of parties
against the secular groups that led the revolution. Quoted by the Financial Times,
Hossam Tammam, an analyst who specialises in Islamist groups, said:
“There are signs the military may have decided to bet on the Brotherhood
as the biggest organised force on the street. The others [small parties
and secular groups] may be seen by the army as representing an unwanted
and radical transition to democracy.” (FT, 17.3. 2011)
Contrary to the bourgeois and reformist
parties and groups, the “unwanted and radical transition to democracy”
for the secular-led revolutionary movement means real freedom and
genuine democracy: freedom from poverty, jobs, decent healthcare and
education and direct democratic participation of the people in decisions
that affect their lives. The revolutionary movement raised the slogan
“the people want to overthrow the regime.” By that they meant the regime
of oppression and injustice, which means the overthrow of the regime's
constitution and its laws, its political apparatus and its repressive
machines.
The SMC plan is a move to abort the
revolutionary process for the benefit of the Brotherhood and the
remnants of Mubarak's National Democratic Party (NDP)! The MB is in fact
taking part in the military-bourgeois and imperialist plan of “orderly
transition of power.” The result of which will be a new parliament
dominated by conservative forces though the MB had already declared it
was not going to field a candidate in the presidential elections.
Like the High Council for the achievement
of the Goals of the Revolution in Tunisia which consists of many forces
and people that did not take part in the revolution, it is merely
another attempt to hijack the people's revolution, the “For Egypt”
initiative will represent the Egyptian bourgeoisie but with the
inclusion of some figures from the youth movement and the “left”, to
stop the wheel of radicalisation that is still rolling in forms of
strikes and formation of workers committees and independent
representation, etc.
The regime in Egypt, like others in the
region, has allowed Islamic NGO's and charities to help out the poor.
The aim has been to contain social explosion and delay or minimise class
conflicts. It is worth noting that after Ben Ali's flight,
representatives from Al-Nahda held talks with the Interim
government at least twice, as did the Muslim Brotherhood even before
Mubarak stepped down. Thus the Muslim Brotherhood, along with its
participation in Parliament as independent candidates, has been giving a hand to the regime to preserve the status quo rather than overthrowing it along with its oppressive system. This is why they were left behind when revolution called.
The Arab revolution began with
socio-economic demands and against social injustice and dictatorship,
but after the toppling of Ben Ali and Mubarak, the dictatorial
institutions of the state have been trying to resist the pressure of the
revolutionary people through manoeuvring and cunning. Now the process
has been confined to the political arena. The workers and the youth are
still trying to keep the process on.
However, the dangers are now bigger than
before as reformism is gaining pace. Without extending the struggle to a
combination of a socio-economic as well as political revolution,
people's hopes and aspirations will be dashed. Trade unionists, social
and political activists from North Africa should assist this process by
making direct links with their fellow workers in Europe to exchange
information and ideas about their rights and their common struggles.
18 March 2011
Constitutional changes to boost Brotherhood By Heba Saleh in Cairo Financial Times Published: March 17 2011 17:40 | Last updated: March 17 2011 17:40 The
Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian opposition group long repressed by the
ousted regime of Hosni Mubarak, looks poised to emerge as the main
beneficiary of new political arrangements to be put in place by Egypt’s
transitional military authorities. As Egyptians prepare to vote on
Saturday in a referendum on changes to the constitution that will shape
their country’s political future, sharp divisions have emerged between
the Brotherhood and the youth-led secular groups that launched the
popular revolution that toppled Mr Mubarak. The
Islamists, who joined the uprising but kept a low profile, are now seen
by other political groups to be rushing ahead to take advantage of the
space opened up by the demise of the old regime. Some analysts
and political activists said the Supreme Military Council, which is
ruling the country during a short transition, may have decided that an
alliance of conservative forces presents a better option for the future
than that offered by the young secular groups. “There are signs
the military may have decided to bet on the Brotherhood as the biggest
organised force on the street,” said Hossam Tammam, an analyst who
specialises in Islamist groups. “The others [small parties and
secular groups] may be seen by the army as representing an unwanted and
radical transition to democracy.” Shadi al-Ghazali Harb, a member
of the coalition of youth groups that led the protests, said he had
“strong suspicions” that such a mindset might exist. The Islamists
and remnants of Mr Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic party look set
to dominate the next parliament. The military council, which plans to
hold elections in September, has resisted calls from young activists and
other political groups for a new constitution and a longer transition
before the poll, leaving the NDP and the Brotherhood the only forces
sufficiently organised to compete. Ignoring the objections of
their partners in the revolt, the Brotherhood is pressing for a Yes vote
in the referendum and for quick elections. Signs on some streets and
advertisements in the press by Islamists have declared that it is a
“religious duty to vote yes” to the constitutional amendments, although
the Brotherhood has distanced itself from calls based on religion. “For
the first time there is an army that wants to leave power, should we
ask it to stay longer?” asked Essam el-Erian, a senior Brotherhood
official. “Those calling for a postponement are afraid to face the
people. The youths who carried out the revolution are more powerful than
political parties. They have already been working on the street and they should get ready for elections.” The
Brotherhood has also announced that it would not field a presidential
candidate or target more than 30 to 40 per cent of the seats in the next
parliament. The group has floated a proposal for a joint candidate list with other opposition groups in the parliamentary election. “They
have asked for 40 per cent of the list and they have been warning us
that they could either take their seats from us, or from the NDP,” said
Abdul Rahman Samir, another of the young activists. The
Brotherhood is the only political group to have been represented on the
panel of legal experts handpicked by the military that drafted the
constitutional changes. A range of opposition and legal experts
has criticised those amendments as an attempt to “patch up” Mr Mubarak’s
constitution in ways that could threaten democracy and lead to a
botched transition. “There has to be a completely new
constitution,” Mr Harb said. “We need a constituent assembly to draft a
new constitution and we need a longer transition with parliamentary
elections after a year.” The proposed changes meet some
long-standing demands of the opposition such as limiting presidential
terms to four years renewable only once (Mr Mubarak ruled for 30 years)
and lifting restrictions that in effect barred independent presidential
candidates. But a new article requires parliament to elect a committee of 100 members to draft a new constitution. It means, critics say, that forging Egypt’s political system will be in the hands of the Brotherhood and the NDP. Tahani
el-Gebali, a senior judge in the constitutional court, described the
article as “catastrophic” and said it threatened the “revolution and the
future of Egyptians”. |
posted 27 Feb 2011 15:29 by Ian Aylett
[
updated 24 Mar 2011 04:27
]
British parliament debates Libya: 2% of MPs against, but majority of UK public opposes military action
22nd March 2011
The
House of Commons last night (Mon 21 Mar) voted to support the military
action in Libya by 559 to 15 votes - meaning only 2% of MPs voted
against. In contrast two polls - one for the London Metro and the other for ITV News show a majority of the UK public against military action.
The 15 MPs who voted against are: Graham Allen (Lab), John Baron
(Con), Ronnie Campbell (Lab), Katy Clark (Lab), Jeremy Corbyn (Lab),
Mark Durkan (SDLP), Barry Gardiner (Lab), Roger Godsiff (Lab), Caroline
Lucas (Green), John McDonnell (Lab), Yasmin Qureshi (Lab), Linda
Riordan (Lab), Margaret Ritchie (SDLP), Dennis Skinner (Lab), Mike Wood
(Lab)
Labour MPs Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell both spoke in the debate:
Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend will be aware
that, although what he is saying is of great importance, there are also
lessons to be learned. Does he not think that it is time for a
wholesale review of our policy of military co-operation and arms sales
in the case of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, and of what is happening in
Yemen and further afield in the Congo, the Ivory Coast and other
places? At what point is he prepared to say that we should be involved
or not involved, and at what point is he prepared to say that we will
seriously scale down our arms export industry, which actually leads to
much of the oppression in the first place?
Edward Miliband: Let me deal with those two very
serious points. On the first point about arms exports, we have rightly
said that there should be a comprehensive review of the implementation
and nature of our policy on arms sales. When we see what has happened
in parts of north Africa, we are worried about the use of British arms
for internal repression.
[...]
Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the debate today. It is
important that Parliament plays a key role in deciding whether this
country is involved in wars. I endorse the points that my hon. Friend
the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made in an intervention
about war-making powers. The House has a right to ask the Government
many questions about the enterprise on which we are embarked and where
it will lead. We should not be fooled by newspapers telling us, in a
gung-ho and frankly offensive way in the case of The Sun and the News
of the World, that the public are behind this. I am far from convinced
of that. The public are concerned about public expenditure and the
money that has been spent on the armed forces for the enterprise, and
they are very worried about where it leads because they have been
through the miserable experience of Iraq and they also have deep
concerns about Afghanistan. It is therefore appropriate in today’s
debate to have a serious discussion about where the action will lead.
An opinion poll in Metro this morning-I do not know how scientific
that is-suggested that 58% of those questioned were against British
involvement in Libya. Although I do not know how accurate that is, many
people are very worried about the action. We must ask questions about
the troops that we have committed through the Air Force. How long will
they be there? What command structure are they currently under? That is
far from clear. Several air forces are involved, and it is not clear
who is co-ordinating them, who is in charge or who decides what targets
to bomb at what stage. That is enormously worrying.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)
asked several questions about cluster bombs and depleted uranium.
Cluster bombs are illegal. Children are still dying in Iraq and
Afghanistan because of the use of cluster bombs in the past. Depleted
uranium was used in the Gulf war in 1991 and that has led to a high
level of cancers in southern Iraq. I hope that no other forces are
using depleted uranium weapons because of the long-term effects.
What is the mission all about? Only three weeks ago, we were
training Libyan forces and selling arms to Libya. British companies
were happily trading with Libya and British universities were happily
accepting vast sums of money from Libya until a few weeks ago. It is an
awfully short time in our relations with Libya in which to go from hero
to zero. The rest of the world may be concerned about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) intervened on
the Prime Minister to ask about the end game. One hopes that there will
be an urgent ceasefire and some kind of political settlement in Libya,
and that Libya’s independence as a state will be preserved. However,
there is another scenario: a client state in the east around Benghazi;
and a pariah state in the west around Tripoli, led by Gaddafi, and a
source of constant conflict, disturbance and danger in the region. That
is eminently possible, with oil companies trying to get their hands on
the huge resources that are there.
Graham Allen (Lab): Is my hon. Friend as concerned
as I am about the composition of what is currently called “the rebel
force”, which is a catch-all for anti-Gaddafi forces? Many of us could
support that as a concept, but is my hon. Friend a little worried that
we could end up with something even worse than the current regime?
Libya is not a repressed democracy. We have not spent the past 30 years
building up a democratic base there. It will not be Nick and Dave who
take over, but unknown people. We are not sure about the end game and
we should be careful what we wish for.
Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a valuable
point. I do not know the politics, aims, ambitions or anything else of
the people in Benghazi any more than I suspect he does. We should be
cautious about going to war on behalf of a group of people whom we do
not know or understand and of whose aims we are not aware. Many were
Ministers in the Gaddafi Government, again, only three weeks ago. It is
a very short time.
There is a danger that we do nothing about Bahrain because of close
economic and military involvement, despite the US fifth fleet being
there. There is a danger that we say nothing about Saudi Arabia because
of the vast arms market there. The former Prime Minister, Tony Blair,
felt that Saudi Arabia was so important that he stopped the Serious
Fraud Office investigation into the al-Yamamah arms contract. In Yemen
and Oman, people are dying. They thirst for exactly the same thing. I
was at a conference this morning of Bahraini opposition groups who made
strong points. They said that they were not campaigning about human
rights in Bahrain yesterday, but last year, the year before, the year
before that and so on. Indeed, I first met Bahraini opposition groups
who were concerned about the overwhelming power of the king in 1986 at
a UN human rights conference in Copenhagen.
Angus MacNeil (SNP): Does the hon. Gentleman believe that action in Libya now helps the case for action in the countries that he mentioned later?
Jeremy Corbyn: I do not believe that it does
because the economic interests in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain far outweigh
any humanitarian concerns. I simply do not believe that it will happen.
However, we must use the opportunity to reassess our foreign policy,
our arms sales policy and the way in which we get into bed with
dictator after dictator around the world. We should also think for a
moment about the message that goes out on the streets throughout north
Africa and the middle east.
When Israeli planes bombed Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in
2008-09, I did not hear any calls for a no-fly zone over Gaza. F-16
jets pounded Palestinians, killing 1,500 civilians. We have to
understand the bitterness of that period and the experience of the
Palestinian people because many Palestinian diaspora, living out their
lives in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt-all over the
region-want the right to return home. They see the double standards of
the west: interested in supporting Israel at the expense of the
Palestinian people; currently intervening in Libya but doing nothing to
support the Palestinian people.
We are in an interesting period in history. There was an Arab
revolution in the 1950s, supporting the principle of pan-Arab unity.
Nasser was one of its leading figures. That degenerated into a series
of fairly corrupt dictatorships that still run the Arab League. None
feels very secure when they attend Arab League meetings. Indeed, they
go home as quickly as possible afterwards, lest there be a coup.
We are seeing a popular revolution for accountable government, peace
and democracy on the streets throughout the region. We have been on the
wrong side in selling arms and supporting dictators. We have not
thought through the implications of what we are doing now in Libya. I
suspect that we might end up in a Libyan civil war for a long time and
that this is not the only occasion on which we will debate the subject
in the House. This is the easy bit; the hard part is yet to come.
[...]
John McDonnell: I found it touching that the hon.
Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) and others expressed trepidation
about entering a debate when we are sending troops into battle. I have
been in the House for 14 years now, and I have done that on four
occasions. I can tell them that it gets no easier. The more I have
experience of conflicts and the more I understand the human suffering
involved, the more I am committed to peace and conflict resolution, and
the more I oppose such military interventions.
There comes a time in all such conflicts when the collateral
damage-a disgraceful term-is reported to us, and evidence comes to
light of families and children who get killed and maimed as a result of
being in the wrong place at the wrong time. When coffins draped in the
Union flag come back, all hon. Members will ask, “Did we do enough to
avoid the conflict? Did we do enough to ensure peace?” That is why my
hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I tabled
an amendment today. I appreciate that it was not selected for debate,
Mr Deputy Speaker, but because it has been referred to, I should like
to do so as well.
The amendment sought to demonstrate that we are using every means
possible-straining every sinew-to gain peace, and not, as the Prime
Minister set out, just doing that before the conflict. Often, the most
successful peace talks are those that take place when military action
has already been undertaken.
Mike Gapes (Lab): My hon. Friend says that we
should do everything we can to avoid conflict, but the conflict has
already happened. The people of Benghazi are under attack, and the
people of Tripoli are suffering from the Gaddafi regime’s repression.
In that sense, standing out of the conflict is also taking a position.
John McDonnell: I am saying that we should secure
peace now that the conflict has started. I oppose Britain’s involvement
in the middle east because we have a century and a half of
involvement-in pursuit of the region’s mineral wealth-that is steeped
in blood, murder and maiming. We do not have the credibility to
intervene constructively.
Nevertheless, the conflict has started, and our role is to secure
peace as quickly as possible. That is why the amendment seeks to secure
peace through negotiations. Already, there have been offers of
mediation, in particular through the ALBA group of Latin American
nations. We should take that offer. The amendment also states-
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. Passing reference to the amendment is allowed, but we must not have a detailed debate on it.
John McDonnell: May I refer to those points to
which the Prime Minister referred? He said that he would support the
sentiments of the amendment, particularly in respect of ensuring that
we keep civilians out of harm’s way. When I asked him about depleted
uranium, he assured me that we do not use it, but we have used it
consistently over time, and it has caused all sorts of harm to people
in the middle east. This country, along with France, objected to the
international ban on the use of such weapons, but I hope that the Prime
Minister’s statement today means that we will now support the ban.
The Prime Minister said that he supports what we say about the need
for a middle east conference. We need to engage to try to secure peace
and stability and to promote democracy in the region. My view is that
we need to do all we can to demonstrate our commitment to peace. The
military action has already caused deaths. We do not know whether they
are civilians, but the reports from Tripoli are that they are not
dividing people from Gaddafi, but actually consolidating his support.
The sight of the same countries that invaded Iraq killing Arabs again
is of immense value to Gaddafi in his argument that this is another
crusader invasion.
We have heard already that the Arab League is falling apart, with
different statements coming out in different languages to hide the
dissent. The UN is also dividing, with Russia and China, as we speak,
urging that military action cease. They are not abstaining, but are
convening the Security Council to try to end the action. NATO itself is
displaying divisions as well. We have also heard statements from Turkey
refusing to take on a longer term role. I have to say that statements
in the House and by Ministers are increasingly confusing about the
objectives of the military action. The UN resolution does not refer to
regime change, but ministerial statement after ministerial statement
clearly lead to that conclusion. Although the resolution states that
there will not be a troop invasion or occupation, we now know that
there is the potential for special forces and boots on the ground. That
is all playing into Gaddafi’s hands by calling up images of a foreign
invasion.
The charges of hypocrisy cannot go away. There is the lack of action
in Yemen, Bahrain and Oman. I am talking not about physical action,
which I would oppose anyway, but about the mealy-mouthed ministerial
statements. There has been no threat to use the international courts
against these killer regimes or to seize their assets, and there has
been no threat even of diplomatic isolation. Neither has it helped that
the images are still fresh in people’s minds in the middle east of our
Prime Minister’s recent tour of the region to sell arms to these
barbaric regimes. Finally, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for
Islington North has mentioned the hypocrisy of refusing a no-fly zone
when Gaza was invaded. We now face the prospect of a long-haul
engagement in military action in Libya.
We risk being dragged into on-the-ground bloody combat, followed by
a counter-insurgency struggle and then vulnerability to a lengthy
terrorist campaign. It will all threaten the peace and stability of the
region and have consequences for our own people and the global economy.
That is why the message today from the Chamber should be that we seek
peace, that we want to ensure the safety of civilians and that our
concern is for the peace of the region and the promotion of democracy
overall. I urge the Government to take up the offer of mediation from
the ALBA countries. I urge the Chamber to send the message that we
strive in every way possible to bring all parties together to seek
peace. In that way, we might yet have the opportunity to restore some
credibility to the role of this country in the middle east. I do not
believe that that will be done as a result of the bombs and missiles
now hurtling down on the Libyan people and causing death and
destruction.
The Battle for Libya
by Heiko Khoo
The imposition of a no fly zone
over Libya, backed primarily by France, Britain and the United States, and the
invasion of Bahrain by Saudi Armed forces, mark a new stage in the tumultuous
revolutionary events in the Arab world. The joyous revolutionary victories
secured by mass protests on the streets and squares of Egypt and Tunisia have
given way to bloody and ferocious conflict drawing in national and
international military forces.
In the past the Imperialist powers
were happy to see dictators in power throughout the region, provided they
appeared to serve the economic, political, military and strategic interests of
European and US capitalist states. It was European powers that colonised,
plundered and divided the peoples of the region; leaving a legacy of artificial
lines from which nations were carved out of the sand.
After the Second World War the
United States wove a complex web of intrigues in the region. This involved the
staunch defence of its local allies through massive financial and military aid,
but each adventure produced poisonous fruit.
In Saudi Arabia, the US supports
the rule of a feudal theocracy composed of 7000 members of a Royal Family
enriched by oil. This oil is used to back US economic policies throughout the
world. This intimate Saudi-US relationship was behind the battle to expel
Soviet forces from Afghanistan in the 1980s, at that time they created the
basis of Bin Laden’s network which later attacked the USA. This in turn led to
the continuing war in Afghanistan.
In Iran, the west supported the
Shah’s dictatorship until it was overthrown by revolution in 1979. This spawned
the creation of the Islamic Republic, a theocratic reaction combining modern
technologies of power, medieval barbarism and anti-western rhetoric.
In Iraq, US policy supported Saddam
Hussein for decades, in the war against Iran and in the ferocious repression of
the Iraqi people. Untold millions suffered due to this US policy and then due
to two US led wars in which Saddam was recast as a ‘madman’.
Since 1948, Israel was backed by
western powers despite the systematic abuse and repression of the rights of the
Palestinian peoples. More recently the United States and European governments
backed the Egyptian and Tunisian dictators to the hilt until their final hours.
Colonel Gaddafi was an untouchable
pariah until a few years ago. He led an officer’s coup in 1969 and proclaimed a
path independent of Moscow or Washington during the Cold War. He engaged in all
manner of peculiar zigzags in international and domestic policy much to the ire
of the Western powers. He supported various rebellions and terrorist groups
around the world, and created a peculiar eclectic fusion of socialistic and
Islamic ideas, complied in the ‘Green Book’.
In economic policy he nationalised
oil and banking, this provided the material basis of the regime. Libya became a
planned economy based on fossil fuels. This flow of wealth from the ground into
public coffers enabled living standards to rise rapidly. To this day housing,
education and healthcare are free and basic foodstuffs are subsidized. But
power is also based on arbitrary and dictatorial methods developed by the
entourage and police apparatus of Gaddafi’s bureaucratic state, camouflaged in
the garb of ‘rule by peoples’ committees’.
There is barely any private
capitalism in Libya, foreign investment and privatisation are marginal to the
core economy. However, such deals provided Gaddafi, his family, and some
officials, with a means to plunder resources from lucrative contracts and
kickbacks.
Bureaucratic corruption and the
kleptocratic tendencies of the ruling family, helped to generate protests when
the winds of revolution blew in from Tunisia and Egypt
The first wave of unrest in
Benghazi immediately suspended the local regime in mid-air and insurrections
seemed to sweep away state power in several cities. Initially, Gaddafi appeared
utterly confused and lost, a reminder of the haunting video images of the fall
of Ceausescu in Romania in December 1989. Ceausescu looked bewildered when the
people turned on him and his apparatus of repression. So too Gaddafi appeared
lost and ‘mad’.
In Tripoli, the regime held onto
power due to the passive acquiescence of significant layers of the masses. This
is not simply due to fear of the powerful and repressive state. It stems also
from extraordinary economic growth in recent years[1],
and the continuing dominance of state ownership and control of the economy that
guaranteed this.
The uprising in Benghazi has
characteristics similar to post-Ceausescu Romania in 1990. The collapse of the
state and the seizure of control over everyday life by committees and militias
mean this resembles a political revolution; but likewise it may open the path
to a social counter-revolution, the battles will decide.
In the explosion of discussion and
debate that accompanies revolutionary upheavals, the progressive tendencies
will seek to defend and extend social gains developed under public ownership,
democratize administration and control, and further internationalise the Arab
revolutions, breaking down the barriers between the peoples of the region.
The imperialist powers also see an
opportunity following the collapse of state power in Benghazi. They began their
machinations starting with a veritable cacophony of attacks on the “madman”
Gaddafi. Many of these same
spokes-persons for democracy were only yesterday making lucrative deals with
Gaddafi and praising his ‘moves to the market’, his statesmanship, his wisdom
etc. Naturally, Gaddafi felt personally affronted and betrayed by this, where
is the “honour among thieves?”
When Tunisians and Egyptians were
being shot just a few days ago, western leaders acted as if paralysed into a
deafening silence. They condemned violence and killings in the abstract, laying
no blame on Ben Ali, or Mubarak, and calling for peace. Likewise when the
Saudis’ invaded Bahrain a few days ago, in order to crush the protests there,
western leaders were as one, in their silence.
However when Gaddafi’s state uses
violence, a flurry of diplomatic, political and military forces flocked
together bellowing for war, in the name of
liberty, justice and universal rights!
This sudden unity of purpose by
France, Britain and the United States, is nothing but a cynical use of the
internal conflict in Libya to regain western prestige in the Arab world, and
acquire control over oil and gas supplies. The people of the whole region face
a cruel and perilous battle for peace, freedom and plenty in the struggle for
genuine democratic control over politics, economics and society.
------------------------------------------------------
Relief will fade as we see the real impact
Welcome though it seems on humanitarian grounds, there are six serious problems with this UN resolution
-
-
The first reaction was relief. The UN security council resolution
1973 authorising foreign intervention in Libya was held up as an
attempt to protect the Libyan rebels and alleviate their suffering, and
who would not welcome that? Who would not want to stop a bully intent on
"wiping out" those who oppose him? But any relief should be tempered by
serious misgivings. First, what motives lie behind this
intervention? While the UN was voting to impose a no-fly zone in Libya,
at least 40 civilians were killed in a US drone attack in Waziristan in Pakistan.
And as I write, al-Jazeera is broadcasting scenes of carnage from
Sanaa, Yemen, where at least 40 protesters have been shot dead. But
there will be no UN no-fly zone to protect Pakistani civilians from US
attacks, or to protect Yemenis. One cannot help but question the
selective involvement of the west in the so-called "Arab spring" series
of uprisings. It is true that the US was reluctant to act and did
so only after weeks of indecision. Unwilling to become embroiled in
another conflict in the region where it would be perceived as
interfering in the affairs of a sovereign state, Obama wisely insisted
on a high level of Arab and Muslim involvement. At first the signs were
good: the Arab League endorsed the move last week, and five member
states seemed likely to participate. But that has been whittled down to
just Qatar and the UAE, with Jordan a possible third. This intervention
lacks sufficient Arab support to give it legitimacy in the region. The
US was worried about the cost of military action, too, given its ailing
economy. Abdel Rahman Halqem, the Libyan ambassador to the UN, has told
me that Qatar and the UAE have agreed to foot most of the bill for the
operation. And what is the motive of these autocratic states: to protect
the Libyan people, a grudge against Gaddafi, or to bind the US further
into the region? So this is the second problem: the main players
in this intervention are western powers led by Britain and France with
US involvement likely. If Libya's neighbours, Egypt and Tunisia, were
playing the leading role that would be something to celebrate.
Democratic countries helping their neighbours would have been in the
spirit of the Arab uprisings, and would have strengthened the sense that
Arabs can take control of their future. It could have happened too:
Egypt gets $1.3bn of US military aid a year. Diplomatic pressure by
Hillary Clinton could have brought that mighty war horse into the arena,
or at least encouraged Egypt to arm the rebels. Instead, an Egyptian
foreign ministry spokesperson stated categorically on Wednesday: "No
intervention, period." The third problem is that, although he is
often dismissed as mad, Gaddafi is a master strategist and this
intervention plays into his hands. He quickly announced a ceasefire
in response, which was claimed by some as an early victory for the UN
resolution; in fact, it both deflates the UN initiative and allows
Gaddafi to appear reasonable. Meanwhile, a ceasefire at this point suits
Gaddafi: under its cover, the secret police can get to work. Similarly,
Gaddafi accepted the earlier arms embargo: again, this apparent
concession suited him. His regime has sophisticated weaponry, whereas
the rebels have few arms. Gaddafi knows how to play the Arab
street, too. At the moment he has little, if any, public support; his
influence is limited to his family and tribe. But he may use this
intervention to present himself as the victim of post-colonialist
interference in pursuit of oil. He is likely to pose the question that
is echoing around the Arab world – why wasn't there a no-fly zone over
Gaza when the Israelis were bombarding it in 2008/9? Unlike in
Tunisia and Egypt, the uprising in Libya quickly deteriorated into armed
conflict. Gaddafi could question whether those the UN is seeking to
protect are still "civilians" when engaged in battle, and suggest
instead that the west is taking sides in a civil war (where the
political agenda of the rebels is unknown). And what of the
long-term impact of this intervention on Libya, and the world? Here lies
yet another concern. Libya may end up divided into the rebel-held east
and a regime stronghold in the rest of the country which would include
the oil fields and the oil terminal town al-Brega. There is a strong
risk, too, that it will become the region's fourth failed state, joining
Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. And that ushers in another peril. Al-Qaida
thrives in such chaos; it played a key role in the Iraqi and Afghan
insurgencies and is based in Yemen – and it may enter Libya, too.
Several of Bin Laden's closest associates are Libyan, and Gaddafi is no
stranger to terror groups – the Abu Nidal Organisation found a safe
haven in Libya from 1987 to 1999. Gaddafi has also threatened to attack
passenger aircraft and shipping in the Mediterranean. Fifth, there
is no guarantee that military intervention will result in Gaddafi's
demise. In 1992, the UN imposed two no-fly zones in Iraq – to protect
the Kurds in the north and the Shi'a in the south. Saddam remained in
power for another 11 years and was only toppled after an invasion. To
date, over a million civilians have died in Iraq. The international
community has a duty to ensure that this sorry history is not repeated
in Libya. Finally, there is the worry that the Arab spring will be
derailed by events in Libya. If uprising plus violent suppression
equals western intervention, the long-suffering Arab subjects of the
region's remaining autocrats might be coerced into sticking with the
status quo. The Libyan people face a long period of violent
upheaval whatever happens. But it is only through their own
steadfastness and struggle that they will finally win the peaceful and
democratic state they long for.
Labour Representation Committee
27th February 2011
LRC members have been inspired and humbled by the
determination of the Libyan people to fight for their freedom; and
appalled by the murderous response of the Gaddafi dictatorship.
While much of Libya has now been liberated from tyranny, it has come
at a terrible price. It is likely that thousands have been slaughtered;
soldiers have been massacred for refusing to turn their guns on their
own people; and cities have been laid to waste by mercenary fighters in
the pay of the dictatorship. The reports of people struggling for
liberation being bombed from the air, is reminiscent of Guernica.
This is also a time to reflect on the cynicism of Western foreign
policy. Tony Blair led the West’s embrace of the Gaddafi regime in 2003.
It was not just a profitable arrangement for major oil companies, who
have thrived in Libya since. Britain has sold tens of millions of pounds
worth of arms to the Libyan dictatorship, including armoured personnel
carriers, ‘crowd control ammunition’, tear gas/irritant ammunition,
sniper rifles and water cannon. As in Egypt, Bahrain and elsewhere, it
is likely that Libyan protesters are being maimed or killed at the hands
of British weaponry.
This episode highlights again the double standards of the “western
world” which now talks about bringing Gaddafi before the International
Criminal Court. Yet this is not suggested in relation to others, such as
Bahrain and Iraq, where brutal and repressive measures have been also
been used.
Across the world, hundreds of millions have been inspired by the
great Arab revolt against tyranny. But all of these despots, to varying
degrees, have depended on Western support to maintain their illegitimate
rule. Western governments have armed them to the teeth and provided
them with extensive economic and diplomatic support. Half of Britain’s
£7.2 billion annual arms sales go to Middle Eastern regimes. This week,
David Cameron has acted as the head of a travelling arms fair across the
Middle East.
In 1989, the people of Eastern Europe revolted against Moscow
proxies; today, the Arab people are liberating themselves from Western
client regimes.
Although the US today is a power in decline, we must stand against
all attempts to subvert the right of the people of the Middle East to
determine their own future. When the people of Palestine had the
audacity to vote for the ‘wrong’ party in 2006 the West subjected them
to collective punishment. This must not happen again.
The people of Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere have given the West
an instructive lesson. Real democracy and liberation comes not through
Western bombs, bullets and tanks, but through the bottom-up struggle of
working people and the oppressed. Workers’ strikes played a crucial role
in finally determining the fate of Mubarak, and since the overthrow of
the dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia there has been a rapid growth in
independent trade unions.
These revolts have partly been provoked by neo-liberal economic
policies, implemented - to varying degrees - across the Middle East. As
elsewhere, their consequences have impoverished large swathes of the
Arab world.
Free-market capitalism is playing another deeply sinister role in the
region. As people across the region are laying down their lives for
freedom, we are witnessing disgusting scenes of profiteering by
speculators in food and in oil supply futures.
Despots across the region should be rightly scared that their turn is
coming. We look to a new Middle East, liberated from Western
domination, and freed from the disastrous neo-liberal policies forced on
the people by the dictatorships.
Solidarity with the Libyan people - and with the Arab people rising up across the region. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Background and an opposing view from Gilbert AchcarSaturday, March 19, 2011
[Gilbert
Achcar grew up in Lebanon, and is currently Professor at the School of
Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London. His
books include The Clash of Barbarisms: The Making of the New World Disorder, published in 13 languages, Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy, co-authored with Noam Chomsky, and most recently The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives. He was interviewed by Stephen R. Shalom.]
Who is the Libyan opposition? Some have noted the presence of the old monarchist flag in rebel ranks.
This
flag is not used as a symbol of the monarchy, but as the flag that the
Libyan state adopted after it won independence from Italy. It is used by
the uprising in order to reject the Green Flag imposed by Gaddafi along
with his Green Book, when he was aping Mao Zedong and his Little Red Book.
In no way does the tricolor flag indicate nostalgia for the monarchy.
In the most common interpretation, it symbolizes the three historic
regions of Libya, and the crescent and star are the same symbols you see
on the flags of the Algerian, Tunisian and Turkish republics, not
symbols of monarchism.
So who is the opposition? The composition of the opposition is -- as in
all the other revolts shaking the region -- very heterogeneous. What
unites all the disparate forces is a rejection of the dictatorship and a
longing for democracy and human rights. Beyond that, there are many
different perspectives. In Libya, more particularly, there is a mixture
of human rights activists, democracy advocates, intellectuals, tribal
elements, and Islamic forces -- a very broad collection. The most
prominent political force in the Libyan uprising is the "Youth of the
17th of February Revolution," which has a democratic platform, calling
for the rule of law, political freedoms, and free elections. The Libyan
movement also includes sections of the government and the armed forces
that have broken away and joined the opposition -- which you didn't have
in Tunisia or Egypt.
So the Libyan opposition represents a mixture of forces, and the bottom
line is that there is no reason for any different attitude toward them
than to any other of the mass uprisings in the region.
Is Gaddafi -- or was Gaddafi -- a progressive figure?
When Gaddafi came to power in 1969 he was a late manifestation of
the wave of Arab nationalism that followed World War II and the 1948
Nakba. He tried to imitate Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, who he
regarded as his model and inspiration. So he replaced the monarchy with a
republic, championed Arab unity, forced the withdrawal of the U.S.'s
Wheelus Airbase from Libyan territory, and initiated a program of social
change.
Then the regime moved in its own way, along the path of radicalization,
inspired by an Islamized Maoism. There were sweeping nationalizations
in the late 1970s -- almost everything was nationalized. Gaddafi claimed
to have instituted direct democracy -- and formally changed the name of
the country from Republic to State of the Masses (Jamahiriya). He
pretended that he had turned the country into the fulfillment of
socialist utopia with direct democracy, but few were fooled. The
"revolutionary committees" were actually acting as a ruling apparatus
along with the security services in controlling the country. At the same
time, Gaddafi also played an especially reactionary role in
reinvigorating tribalism as a tool for his own power. His foreign policy
became increasingly foolhardy, and most Arabs came to consider him
crazy.
With the Soviet Union in crisis, Gaddafi shifted away from his
socialist pretensions and re-opened his economy to Western business. He
asserted that his economic liberalization would be accompanied by a
political one, aping Gorbachev's perestroika after having aped Mao
Zedong's "cultural revolution," but the political claim was an empty
one. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 under the pretext of
searching for "weapons of mass destruction," Gaddafi, worried that he
might be next, implemented a sudden and surprising turnabout in foreign
policy, earning himself a spectacular upgrade from the status of "rogue
state" to that of close collaborator of Western states. A collaborator
in particular of the United States, which he helped in its so-called war
on terror, and Italy, for which he did the dirty job of turning back
would-be immigrants trying to get from Africa to Europe.
Throughout these metamorphoses, Gaddafi's regime was always a
dictatorship. Whatever early progressive measures Gaddafi may have
enacted, there was nothing left of progressivism or anti-imperialism in
his regime in the last phase. Its dictatorial character showed itself in
the way he reacted to the protests: immediately deciding to quell them
by force. There was no attempt to offer any kind of democratic outlet
for the population. He warned the protesters in a now famous
tragic-comic speech: "We will come inch by inch, home by home, alley by
alley ... We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no
pity." Not a surprise, knowing that Gaddafi was the only Arab ruler who
publicly blamed the Tunisian people for having toppled their own
dictator Ben Ali, whom he described as the best ruler the Tunisians
would find.
Gaddafi resorted to threats and violent repression, claiming that the
protesters had been turned into drug addicts by Al Qaeda, who poured
hallucinogens in their coffees. Blaming Al Qaeda for the uprising was
his way of trying to get the support of the West. Had there been any
offer of help from Washington or Rome, you can be sure that Gaddafi
would have gladly welcomed it. He actually expressed his bitter
disappointment at the attitude of his buddy Silvio Berlusconi, the
Italian prime minister, with whom he enjoyed partying, and complained
that his other European "friends" also betrayed him. In the last few
years, Gaddafi had indeed become a friend of several Western rulers and
other establishment figures who, for a fistful of dollars, have been
willing to ridicule themselves exchanging hugs with him. Anthony Giddens
himself, the distinguished theoretician of Tony Blair's Third Way,
followed in his disciple's steps by paying a visit to Gaddafi in 2007
and writing in the Guardian how Libya was on the path of reform and on its way to becoming the Norway of the Middle East.
What is your assessment of UN Security Council resolution 1973 adopted on March 17?
The resolution itself is phrased in a way that takes into
consideration -- and appears to respond to -- the request by the
uprising for a no-fly zone. The opposition has indeed explicitly called
for a no-fly zone, on the condition that no foreign troops be deployed
on Libyan territory. Gaddafi has the bulk of the elite armed forces,
with aircraft and tanks, and the no-fly zone would indeed neutralize his
main military advantage. This request of the uprising is reflected in
the text of the resolution, which authorizes UN member states "to take all necessary measures ... to protect
civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign
occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory." The resolution establishes "a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians."
Now there are not enough safeguards in the wording of the resolution to
bar its use for imperialist purposes. Although the purpose of any
action is supposed to be the protection of civilians, and not "regime
change," the determination of whether an action meets this purpose or
not is left up to the intervening powers and not to the uprising, or
even the Security Council. The resolution is amazingly confused. But
given the urgency of preventing the massacre that would have inevitably
resulted from an assault on Benghazi by Gaddafi's forces, and the
absence of any alternative means of achieving the protection goal, no
one can reasonably oppose it. One can understand the abstentions; some
of the five states who abstained in the UNSC vote wanted to express
their defiance and/or unhappiness with the lack of adequate oversight,
but without taking the responsibility for an impending massacre.
The Western response, of course, smacks of oil. The West fears a long
drawn out conflict. If there is a major massacre, they would have to
impose an embargo on Libyan oil, thus keeping oil prices at a high level
at a time when, given the current state of the global economy, this
would have major adverse consequences. Some countries, including the
United States, acted reluctantly. Only France emerged as very much in
favor of strong action, which might well be connected to the fact that
France -- unlike Germany (which abstained in the UNSC vote), Britain,
and, above all, Italy -- does not have a major stake in Libyan oil, and
certainly hopes to get a greater share post-Gaddafi.
We all know about the Western powers' pretexts and double standards.
For example, their alleged concern about harm to civilians bombarded
from the air did not seem to apply in Gaza in 2008-09, when hundreds of
noncombatants were being killed by Israeli warplanes in furtherance of
an illegal occupation. Or the fact that the US allows its client regime
in Bahrain, where it has a major naval base, to violently repress the
local uprising, with the help of other regional vassals of Washington.
The fact remains, nevertheless, that if Gaddafi were permitted to
continue his military offensive and take Benghazi, there would be a
major massacre. Here is a case where a population is truly in danger,
and where there is no plausible alternative that could protect it. The
attack by Gaddafi's forces was hours or at most days away. You can't in
the name of anti-imperialist principles oppose an action that will
prevent the massacre of civilians. In the same way, even though we know
well the nature and double standards of cops in the bourgeois state, you
can't in the name of anti-capitalist principles blame anybody for
calling them when someone is on the point of being raped and there is no
alternative way of stopping the rapists.
This said, without coming out against the no-fly zone, we must express
defiance and advocate full vigilance in monitoring the actions of those
states carrying it out, to make sure that they don't go beyond
protecting civilians as mandated by the UNSC resolution. In watching on
TV the crowds in Benghazi cheering the passage of the resolution, I saw a
big billboard in their middle that said in Arabic "No to foreign
intervention." People there make a distinction between "foreign
intervention" by which they mean troops on the ground, and a protective
no-fly zone. They oppose foreign troops. They are aware of the dangers
and wisely don't trust Western powers.
So, to sum up, I believe that from an anti-imperialist perspective one
cannot and should not oppose the no-fly zone, given that there is no
plausible alternative for protecting the endangered population. The
Egyptians are reported to be providing weapons to the Libyan opposition
-- and that's fine -- but on its own it couldn't have made a difference
that would have saved Benghazi in time. But again, one must maintain a
very critical attitude toward what the Western powers might do.
What's going to happen now?
It's difficult to tell what will happen now. The UN Security
Council resolution did not call for regime change; it's about protecting
civilians. The future of the Gaddafi regime is uncertain. The key
question is whether we will see the resumption of the uprising in
western Libya, including Tripoli, leading to a disintegration of the
regime's armed forces. If that occurs, then Gaddafi may be ousted soon.
But if the regime manages to remain firmly in control in the west, then
there will be a de facto division of the country -- even though the
resolution affirms the territorial integrity and national unity of
Libya. This may be what the regime has chosen, as it has just announced
its compliance with the UN resolution and proclaimed a ceasefire. What
we might then have is a prolonged stalemate, with Gaddafi controlling
the west and the opposition the east. It will obviously take time before
the opposition can incorporate the weapons it is receiving from and
through Egypt to the point of becoming able to inflict military defeat
on Gaddafi's forces. Given the nature of the Libyan territory, this can
only be a regular war rather than a popular one, a war of movement over
vast stretches of territory. That's why the outcome is hard to predict.
The bottom line here again is that we should support the victory of the
Libyan democratic uprising. Its defeat at the hands of Gaddafi would be a
severe backlash negatively affecting the revolutionary wave that is
currently shaking the Middle East and North Africa.
Libyan Intervention
www.stratfor.com 19 March 2011
Forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi began to approach the
eastern rebel capital of Benghazi on March 19, with the BBC reporting
that loyalist armor already is inside the city, though this may have
been only a reconnaissance element. Soon after these reports, word of
impending international military operations against Gadhafi’s forces
began to emerge, with French and Italian aircraft reportedly beginning
to conduct combat air patrols.
Though Gadhafi declared a unilateral cease-fire in response to the U.N. Security Council’s (UNSC) authorization of the use of force against Libya on March 17, it is becoming apparent that this was simply a stalling tactic in an attempt to consolidate gains ahead of airstrikes. The military incentive for Gadhafi is to reach Benghazi before any airstrikes begin. If a “no-drive” zone between Ajdabiya and Benghazi were to come into effect,
military vehicles and supply convoys would be vulnerable to any
coalition aircraft orbiting overhead, making it far more difficult for
Gadhafi to project force across the large open terrain that separates
the two cities. Airpower can also make it difficult to move and resupply
forces, so the heavier elements of Gadhafi’s forces — tanks, tracked
vehicles and artillery — already operating at the end of extended lines
of supply, may quickly face logistical issues. However, while airpower
can attempt to prevent forces from approaching the city, it cannot force
the withdrawal of those forces from within the city without risking significant civilian casualties.
Relevant political negotiations and military planning now taking
place in Europe continues and more time is needed to mass forces for the
impending air campaign against Libya. Nevertheless, if the European-led
effort is to stop Gadhafi from reaching Benghazi, it will have to begin
soon, with what forces have so far been moved into place — though given
Libya’s distance from mainland Europe, the presence of U.S. Marine
Corps and Italian Harriers and cruise missile-armed warships off the
coast, there already is a considerable amount of coalition airpower in
place.
As nightfall approaches, loyalist forces with little night-vision
capability may slow operations, and any air campaign against them will
likely begin under the cover of darkness, consistent with longstanding
U.S. and NATO operational practice. Targets are prioritized, so
available airpower will begin to work down the list with the suppression
of enemy air defenses as well as command, control and communications
likely to be at or near the top of the list, though SA-7 MANPADS and
anti-aircraft artillery will remain a persistent threat.
Rules of engagement will be an important question. While Gadhafi’s
forces have been led by a vanguard of T-72 main battle tanks and
supported by BM-21 rocket artillery, his infantry is often videotaped
using civilian vehicles for transportation. While the intention will
likely be to stop all traffic between Ajdabiya and Benghazi, whether
coalition aircraft are willing to fire on civilian vehicles remains to
be seen. If so, they risk considerable civilian casualties. If not, they
may deny the use of tanks and artillery but risk not stopping Gadhafi’s
infantry.
The use of airpower has been authorized, forces are being massed and
Gadhafi appears to be acting as though its use is inevitable and so is
moving while he can. However, the application of airpower entails civilian casualties,
and it remains unclear if that application can be translated into the
achievement of political objectives in Libya. So while there are many
tactical questions moving forward, there is only one strategic one: How
has the European-led coalition translated the UNSC authorization into
military objectives, and what are the operational parameters and rules
of engagement that govern them? |
posted 26 Feb 2011 12:48 by Ian Aylett
[
updated 12 Mar 2011 01:56
]
Tears and Anger after Wisconsin Passes Anti-Union Bill By Katrin Dauenhauer, http://ipsnews.net
MADISON, Wisconsin, Mar 11, 2011 (IPS) - Emotions are running high at the State Capitol in Madison,
Wisconsin after Republican senators passed a revised version
of a budget repair bill that will take away public workers'
collective bargaining rights in an ad hoc session Wednesday
night.
Democratic senators fled the state more than two weeks ago
to prevent a vote on the controversial piece of legislation.
But this week, Republican lawmakers stripped the bill of
financial components to circumvent a quorum that would have
required 20 senators, and thus at least one Democratic
senator, to be present.
The bill passed the Assembly Thursday and was signed into
law by Governor Scott Walker early Friday morning.
Outside the capitol building, protesters expressed anger and
frustration over the Republican maneuvre by shouting "Shame,
Shame" and "Liar, Liar". Earlier chants of "This is what
democracy looks like" have turned into "This is what tyranny
looks like."
"This was totally dirty politics," Ben Kaker, a teacher from
Madison told IPS. "The vote clearly shows that Walker isn't
after the money but after busting unions. Financial goals
might come later, but they are not paramount. This also
shows that Walker was lying the whole time."
"What happened last night was a travesty of democracy," said
Don Smith, a union member from Madison. "I am almost
speechless because it amounts to rape of the American way.
This vile creature [Walker] and his 17 criminals with their
total disregard for what America stands for totally
corrupted democracy and sold it to an oligarchy that must be
defeated at all costs."
Democrats and protestors are questioning the legality of the
procedure. Participants had only been informed about the
meeting less than two hours prior. Open meeting laws by the
state, however, require the notification of participants and
the public at least 24 hours in advance.
"I am completely horrified that such an illegal thing took
place. It's different if you read about it. But if you
actually saw how the vote went down, you can't but cry. This
is a 'F**k you' to the American people," Leah Thomas from
Madison told IPS.
"Similar initiatives are going on in other states right now.
They are all looking to Wisconsin to see how things turn
out. If Wisconsin will serve as a precedent for legislation
in other states, we are in big trouble," she continued.
"I am appalled. I think what happened last night was the
culmination of the Republican Party's disrespectful
behaviour of the last couple of weeks. This is the furthest
thing away from democracy that I can think of. I am not in a
position to say if it was unlawful but at the very least it
was unethical. My faith in democracy has been shaken," Dawn
Wavra from Waunakee told IPS.
"I am hoping this vote will not stand. Otherwise it is
looking pretty tough for Wisconsinites," Dough Joseph from
Eau Claire told IPS.
Protesters also criticise the increased difficulties to
enter the capitol building. While in the beginning the
building was open to the public day and night, a Mar. 3
court order declared that people could not occupy the
capitol after hours. And during the day, long lines await
people who want to get inside. Bag checks and metal
detectors are in place.
"I was here during the vote. They [the police] dragged us
out of the vestibule by picking us up one by one, even
though I was part of a public hearing. It's disgusting. They
started out by saying it's about the budget and it's not
about collective bargaining. Scott Walker is a liar. You
can't get any more blatant about a lie than this," Tim
Wersland with Iron Workers Local 383 told IPS.
Meanwhile, unions asked members to join the recall efforts
against Republican senators in the eight districts where the
process is already underway. Calls for a recall of
Republican senators and Governor Walker have also been made
by many protesters.
"Walker is taking this state backwards, this is very
unsettling. Hopefully, we can recall him. Walker is saying
he is not listening to polls, but he ought to be, because
right now, the majority of the people has turned against
him," Sue Brumberg from Eau Claire told IPS.
"He is dividing the state, people are getting polarised. It
is very disheartening. Hopefully, we can turn things
around," she said.
The possibility of a general strike is also being discussed.
"This is not just a vote on union organisation. This is a
larger attack on the working class and amounts to class
warfare," Michael Koc from Industrial Workers of the World
(IWW) told IPS. "It is sad to see that the best thing
Democrats could do is leave. But this also shows that we
cannot rely on either party within the system, but need to
use direct actions to fight for our rights."
"We are a long way off from a general strike, but we have to
organise to make our voices heard," he added.
Protesters are closely watching the upcoming Wisconsin
Supreme Court election, which could help turn the tide in
making their voices heard. Currently, the court has a four-
to-three conservative majority. One of the judges, David
Prosser, is up for reelection on Apr. 5. Running against him
is JoAnne Kloppenburg.
As activists expect the Supreme Court to rule on the
legality of Wednesday's vote, they stress the importance of
a liberal majority with Kloppenburg on the court.
Despite the passage of the bill, protesters are determined
to continue their demonstrations. Another big rally is
planned for this Saturday.
"We think it's completely unfair that they are not listening
to the peaceful protesters right outside their window. But
we are not going away. And the weather is only getting
better," Shelley Hoernke, a teacher from Oshkosh, told IPS.
"I am embarrassed for my state, which has a proud history of
progressive politics. I am not proud of last night's vote
but we will prevail," said Paul Klein from Steven's Point.
"People are mad."
25th February 2011 Ryan Harvey reports:
“Hundreds of cops have just marched into the Wisconsin state capitol
building to protest the anti-Union bill, to massive applause. They now
join up to 600 people who are inside.”
Ryan reported on his Facebook page earlier today:
“Police have just announced to the crowds inside the occupied State
Capitol of Wisconsin: ‘We have been ordered by the legislature to kick
you all out at 4:00 today. But we know what’s right from wrong. We
will not be kicking anyone out, in fact, we will be sleeping here with
you!’ Unreal.”
 You can find more updates from Ryan Harvey on Twitter @ryanharveysongs and his blog Even If Your Voice Shakes.
UPDATE: This video says it all. It makes me proud of my neighbors.
“Let me tell you Mr. Walker, this is not your house, this is all our
house.”
|
posted 14 Feb 2011 10:02 by Ian Aylett
[
updated 26 Feb 2011 07:53
]
Labor protests continued in various
governorates yesterday as hundreds of mine workers in Bahariya Oasis
held sit-ins to protest poor living conditions. Around 50 Ministry of
Religious Endowments workers also called for salary increases and dozens
of temporary agricultural supervisors continued to protest for
permanent positions.
In Port Said, hundreds of residents in
the village of Radwan demanded investigations into violations regarding
the sale of land allotted for college graduates (under the Mubarak
project for young graduates) without official permission.
In Beni Suef, 1000 new graduates,
workers, and teachers protested for the second day in a row in front of
the Education Ministry building in the governorate. They called for real
and permanent job opportunities. Protesters tried to storm the building
but security forces stopped them. The protesters gathered on Saleh
Salem road, one of the city’s main roads leading to surrounding
highways, and blocked traffic. They threatened to storm the teachers’
union and set the Education Ministry building on fire if their demands
are not met.
In Alexandria, tens of employees of the
medical research center at the University of Alexandria organized a
protest in front of the university’s administrative building. They
called for permanent contracts for temporary employees, higher wages,
and immediate administrative reforms to cleanse “the remnants of the
previous regime.”
Dozens of residents of Nadha village in
Amriya protested in front of the carbon factory. The protesters
complained about the carbon emissions coming out of the factory, which
they say have caused illness among residents. In addition, secondary
school students organized a protest in front of the Qa’id Ibrahim
Mosque, demanding they not be equated with vocational school students
when applying for college. They also demanded that exams be postponed
another month given the current unrest.
In Suez, around 1200 workers in the
Egyptian and national steel companies blocked the Al-Adabiya-Ain Sokhna
Road. The workers said the appropriate agencies have not yet interfered
to solve their problems with the administration and meet their demands.
Workers in the Egypt Amiron company for steel pipes continued their
sit-in for the fourth consecutive day at company headquarters, hoping to
get better financial and employment conditions, and a stake in the
company’s profits. In Kafr al-Sheikh, bus drivers in the city of Desouk
went on strike to protest the increasing cost of their insurance.
In Daqahlia, 1500 farmers protested the
actions of the Ministry of Religious Endowments. The ministry had
illegally sold land to traders and businessmen in a public auction. The
farmers had been renting the land for more than 70 years.
In Damietta, tens of employees in the
health departments in Farsco and Zarkaa held a protest, calling for
increases in bonuses, the restructuring of wages, and the removal of the
department’s financial manager.
In Menoufiya, 50 women from the families
of prisoners in Shibin al-Kom general prison, protested in front of the
courts’ complex to demand that their relatives be released or that they
be allowed to visit them in the prison.
In Qalyoubia, around 300 drivers stormed
the governorate’s building, destroying the main gate. They went up to
the second floor, occupied the halls and encircled Governor Adli
Hussein’s offices.
In Aswan, 700 workers in Al-Nasr mining
company in Edfu presented a memorandum to the general miners’ union, the
Egyptian Trade Union Federation and the Holding Company for Mining
Industries, demanding the withdrawal of confidence from the chairman of
the board and the employees’ union committee. Workers demanded a new
temporary administrative committee composed of workers.
In Ismailia, a number of members of the chamber of the commerce demanded the dissolution of the current board of directors.
In response to labor strikes, the
Ministry of Health distributed an administrative pamphlet to governorate
health departments announcing that protesting is unacceptable and that
there will be no negotiations with any group that protests.
The ministry confirmed that it formed a
supreme committee to look into the employees’ problems and propose
solutions, in an attempt to protect state agencies and ensure the
continuation of its functions.
Since it took over power, the Supreme
Council of Armed Forces has issued several statements calling on
citizens to end strikes and protests and return to work. http://www.almasryalyoum.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egypt's largest public company declares indefinite strike
by Salma Ibrahim
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk
Some 24,000 workers at Misr Spinning and Weaving Company in Mahalla
Al Kubra, Egypt’s largest public owned company, have started an
indefinite, all-out strike.
A strike by night-shift workers on 15 February quickly spread across
the plant as morning-shift workers joined their colleagues’ action the
next day.
Mohamed Al Attar, a leading activist and strike organiser at the
factory, told me from the workers’ camp in Talaat Harb Square inside
the plant, “the evening shift is now joining the striking workers and
consolidating their presence.”
Al Attar explained that workers’ demands are divided into three categories: legal, administrative and economic.
The protesters’ legal demands are that the Egyptian Supreme
Constitutional Court ruling, which set the minimum wage in Egypt at
1,200 EGP (approx £127) per month, be implemented right away.
“Workers’ demanding that the time spent in army duty while at work
be added to total service time in the plant,” he said. “We demand that
workers who earned higher qualifications before or during work at the
plant be compensated according to their latest qualification.
“We are also targeting the company administration. We want the
dismissal of the deputy general-manager, Fouad Abdel-Alim Hassan, and
the chairman of the Cotton and Textile Industries Holding Company,
Mohsin Al-Gilani, who are accused of being responsible for the
company’s deficit over the past few years.”
The strikers also want Ibrahim Haniyeh, the company’s head of legal
affairs to be sacked. Haniyeh prosecuted activists for organising
strikes, but failed to act on corruption and fraud charges implicating
company suppliers, Al Attar explained.
The Centre for Trade Union & Workers’ Services (CTUWS) also
reported that striking workers are demanding a temporary board to be
set up to run the company until the next board elections and the
reinstatement of all labour leaders who have been fired or removed over
the course of the last years.
On the economic level, Al Attar said that workers are demanding an
end-of-service bonus of £100 a month like in all other parts of
society.
They are also demanding a change in the internal code of work at the
plant in a manner that allows for the re-evaluation of current policies
on pay and bonuses.
Until 9 February 2011, two days before the fall of Mubarak, Egyptian
workers and trade unionists were participating in the revolution in
their capacity as independent citizens of the state, often sending
delegations to Tahrir Square.
But since 9 February, workers across different occupations and
sectors in Egypt have staged various protests and strikes all over the
country calling for the dismissal of corrupt trade unionists and the
implementation of fair wages and working conditions in their
workplaces.
Their movement contributes to the ongoing revolution in Egypt aiming to change the old regime, and the economic and social.
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Egypts protests continue in the factoriesEgypt's striking workers won't entrust the transition to democracy to the generals who were the backbone of the dictatorship
-
Egyptians
hold a banner reading in Arabic 'injustice has an end' as they protest
near the health ministry in Cairo on 14 February 2011. Photograph:
Mohamed Omar/EPA
Since Hosni
Mubarak fled from Cairo, and even before then, some middle-class
activists have been urging Egyptians, in the name of patriotism, to
suspend their protests and return to work, singing some of the most
ridiculous lullabies: "Let's build a new Egypt", "Let's work harder
than ever before". They clearly do not know that Egyptians are already among the hardest working people in the world. Those activists want us to trust Mubarak's generals
with the transition to democracy – the same junta that provided the
backbone of his dictatorship over the past 30 years. And while I
believe the supreme council of the armed forces, which received $1.3bn
from the US in 2010, will eventually engineer the transition to a
"civilian" government, I have no doubt it will be a government that
guarantees the continuation of a system that never touches the army's
privileges, that keeps the armed forces as the institution that has the
final say in politics, that guarantees Egypt continues to follow the
much hated US foreign policy. A civilian government should not be
made up of cabinet members who have simply removed their military
uniforms. A civilian government means one that fully represents the
Egyptian people's demands and desires without any intervention from the
top brass. I think it will be very hard to accomplish this, if the
junta allows it at all. The military has been the ruling institution in
this country since 1952. Its leaders are part of the establishment. And
while the young officers and soldiers are our allies, we cannot for one
second lend our trust and confidence to the generals. All classes
in Egypt took part in the uprising. Mubarak managed to alienate all
social classes in society. In Tahrir Square, you found sons and
daughters of the Egyptian elite, together with the workers,
middle-class citizens and the urban poor. But remember that it's only
when the mass strikes started on Wednesday that the regime started crumbling and the army had to force Mubarak to resign because the system was about to collapse. Some
have been surprised to see workers striking. This is naive. The workers
have been staging the longest and most sustained strike wave in Egypt's
history since 1946, one that began in the textiles city of Mahalla.
It's not the workers' fault if the world hasn't been paying attention.
Every single day over the past three years there has been a strike in some factory in Egypt, whether it's in Cairo or the provinces. These strikes were both economic and political in nature. From
the first day of the January 25 uprising, the working class has been
taking part in the protests. However, the workers were at first taking
part as "demonstrators" and not necessarily as "workers" – meaning,
they were not moving independently. The government had brought the
economy to halt, not the protesters, with their curfews, and by
shutting down the banks and businesses. It was a capitalist strike,
aimed at terrorising the Egyptian people. Only when the government
tried to bring the country back to "normal" on 8 February did the
workers return to their factories, discuss the current situation and
start to organise en masse, moving as an independent block. In
some locations the workers did not list the regime's fall among their
demands, but they used the same slogans as those protesting in Tahrir
and, in many cases, the workers put forward a list of political demands in solidarity with the revolution. These workers are not going home any time soon.
They started striking because they couldn't feed their families any
more. They have been emboldened by Mubarak's overthrowal, and cannot go
back to their children and tell them that the army has promised to
bring them food and their rights in I don't know how many months. Many
of the strikers have already started raising additional demands,
including the right to establish free trade unions away from the
corrupt, state-backed Egyptian Federation of Trade Unions. On
Saturday I started receiving news that thousands of public transport
workers were staging protests in el-Gabal el-Ahmar. The temporary
workers at Helwan Steel Mills are also protesting. The railway
technicians continue to bring trains to a halt. Thousands of workers at
the el-Hawamdiya sugar factory are protesting and oil workers announced
a strike on Sunday over work conditions. Nearly every single sector in
the Egyptian economy has witnessed either strikes or mass protests.
Even sections of the police have joined in. At
this point, the Tahrir Square occupation is to be suspended. We have to
take Tahrir to the factories now. As the revolution proceeds, an
inevitable class polarisation will take place. We have to be vigilant.
We hold the keys to the liberation of the entire region, not just
Egypt. Onwards we must go, with a permanent revolution that will
empower the people of this country with direct democracy from below.
|
Army urges Egyptians to end strikes
from Al Jazeera.com
|
Military council calls on workers to play their role in reviving the economy after almost three weeks of turmoil.
Last Modified: 14 Feb 2011 16:28 GMT
|
|
Egypt's military council has renewed a call to workers to end a wave
of strikes and play their role in reviving the economy after nearly
three weeks of mass protests that led to the ousting of president Hosni
Mubarak.
In "Communique No 5", read out on state television on Monday, a
spokesman for the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces called for
national solidarity and criticised strike action that has severely
disrupted the country's economy.
"Noble Egyptians see that these strikes, at this delicate time, lead to negative results," he said.
The communique came as thousands of state employees, from ambulance drivers to police and
transport workers, protested on Monday to demand better pay and conditions.
Hundreds of public transport workers demonstrated outside
the television and state radio building. Across the Nile river in Giza,
hundreds of ambulance drivers staged a protest, also to demand better
pay and permanent jobs.
Thousands in Tahrir
Elsewhere, about 2,000 people gathered in Cairo's Tahrir (Liberation)
Square around noon, halting traffic, with most of them protesting
against the country's police force.
 |
| Click here for more of Al Jazeera's special coverage |
Policemen were holding a separate protest, some of them marching towards the interior ministry on Monday.
They want better pay and are trying to clear the name of the hated
police force, which was accused of using excessive force during the
deadly clashes in the first days of the uprising.
Some of the police demonstrators carried portraits of policemen
killed in the clashes, with one placard saying "These are victims of the
regime too".
Earlier in the day, pro-democracy protesters in the square said they had been told by the army to leave or face arrest.
Meanwhile, the army ordered Al Jazeera and other international media outlets to stop filming in the square.
Meeting activists
As the protests and strikes continued, two online activists said on Monday that they had discussed reforms with the military.
"We met the army ... to understand their point of view and lay out
our views," Google executive Wael Ghonim and blogger Amr Salama said in a
note on a pro-democracy website that helped launch the revolt.
They said the military council, which suspended the constitution and
dissolved parliament on Sunday, vowed to rewrite the constitution within
10 days and put it to a referendum within two months, in line with the
protesters' demands for democratic change.
The council had previously said the military would be in charge "for a
temporary period of six months or until the end of elections to the
upper and lower houses of parliament, and presidential elections".
Inspired by the success of the 18 days of popular protests that
forced Mubarak to end his 30 years in power on Friday, workers across
Egypt have begun to agitate for better deals.
Military 'concerned'
The protests prompted officials to make Monday an unscheduled bank
holiday. Banks will reopen on Wednesday, because Tuesday is also a
public holiday.
|
'The Day Mubarak Left': Click each photo for a description [Evan Hill]
|
"I think the military is concerned that
this could turn into a series of protests across the country, " Al
Jazeera's James Bays, reporting from Cairo, said.
"If that happened, the only way they could stop them would probably be to use force.
And if they use force, that would end the respect and the legitimacy the army has in the eyes of the ordinary people."
Protest organisers have called for a "Victory March" to be held across the country on Friday.
There have also been reports of protests, sit-ins and strikes at the
stock exchange, textile firms, media organisations, steel firms, the
postal service, railways and the health ministry.
"Finally we have been encouraged to come out and speak," Hala Fawzi, a
34-year-old who protested on Sunday outside the offices of the
state-owned insurance company where she works for $20 a month, said. "We
want equality," she said.
But after three weeks of economic dislocation which has seen
tourists leave the country and trade and factories facing difficulties,
millions of Egyptians are anxious to start earning again in order to
survive. ------------------------------------
Egypt: Oil and Gas Workers on Strike
by Hossam el-Hamalawy 13 February 2011
Thousands of workers from several oil and gas companies are on
strike, protesting in front of the Ministry of Petroleum, in Nasr City.
The workers have several economic and political demands, including
putting an end to abusive management practices such as sacking workers
who speak up for their rights, reinstating the sacked workers, raising
salaries that roughly average LE400, establishing an independent union,
impeaching the corrupt oil minister Sameh Fahmy, and stopping gas
exports to Israel.
Photo and video by Hossam el-Hamalawy
Hossam el-Hamalawy is an Egyptian socialist, journalist, and photographer. Visit his blog: <www.arabawy.org>. Follow Hossam el-Hamalawy at <twitter.com/3arabawy>. This note was first published in his blog on 13-4 February 2011 under a Creative Commons license. |
|
|
