You are on page 1of 6

Internal material do not circulate

A class analysis of the revolutionary upsurge in the Arab World


Submitted by Richard Becker What is taking place across the Middle East and North Africa is the third great wave of revolts/revolutions against colonialism, neo-colonialism and the regimes installed and sustained by imperialism. Each wave has had its own distinctive characteristics. The first wave was in the post -World War I period against the takeover and division of the Middle East by British and French imperialism. The revolts were so strong in Egypt and Iraq that the British granted nominal independence to Egypt in 1922 and Iraq in 1932, while in reality retaining colonial control of both. Leadership in the rebellions of the period came from the nascent Arab nationalist movement, which took mostly secular but also sometimes religious forms. The second wave followed World War II with the overthrow of the old dependent regimes and monarchies in Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Libya in the 1950s and 1960s, victorious anti-colonial wars in Algeria and Yemen in the 1960s, the rise of the Palestinian revolutionary movement in the late 1960s, and the civil war in Lebanon in the 1970s, where the progressive Lebanese National Movement/PLO alliance was on the verge of victory until Syria intervened against it. There were also mass Palestinian intifadas in 1936-39, 1987-1991, and 2000-2002. The U.S. government and its allies were able to preserve the police-state hereditary monarchies in Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, the UAE and, above all in their estimation, Saudi Arabia. With the exception of the Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen (South Yemen), which existed for two decades under extremely difficult conditions, none of the successful revolutions led to the establishment of workers states. Egypt, Syria and Iraq were all led by parties that had the word socialist in their namethe Arab Socialist Union in Egypt, and the Arab Baath [Renaissance] Socialist Party in Syria and Iraq. All three had strong components of land reform and social welfare programs, but none actually overturned capitalist property relations. The Communist Parties in Egypt and Syria had been weakened by their support for the Soviet Unions disastrous backing of the U.N. partition plan that created the state of Israel in 1948. The Iraqi CP was by far the strongest party at the time of that countrys 1958 revolution, and could possibly have seized power the following year, but was strongly dissuaded from any such attempt by the Soviet CP. Starting in the 1970s, the U.S. had considerable (although not total) success in reversing the antiimperialist orientations of states that had had revolutions and pulling them into its orbit, most importantly Egypt. The weakening and disintegration of the USSRa country with which several Arab states had important economic, military, political and social tiesmade the United States the seemingly unchallengeable power in the region.
1

Internal material do not circulate

These developments were key to Fatahs willingness to lead the PLO into the disastrous 1993 Oslo Peace Process, following the historic mass Intifada that begun in 1987. This decision was based on the belief that only the U.S. government could compel Israel to give up the West Bank and Gaza for a Palestinian state. Or to paraphrase: The American train is the only one leftif we dont get on board well be left behind for good. Iran, Libya now that class analysis is essential The current revolutionary wave is a reaffirmation that there is indeed an Arab Nation divided into many countries. While there are many differences between (and often within) Arab countries, there also powerful elements of shared nationhood: language, common territory, culture and so on. How else can it be explained that the upheaval that started in Tunisia in January has spread to at least 10 other countries in the Arab Worldand none outside. The attempt by the Iranian right-wing, pro-imperialist opposition to revive itself by latching on the movement has so far largely fizzled. One outcome of the current wave is a resurgence of PanArabism, with both bourgeois and revolutionary tendencies. As the recent Irans Green Movement and Egypts revolution: A class analysis by Comrade Mazda points out, the impact must be analyzed country-by-country. From what we can see, the movements in the streets in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, while displaying great courage and determination, are politically amorphous. The most common central demand is for democracy. But, as Lenin insisted on asking: Democracy for which class? Nowhere have we seen any signs, banners or statements demanding workers democracya socialist workers state. The programs and demands put forward, even by the January 14 Front made up of left parties in Tunisia, are progressive but in class terms bourgeois democratic. None of the movements of which we are aware call into question bourgeois property relations. Therefore, the same amorphous demand for democracythat is generally progressive in Tunisia or Egypt against a pro-imperialist, comprador bourgeois regimewould be reactionary in Syria, which has a national bourgeois government targeted by imperialism. To put it another way, it would be hard to imagine a worse government than Mubaraks coming to power in Egypt. However, it would be very easy to imagine something much worse in Syria. In fact, it is safe to say that the overturning of the Syrian (or Iranian) governments under the current circumstances could not be anything but a counterrevolution. This is a big point of departure for the PSL with many forces in the movement here, and many in the demonstrations here and abroad who are lumping all the movements together. The International Socialist Organization is a prime example of this kind of opportunist thinking in the U.S. left. As one ISO member put it at a Feb. 4 ANSWER SF forum: You cant be for some peoples movements and deny others. Others was a reference to the Green Movement in Iran The shallowness of this argument was highlighted by the competing rallies on Feb. 18 in Madison, Wis., with the unions and their supporters on one side, and the much smaller, racist and
2

Internal material do not circulate

anti-union Tea Party on the other. Both could be called peoples movements, but one is progressive and the other thoroughly reactionary. The ISO is quite aware of this, but it is so much easier to go with the (bourgeois) flow rather than have to defend Iranwith all of contradictionsagainst imperialism. It is clear in the Middle East that counterrevolutionary forces are attempting to intervene in the uprisings, with greater and lesser success. Their intervention is facilitated by the amorphous character of the struggle for a non-class-defined democracy. In Syria, very little has come so far of right-wing attempts bring people to the streets, though there certainly is a base of undetermined breadth in the country for such mobilization. It is a very different story in Libya where there appears to be an incipient civil war underway. The opposition is declaring that everything Muammar Qadhafi has done since he led the overthrow of King Idris in 1969 is negative. In Benghazi, it was reported that the opposition raised the pre-1969 flag when it took over the city. According to Wikipedia, "Today, the former flag (1951-1969) is still used by monarchists and the Libyan opposition abroad. We are trying to learn more about the character of the opposition forces inside Libya. Until the 1969 revolution, Libya was home to the U.S. Wheelus Air Force basethe largest air base in the world at the timeand the average Libyan lived in dire poverty. Today, Libya is the highest ranked country in Africa in the Human Development Index. Qadhafi had made many concessions to imperialism in recent years, agreeing to pay $2.7 billion in compensation for the Lockerbie case, dismantling his nuclear and other weapons programs and allowing inspections, improved relations with Italy (the former colonizer), Britain and the United States. He praised Tunisias former dictator Ben Ali after he was overthrown. Many of his pronouncements have been convoluted and sometimes mystical. This has diminished Qadhafi standing among progressive forces as compared to the earlier period when he was seen as a strong opponent of imperialism and supporter of national liberation movements. Despite these changes and increasingly erratic statements, the Qadhafi regime has not become a client of imperialism. For that reason, the United States and European imperialist powers are giving all-out backing to what they see as their sidethe oppositionin the unfolding struggle in Libya. When the ruling class and their media mobilize behind a counterrevolutionary movement, most of the left in the United States joins in. We have witnessed this many times before: China and Eastern Europe in 1989, the Soviet Union in 1991, Yugoslavia through the 1990s and Iran in 2009. Behind the U.S. shift on Mubarak Contrary to the impression created by their statements after Mubarak was ousted, the Obama regime, like its predecessors, very much feared losing Mubarak.

Internal material do not circulate

Even three days into the revolutionary uprising, on Jan. 28, Vice President Joe Biden, speaking on behalf of the administration, said: Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And hes been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with, with Israel. I would not refer to him as a dictator. The change in tune and tone in the last days of Mubaraks rule came when top U.S. officials had concluded that Mubarak could not hold on to the presidency, and that attempting to do so would only serve to further radicalize the revolutionary movement. Since then, we can be sure that the White House, State Department and Pentagon have working around the clock in an attempt to manage the transition, so that the essential elements of the Mubarak regimeminus Mubarak and Suleimanare preserved. They are doing everything they can to keep in power a grouping that will continue: (1) The neo-liberal economic policies that have impoverished tens of millions; and (2) collaboration with the U.S. and Israel against the interests of the Palestinian people and the other oppressed peoples of the region. What they want in short is to make sure that Egypt, the most populous of the Arab countries, remains in the orbit of U.S. imperialism. Israel and the possibility of a new war The uprisings in the region have even further isolated Israel and its protector/sponsor, the U.S. government. The Israeli government strongly and publicly supported Mubarak until the very end. While the Egyptian military proclaimed in its first communiqu that it would honor all international agreements, meaning above all the Camp David Treaty, it has to take into account the feelings of the active and aroused Egyptian masses who are overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist. On Feb. 20 it was announced that Egypt is opening the Rafah crossing with Gaza. How open this crossing will be remains to be seen. If the blockade of Gaza were to fall, it would be a major advance for the Palestinians. The way in which the Gaza blockade has been enforced is emblematic of the triple alliance imperialism, Israel and the reactionary Arab regimesthat has been the unspoken core of U.S. strategic doctrine in the region for decades. Even with their vast military superiority, the U.S. government and Israel by themselves could not succeed. The active cooperation of the collaborationist regimesparticularly Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabiahas been essential. The weak link in this chain has always been the reactionary Arab regimes precisely because they are hated by the great majority of the populations they rule over. This reality has been more than confirmed by recent events, as well as by many politicians and pundits here who express the fear that any kind of real elections would inevitably result in antiAmerican governments. In the midst of these massive rebellions, the U.S. government cast the lone no vote at the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 18, vetoing a resolution condemning Israels massive settlement building in the West Bank. The resolution was co-sponsored by more than 120 countries. The
4

Internal material do not circulate

Obama administration, well aware of how the veto would be perceived, tried very hard to get the Palestinian Authority to withdraw the resolution. Obama, Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials waged a major campaign of threats and bribes aimed at PA President Abbas. But after the devastating picture of the PAs groveling position revealed to all by the disclosure of the Palestine Papers in the negotiations with Israel and the United States, it was not possible for Abbas to go along. The PA leadership also is very aware that all their capitulations have accomplished nothing for the Palestinian people. One Palestinian official told Reuters that "people would take to the streets and topple the president" if he backed down. The events across the region have forced the PA to schedule presidential and legislative elections for September 2011. The elections were supposed to take place in 2009. The PA has put off the elections knowing that its leadership, like those in other client Arab regimes, is increasingly unpopular. But given the sweep of the movement, they felt compelled to set election dates. Whether or not they actually take place remains to be seen. Why did the U.S. veto the Feb. 18 U.N. Security Council resolution, particularly under these circumstances? Undoubtedly, domestic politics and the intensifying struggle over the federal budget with a looming potential shutdown of the government was an important factor. But there is also a fear in U.S. ruling circles that if Israel becomes completely isolated, it could lead to either defections of more Israelis in the form of emigration, or more likely, it could lead to Israel launching a new war. There is no question that the Israeli military is aggressively preparing for new wars. And there is no little doubt that the top Israeli leadersNetanyahu, Lieberman, Barak and others are eager for a new war, either against Lebanon (and possibly Syria as well this time) or in Gaza. War is Israelis strongest card and has been the typical Israeli response to radical developments in the region, including the 1956 and 1967 wars, the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the re-occupation of the West Bank and Gaza cities in 2003, and the assaults on Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008-2009. As a highly militarized colonial state artificially implanted in a region with which it has nothing in common, Israels existence necessitates a permanent war footing. Because of its dependence on U.S. military, economic and diplomatic support, Israel cannot launch new wars without the green light from Washington. But getting that green light is not always a straightforward, yes or no proposition. It is highly doubtful in the present situation that the U.S. government would okay a major new Israeli military move. But the Israelis are very experienced in creating provocations that lead to a response. This allows the Zionist state to justify its assault that inevitably follows as retaliation. Here is a recent example, among hundreds of similar ones over the years: On the day before the U.N. resolution vote, the Israeli army killed three Palestinian men working on a beach in northern Gaza, using exceptionally heavy weaponry to blow them to pieces. The

Internal material do not circulate

obvious reason for such an attack was to draw a response from Palestinian forces in Gaza in the form of rocket firings into southern Israel. This was the latest in a series of recent Israeli attacks on Gaza with the clear intent of escalation and perhaps leading to a major assault along the lines of 2008-2009 or bigger, since that one inflicted much death and destruction but failed to achieve its objective of crushing Hamas. In such a scenario, public opinion could be more easily mobilized in the United States to support such an attack. Without predicting that Israel will launch a new war, we must be prepared for the possibility. It is also very possible that if some of the intifadas in the Arab World were to go in a more radical, anti-imperialist direction, Washington could decide that such a war would be desirable. If Israel were to initiate a new war, there is the possibility of it escalating into a wider regional conflict. There is no doubt that Israel has been restrained up until now by the U.S. government from attacking Irans nuclear facilities. The Israelis are working hard to play up the so-called Iranian threat in regard to two Iranian warships planning to pass through the Suez Canal, although this is something U.S. aircraft carriers do on a regular basis. Again, this is not a prediction of a new war, but the PSL as a revolutionary party must be aware that it is possible, particularly given the volatile conditions in the region. A tremendous development The revolutionary wave sweeping the Arab World is overall a tremendous progressive development. While it is overwhelmingly a development in the Arab countries, it has inspired people all over the world, including in Wisconsin. For all the cynics who argue that protests do not accomplish anything, there is a now a good one-word answer: Egypt. The idea that the people could bring down the brutal Mubarak regimewith a 1.7 million-strong internal security force and a massive armyseemed little more than a dream just weeks ago. The uprisings have overnight transformed revolution into a positive term. As the PSL statements and articles have pointed out, the Egyptian people, along with their counterparts in Tunisia, have dramatically confirmed the reality that the people are the real makers of history.

You might also like