No to imperialist intervention in Syria

Editorial of the Socialist - http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/17295/28-08-2013/no-to-imperialist-intervention-in-syria
Via social media, smart phones and traditional news channels a flood of bloody images, footage and reports of the unbearable suffering inflicted on the Syrian masses has been broadcast around the world.

Initially in 2011, following the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, there was a popular uprising against Assad's police state. But, as has been explained in the Socialist, interventions and enormous financial and military backing came from the semi-feudal monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and imperialist forces in the hope of derailing that movement.

The uprising against Assad's dictatorship has been skewed now into a sectarian conflict and has, moreover, unleashed a dangerous battle between the Sunnis and the Shias on a regional scale. The death toll of Syria's now years-long conflict is estimated to be over 100,000. Two million people have fled the country and around five million are internally displaced. This is horror piled upon horror.

For the overwhelming majority of people the news that chemical weapons have been used in Ghouta, a district of Damascus, appears to represent the opening of a new circle of hell for the suffering masses. The reports that the dead are numbered in their hundreds and the injured in their thousands are as heart-breaking as they are horrifying.

Given what has taken place, combined with the threat of regional instability looming, a desire for a solution to this horror is a human response. But to hope that the US and UK governments and their allies in France, Germany and Turkey could bring any solution, given history, both recent and long-term, is horribly mistaken.
Air strikes

Over the last months US President Obama has warned that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a 'red line' to trigger an international response no fewer than five times. Already there are three US warships in the Mediterranean with another on its way. Pilots in Cyprus have reported seeing warplanes on British airfields there.

Foreign Secretary William Hague has been preparing the ground here in Britain, indicating that the absence of a UN mandate will be no obstacle: "it's possible to take action based on great humanitarian distress." He's suggested that action, most likely intense aerial bombardment, could take place within weeks, if not days. The UN security committee is split with Russia and China opposing intervention in the interests of their own capitalist classes.

Hague is also reported to have been liaising with the dictatorial and repressive Qatari and Saudi regimes who would welcome a defeat of Assad as a blow against Iran and Hezbollah. Iran has warned that western military intervention will destabilise the region.

Patrick Cockburn, Middle East commentator, has pointed out the difficulties of ascertaining who bears responsibility for the recent chemical attack. The UN inspectors were granted access and a ceasefire agreed but the inspectors came under fire and were ordered out within hours. However, that in itself does not yet prove who was responsible and the inspectors are only due to decide if there was a chemical attack.

Before UN inspectors have publicly reported, US Secretary of State, John Kerry said that the US would respond to the "undeniable" use of chemical weapons in Syria and that President Bashar al-Assad's forces had committed a "moral obscenity" against his own people.

'Moral obscenity' might also be a good word to describe the destruction of Iraq, including the alleged use of white phosphorous and depleted uranium tipped missiles, the open air prison that denies the Palestinians their democratic and national rights, silence in the face of genocidal slaughter in Sri Lanka, not to mention imperialist powers' record of employing chemical and nuclear weapons.

There is major domestic public opposition to US and UK involvement despite the desire for an end to the slaughter. Memories of the build-up to the invasion of Iraq and the 'dodgy dossier' claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction are evoked by the current rush to attack. That is compounded by the failure of the British government to publish the results of the Chilcot inquiry.

Obama's election programme included pledges to bring an end to US involvement in Iraq and the years of Bush's warmongering. Instead he has been a war president with the murderous drones multiplying in Afghanistan and Pakistan, albeit largely replacing troops on the ground, and the maintenance of Guantanamo Bay. 60% of the US population oppose US military involvement in Syria.

But both the US and UK governments have an interest in appearing as heroes to the Syrian masses and as defenders of democracy, mired as they are in a profound crisis of capitalism, with no solution, and with anger against them mounting.
Iraq war

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq the Lib Dems polished their thin anti-war credentials by opposing action without a UN mandate. The Socialist Party pointed out that the UN could not be relied on as an arbitrator in the interests of the Iraqi people, comprised and dominated as it is by representatives of the major imperialist and warmongering governments of the world. However, former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown now argues that, in the case of Syria, unilateral action is preferable to inaction.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander has demanded parliament be recalled. Cameron looks likely to do this, as he faces opposition from a small number of his own backbenchers, such are the complications and risks for the future of the entire region.

Labour has not indicated how it would vote. A genuine working people's party would massively oppose any form of military action in Syria. But Labour has a lustrous record as vicious warmongers in government, sending troops to Iraq for a war for oil in the interest of big business and for strategic aims.

In opposition Labour boasts an almost spotless record of kowtowing to the rotten Con-Dem austerity policies. Yet again the need to build a new political force to represent the anti-war, anti-austerity majority is glaring.

There can be no hope that any action on the part of this government or its international counterparts can bring relief to the populations of Syria or the Middle East. In fact it is guaranteed that increased bombing will bring increased suffering to the masses. And this is why it must be opposed.

'Regime change' is not a cited aim, because Assad's is a relatively strong regime, because of the fierce opposition of Russia, and because the question of who would replace it is so problematic. Given the significant funding and growth of Al-Qa'ida in Syria there are also serious dangers of a 'blowback' of increased terrorism, in the region and inside Britain and its allies in this adventure.

There is no real capitalist solution to this conflict, threatening as it does in the unstable arena of the region, to unravel into wider ethnic conflict which could last for years. What is clear from Iraq, from Libya, and from all imperialist military interventions, is that the interests of the working class and poor in the region are not a driving force.

There is no shortcut to the building of, and encouraging the establishment of, independent working class forces that can unite the poor and oppressed and suffering in their common interests against both the forces of imperialism and their semi-feudal and capitalist allies in the region.
We say:
No to imperialist intervention! The withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria and the region
Against all oppression, the people must democratically decide their own fate
For the building of united, non-sectarian defence committees to defend workers, the poor and others against sectarian attacks from all sides
Prepare a movement to fight for a government of representatives of workers and the poor
For a revolutionary constituent assembly in Syria
The implementation of the national and democratic rights of the masses, with the recognition of the right of the Kurdish people to self-determination including, if they so wish, the right to their own state
Independent trade unions and the building of mass workers' parties with a programme of land to the masses and the factories to the workers, implemented through a programme for a socialist democratic planned economy
A democratic socialist confederation of the Middle East and North Africa

Tunisia: Kiling of Chokri Belaïd provokes mass protests across the country

CWI Reporters: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6153

The CWI and its supporters in Tunisia vigorously condemn the brutal murder of the left opposition leader, Chokri Belaid. ‘Chokri’ was the leading figure of the left-wing ‘Democratic Patriots’ Party, with a strong influence in the UGTT trade union federation, and a spokesman and leading figure of the left coalition, the ‘Popular Front’. He was a well-known and long-standing opponent to Ben Ali’s dictatorship, as well as a lawyer with a long record of defending the victims of political repression, under the old as well as the new regime. He was imprisoned by both the Bourguiba and Ben Ali dictatorships.

On the morning of Wednesday 6 February, Chokri was ruthlessly shot with four bullets in the head, neck and chest, as he was leaving his house. Chokri Belaïd subsequently died of his injuries in hospital.

This act is not an isolated incident. Based on all evidence, it is clearly a professionally-organised political assassination, targeting a symbolic figure of the left. And this in a context of growing tension and political violence from the state forces, from fundamentalist Salafist bands, as well as militias at the service of the ruling Ennahda party.

In statements on the radio on the eve of his assassination, Chokri Belaïd reported death threats he had received recently because of his political stance. Last Saturday, he had similarly accused “mercenaries” hired by the Ennahda party of carrying out an attack on a Democratic Patriots’ local meeting in Le Kef, which left 11 people injured. The Ennahda-led government regarded Belaïd as one of the instigators of ‘social unrest’ in the country. By attempting to silence his voice, it is the revolution, and the resistance of the working class and the youth, as a whole, which are in the firing line.

The CWI has never hidden its differences with the political orientation of Chokri Belaïd and of the Democratic Patriots. We nevertheless want to express our full sympathy with all the activists of this organisation, as well as with the left in general and with the revolutionary people of Tunisia, and our deep feelings of resentment against this cold-blooded assassination. This adds to the already too long list of Tunisian martyrs who lost their lives fighting against injustice and oppression, and for a better society.

The overwhelming majority of Tunisian people reject this act of violence. Immediately after Belaid’s death, a large wave of anger is already resonating throughout the country. Shortly afterwards, tens of thousands of people were already protesting in Tunis, Le Kef, Gafsa, Sousse, Sfax, Sidi Bouzid and other cities, demanding justice and the fall of the present government and a “new revolution”.

Acts of violence, riots, and the burning of Ennahda offices have also been reported in some areas. While we understand the rage and anger which exists, we also genuinely think that the most efficient way to express it remains through the channels of organised mass mobilisation, the power of working class action and of their powerful trade union centre, the UGTT.

The setting up of collective bodies of defence and protection, democratically organised by the population in the neighbourhoods, could avoid excesses by rioters and face police repression, as well as the predictable violence of some militias. Stewarding teams could be set up in that context, working in conjunction with the UGTT, the UDC (unemployed union) and other popular organizations.
Towards a general strike! Down with this rotten and discredited government!

The best way to commemorate the death of Chokri Belaïd is to continue the revolution, more determined than ever, to end oppression in all its forms. Ultimately, only the mass mobilisation of workers can counteract the current downward spiral of violence by imposing a solution which can serve the majority.

The fact that the Ennahda Prime Minister, Hamadi Jebali, has announced the formation of a government supposedly composed of “apolitical technocrats” should fool nobody. It is a new attempt to prevent the masses from determining the government they want. It leaves this to technocrats handpicked and closely selected for their subservience to the current system. And the fact that this proposal was rejected by Jebali’s party indicates that the political crisis at the top of the State has reached a climax. It is time to put an end once and for all to this crumbling government, which has only violence, unemployment and misery on offer!

A general strike has been called for Friday 8 February by the UGTT, echoing the call made yesterday, Wednesday, by several opposition forces, including the Popular Front, the Republican Party, Al Massar and Nidaa Tounes, who have also announced the suspension of their participation in the National Constituent Assembly. The date of the strike is to coincide with the funeral of Belaïd.

The fact that the question of the general strike is back on the agenda for the second time in less than two months, while the last one took place in 1978, is in itself an expression of the organic crisis facing the country, and of the huge social anger that has been brewing for months on end. But two crucial remarks are necessary in this regard.

The first is that the UGTT activists and workers in general cannot rely solely on hypothetical and often very late watchwords from the top to determine what has to be done to build the struggle in the coming days. The experience of last December, when the national leadership of the UGTT arbitrarily decreed the cancellation of the general strike the night before, is still fresh in all memories.

For example, the magistrates and lawyers’ unions have already issued a statement in which they say they will be on strike for three days, the university teachers of ‘La Manouba’ are already on strike and the student union, the UGET, has begun a students’ general strike today. The regional branch of the UGTT, in Jendouba, has meanwhile decided to call a general strike in this region on Monday, 11 February.

Without further waiting, general assemblies should be convened wherever possible: in the workplaces, but also in schools, in universities, in the neighbourhoods, etc. This entails electing committees within them to take the fight in hand at all levels, so that the movement is structured around and according to the will of the masses involved in the struggle.

Discussion on the initiatives to be taken and the following-up of the strike actions must be brought up and democratically controlled from below. This can prevent a handful of union leaders concluding, behind the curtains, some deal without popular control, as has happened all too often.

If after the general strike on 8 February, the government has still not understood that it must leave the scene, an extension of the strike actions in the coming days, coupled with mass demonstrations, will be necessary to obtain a satisfactory result.

On the other hand, the support of parties like Nidaa Tounes for the general strike raises, at least, serious questions. The camp of its leader, Essebsi, is full of people with the blood of left activists on their hands, and who were complicit with the dictatorship against which Chokri Belaïd himself fought for many years.

The labour movement, the UGTT and the Left must at all costs avoid falling into the trap of a dichotomy based on the “secular” camp against the “Islamist” camp, a thesis dear to secular, but pro-capitalist parties, such as Nida Tounes. Their goal is not to defend the workers and the popular masses, but rather to better serve the interests of big business, the bankers and the imperialist powers, although with a different “colour” to that of Ennahda today.

Belaïd’s sister was correct to emphasize that Chokri was among those “on the side of the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed ...” contrasting with those in the political establishment who are now trying to cynically exploit his death, reducing his character to an “enemy of Islamists”, putting aside the fact that Belaïd was also on the radical left.

In this sense, the Tunisian masses may not want to bring down the government, only so that those driven out the door two years ago can come back quietly through the window, using, in addition, the revolution and the strength of the working class as a Trojan horse. In this sense, we say: no to the plague, and no to the cholera - no Jebali and no Essebsi! Yes to a sustained mass struggle until the creation of a revolutionary government of the workers and youth, supported by the trade union movement, the left and popular organisations!

In the current context, the ‘Popular Front’ and its many activists around the country could serve as a backbone for a mass campaign with the strategic vision of establishing such a government, independent of the capitalist class, from its political parties and its so-called ‘technocrats’, and taking decisive action to put the key sectors of the Tunisian economy under the management and control of society.

We demand:

For the continuation of the revolution until victory! For a general strike until the fall of the government!

Not to a government “re-modelling” behind the backs of the masses! For truly democratic elections, and the formation of a government composed of representatives of those who actually made the revolution!

For a revolutionary government of workers and youth! Down with the capitalist exploiters and the politicians at their service!

Capitalism out! For a socialist planned economy, serving social needs, and democratically run by the people!

Egypt: President Mursi’s ‘Constitutional Decree’ sparks angry protests

By David Johnson, Socialist Party (CWI England and Wales)

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6055

In November 2010 former president Hosni Mubarak’s parliamentary elections were so rigged they laughably saw his party winning 81% of the seats. Eight weeks later the mass uprising began leading to his overthrow.

In November 2011 revolutionary youth opposing the continuing rule of the Supreme Council of Armed Forces – appointed by Mubarak – were brutally attacked by security forces.

Now in November 2012 there are renewed demonstrations and clashes with security forces on the streets of Cairo and other cities. This time the spark has been the constitutional announcement by President Mohamed Mursi on Thursday 23 November.
Mursi’s declaration stirs rapid opposition

Hours after mediating the Gaza ceasefire between Hamas and the Israeli government, glowing with praise from world leaders, Mursi declared he was “authorised to take any measures he sees fit in order to preserve the revolution, to preserve national unity or to safeguard national security.”

No presidential decision taken since 30th June (when Mursi took office) could be overturned by the courts. Neither the constituent assembly drawing up a new constitution nor parliament’s upper house (the Shura Council) could face legal challenge.

Both bodies are dominated by right wing political Islamists, from Mursi’s Freedom and Justice Party (the Muslim Brotherhood) and the even more conservative Nour Party (the Salafists). In previous weeks, liberal and Christian members of the constituent assembly had walked out, claiming the majority’s constitutional proposals were undemocratic.

Mursi sugared the pill by announcing retrials for Mubarak and those of his henchmen recently acquitted of organising killings of protestors during the January 25th 2011 uprising. The Attorney General, also a remnant of the previous regime, was dismissed.

Within hours of Mursi’s announcement, thousands demonstrated in Tahrir Square, including many football fans, chanting "Down with Mohamed Mursi Mubarak" and “The people want to topple the regime.” Tear gas, birdshot and rocks were used by security forces and field hospitals were set up by demonstrators, in scenes reminiscent of 2011’s street battles.

On the 24 November hundreds of judges protested with the same chants. Some courts have gone on strike and more may follow. The head of the lawyers’ association told the judges, “The country’s fate is in your hands now. If you decided to strike, we will strike. If you decided to stage a sit-in, we will join you.”

During Mubarak’s last years, many judges criticised his rigging of elections. Many reflect the views of liberal middle class opponents to the Muslim Brotherhood, although others hope to see a return of the former regime under which they prospered. Another group of judges support Mursi. Splits in the judiciary are a sign of wider divisions in Egypt. Shares on the stock exchange fell 10% on Sunday 25 November.
Splits appearing in Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood is not immune to these divisions. The chairman of the Shura Council was reported to have criticised Mursi’s announcement (although he subsequently denied this), despite being a leading Brotherhood member himself, while the Justice Minister said he had reservations about the President’s announcement.

It seems that the strength of opposition could make Mursi partially back down rather than risk growing confrontation on the streets. A Muslim Brotherhood statement on Friday 23 November called for marches on Sunday 25 November and a “million-man march” on Tuesday 27 November in support of Mursi. But on Sunday, the Freedom and Justice Party issued a more conciliatory statement saying “it is looking forward to a dialogue with all political parties and forces and social groups and movements with regard to the current situation or the draft… an opportunity to achieve the desired consensus, so as to fulfil the hopes and aspirations of all the Egyptian people.” And on Monday their “million-man” march was called off.

Crackdowns on the media are also growing. Earlier this month privately-owned Dream TV was ordered off air (apart from its sports and entertainment shows). It has a long record of criticising the previous and current regimes. A court has now temporarily overturned the original ban. Another TV channel supporting the previous regime has also been closed down. A newspaper editor is awaiting trial, charged with insulting the new president. On Sunday a meeting of the journalists’ syndicate (association) threatened a strike in response to Mursi’s move.
Mursi’s attempt to strengthen his powers shows anxiety over bigger challenges to come. His honeymoon in office is running out. Although many still support Mursi, this is probably temporarily boosted by his mediating role in Gaza.

Three million workers in Egypt are now organised in 800 independent trade unions (compared to four independent unions before the 2011 uprising). Two thousand Ain al-Sokhna dockworkers employed by DP World (owned by the Dubai government) struck in October, with 800 occupying the port in shifts, bringing it to a standstill. They were protesting against the sacking of eight trade union activists and successfully forced the company to back down. Cadbury, Suzuki Motors, Pirelli Tyres and other multinational corporations have all sacked trade union activists.

On 14 November, Cairo metro workers went on strike, returning four hours later after the company chair agreed to resign and pay talks were agreed. The leaders were summoned by security forces and charged with hindering work, but they warned the workers would be back on strike if they were harmed.

After many strikes and protests in recent months, Mursi has threatened, “In the new law there is no room for blockading roads or [obstructing] production.” The government is making organisation of independent unions harder. It wants to strengthen the state-backed Egyptian Trade Union Federation, replacing its Mubarak-era leaders with Muslim Brotherhood members.
IMF loan with strings attached

The International Monetary Fund has just approved a $4.8billion loan to help Egypt’s growing budget deficit. Fearing further revolutionary movements, “there is a strong international desire to help stabilise the rule of Mohamed Morsi and avert economic shocks which could provoke unrest in the Arab world’s most populous nation.” (Financial Times 24.11.12)

The price of the loan is a 22-month ‘reform’ programme, aimed particularly at cutting energy subsidies that account for 20% of the budget. Millions depend on subsidised fuel for cooking, heating and transport. An IMF spokesperson said, “Given the magnitude [of the subsidies], it will take several years to wind them down. To get buy in [from the population] and protect those in need, savings cannot be used exclusively to reduce the deficit but must also shore up necessary social spending.”

Food costs continue to rise, causing great hardship. All the problems under Mubarak remain – including jobs and housing shortages, inadequate health care, sexual harassment of women, electricity and water cuts, overcrowded and poorly maintained roads and public transport.

Over 50 young children going to school were killed when their bus was struck by a train on 17th November – the latest of many tragedies in Egypt where terrible safety claimed innocent lives. Egypt’s infrastructure continues to crumble, unchanged by revolutionary upheavals over the past two years. The prime minister was chased away from the hospital by family members when he visited.
Independent working class organisation with socialist programme needed

Workers need to continue building their own independent trade unions. A mass workers’ party is also needed to draw together workers, youth and community activists involved in struggle. While it is correct to march together with liberal forces in opposition to Mursi’s undemocratic measures, workers’ organisations need an independent identity and programme.

Less than six months ago, the Revolutionary Socialists (linked to the International Socialist Tendency/British SWP) called for support for Mursi in the second round of the presidential election to defeat the old regime candidate, Ahmed Shafiq. They wrote of “the error in failure to discriminate between the reformism of the Muslim Brotherhood and the ‘fascism’ of Shafiq.” (28th May statement) What sort of ‘reformism’ is Mursi showing now, as he negotiates with the IMF and tries to put himself above legal challenge?

The Revolutionary Socialists now say the Muslim Brotherhood regime and the remnants of the old regime “are two sides of the same coin…We say to Mursi: you and your organisation are the real threat to the revolution, as you embrace Mubarak’s businessmen, run panting after loans from the IMF, trade in religion, threaten national unity and sell the revolution.” (23rd November 2012)

Such twists and turns, without analysing their earlier mistaken positions, confuse instead of clarify. Who do the RS include in their “national unity”? Is it the same “national unity” Mursi spoke of in his announcement?

What is needed is unity between workers, poor people and youth around a programme of democratic socialist change – a second revolution to win real, lasting democratic rights and to take into public ownership under genuine democratic control all the major companies and banks. Egypt’s wealth could then be planned for the benefit of all, ending disasters such as the 17th November rail crash. A socialist Egypt would inspire a new wave of democratic socialist revolution across the region.

Tunisia: Open letter from Paul Murphy MEP to the President of Tunisian Republic

From: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5695
To: Moncef Marzouki, President of the Tunisian Republic

Dear Mr Marzouki,

I have been following the situation in Tunisia very closely, especially after I had the opportunity to visit Tunisia on a delegation from the European Parliament in May of last year. Since then I have kept close contact with many of the trade unionists, human rights campaigners and youth activists I had met.

It is with dismay that I heard reports on the conditions the opposition movement have faced in recent days. I want to express my opposition at the brutal repression your government has wielded against peaceful protesters last Monday while they were commemorating the anniversary of ‘Martyrs’ Day’. I also heard reports of passers-by being attacked for just being in the vicinity of the march.

Masked police officers and government supporters attacked people using tear gas, batons and electric batons. They particularly focussed on well known activists and left wing supporters, these horrific scenes remind me of the darkest days under Ben Ali. As a result of these attacks many people needed to be hospitalised and an unknown number of people are being held in custody.






This is not the only example of the repression used by your government; a demonstration that took place last Saturday, organised by the ’Union of Unemployed Graduates’ met a similar fate.

This situation is in sharp contrast to the hopes and aspirations of the mass of people who rose up and overthrew the Ben Ali dictatorship. Having been yourself the President of the Tunisian League of Human Rights between 1989 and 1994, and an opponent to Ben Ali’s dictatorship, it is particularly disgraceful from your part to imply that both parties are equally to blame for what happened. I urge your government and its security forces and supporters to fully respect the people’s basic democratic right to freedom of speech and assembly and to cancel the state of emergency.

All protesters arrested in the last few days must be immediately released without charge. It is also crucial that there is an independent investigation into these events by representatives of trade unions, the UDC and other popular organisations.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Murphy

Member of the European Parliament.

Tunisia: Interview with a Tunisian Socialist

"Revolution is a process, not a single act"

From The Socialist, 1st Feb 2012
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/703/13673/01-02-2012/interview-the-tunisian-revolution-one-year-on

14 January marked the first anniversary of the downfall of the hated dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali by the Tunisian revolution. The Socialist spoke to two socialists who are campaigning in Tunisia and who sympathise with the politics of the Committee for a Workers' International, to which the Socialist Party is affiliated. For more international news and analysis see:www.socialistworld.net

Can you describe the situation in Tunisia today?

Revolution is a process, not a single act. This process is still continuing, which can be seen by the new wave of protests which has taken place in Tunisia, especially since the beginning of the year.

Every day, new protests against the authorities, new strikes for better social conditions, sit-ins by people expressing their grievances are occurring all over the country.

The anniversary of the revolution has provided a momentum for what seems to be the biggest wave of mobilisations since one year ago, which has taken in some areas an almost 'insurrectional' character. In the mining areas around Gafsa, the situation is explosive, with regular strikes and demonstrations, and entire localities being self-run by inhabitants.

A regional general strike has also taken place and lasted five days in the governorate (region) of Siliana, in the south, between 13 and 18 January, to protest against poverty and the social marginalisation of the region.

Revolution in Arabic means a complete, fundamental break from the past, but this has not happened. All these protests show that people have still got much to fight for, that conditions for the majority have not fundamentally changed.

The objective conditions in society that caused the revolutionary upheaval are still present. In many respects daily life for the majority has actually got worse. Unemployment has literarily exploded, while this issue was at the heart of people's demands in the first place.

Since 14 January of last year, there have been 107 cases of new self-immolations in the country, with at least six during the first week of this year. Most of them are unemployed people, desperate and ready to do anything to get a job.

There has been no fundamental break from the past system; consequently it is entirely predictable that the mass of people continue to struggle. So it is clear that the revolution - people looking for real change in society, and erupting en masse onto the scene to impose it - is still alive.
After the first stage of the revolution can you draw up a balance sheet of what has been won and what is still to be won?

The first thing to note is that the capitalist class was relying on the old regime of President Ben Ali to defend its interests. When Ben Ali was overthrown, the capitalists were initially destabilised. Faced with a revolution that threatened their social existence, they had to concede important demands especially in the political sphere, in an attempt to restore a certain control.

Under the pressure of the mobilisations, a lot of leading figures in the state machine were removed, the ex-ruling party, Ben Ali's RCD, was dissolved, etc. The movement was so powerful that even the commentators in the capitalist-controlled media were forced to admit that this was a revolution.

However, since the initial revolutionary upsurge, there has been a conscious attempt by the capitalists to concentrate attention solely on questions of political democracy and political representation, but not to concede on the fundamental social foundations of capitalism.

All the elements linked to the capitalist class have deployed efforts to derail the revolutionary process towards the safe channels of 'legality', towards the old existing constitution and institutions. But it was the revolutionary youth and workers who imposed the election for a new Constituent Assembly, after the second mass occupation of the Kasbah Square.

The majority have no clear objectives in which direction to take society, the political consciousness is quite mixed. The mass of the people are trying to navigate themselves through the daily poverty and corrupt state bureaucracy bearing down on them.

However, there is a realisation among many that simply by removing the figurehead of the old regime, their lives have not and will not improve fundamentally.

People are angry and frustrated by the lack of progress. Many lost friends and relatives in the revolution, but see that their sacrifices have been hijacked by the ruling class. Even the martyrs' families have seen their cases denied real justice. A lot of the killers are still running free, including some whose identity is known.

And the people injured by the state's repression in the beginning of the year have been denied proper medical assistance. 90% of the people who were shot still have the bullet in their bodies, because of the lack of serious medical treatment! A lot have lost their jobs, or even their lives, since. In some cases the police have even been sent against them when they were protesting.

The British press has made a lot of the Islamist parties' election victory. How do socialists view it?

The 'moderate' religious party Ennahda was the main winner of December's parliamentary elections. It made gains at the expense of the other parties because it exploited the pressing social issues - poverty and unemployment, etc - of the majority.

Ennahda was also able to convince many voters that the other 'secular' parties were 'anti-religious' and wanted to attack Islam. This was made possible because most secular parties encouraged the political debate to be polarised in such a way that the burning social issues were not really addressed.

Ennahda also bought votes with money from the Qatar regime and elsewhere. Ennahda members promised voters gifts of all sorts, such as sacrificial sheep for the feast of 'Aid al-Adha'. When these didn't materialise there were protests.

It is not so much that Ennahda is a strong force in society; rather it is the case that the other opposition parties are very weak. And Ennahda was then able to fill the vacuum.

However, Ennahda will lose support as it fails to deliver in terms of improving the social conditions of the poor. This cannot fail to happen, as Ennahda's policy is nothing but a new version of the old regime's policies. And many people are drawing such a conclusion.

In January Ennahda attempted to impose figures associated with the old regime at the head of the public media. This provoked such an outcry that they had to step back.

Already Ennahda has experienced a fall in support in the opinion polls, from 41% to 28%. And a certain part of Ennahda's electoral support is on the streets to protest against the party they voted for in October. That does not mean an automatic drop in support for right-wing political Islam in general - as more fundamentalist wings are also trying to step in - but it shows that a significant layer of Ennahda's votes is not based on firm ground.
The workers, through strike action, played a decisive part in the revolution. What is happening now within the workers' movement?

In December 2011, a new national bureau of the UGTT [Union Générale Tunisienne du Travail, the Tunisian TUC] was elected. This is significant, as this new leadership is currently in a 'cold war' with the government. Among the 13 members of the new bureau, there are nine who purport to be from a 'Marxist' tradition.

The UGTT is potentially more powerful than any political party in the country, and to an extent the new leadership understands this. The UGTT leaders are not revolutionary. Despite coming from a Marxist background, they are not relating their day-to-day activities and propaganda to thesocialist transformation of society.

Nonetheless they are much more to the left than the previous leadership and not directly associated with Ben Ali's dictatorial regime as the previous ones were.

A number of them come from a militant background, they know that the crisis of capitalism is worsening the attacks on the working class and are more attuned to the mood of the rank-and-file workers. They are therefore pressurised to speak the 'language of the class struggle' and adopt a more radical stand in relation to the new government.

There are workers' struggles breaking out everywhere in Tunisia at the present time, including some key sectors of the working class, for example in the gas industry where a blockade of the port of Gabès has taken place. The oil sector has also been hit by strike actions. Workers and poor have also been involved in blocking the railways and roads.

Figures have been released stating there are on average four road blockades taking place every day. There have been sit-ins and in some cases hunger strikes, to improve working conditions and to demand more jobs.

These strikes have not only addressed social and economic demands, but have also been political in character - demanding the removal of corrupt officials and managers associated with the old regime, and targeting the new government's impotence in the face of their grievances.

The main challenge is for the UGTT to turn itself into a democratic and fighting body, working to strengthen the organisation of the working class, including orientating towards the massive amount of angry unemployed, and to embrace a positive programme which can challenge the rule of capitalism.

Of course we are not utopian. Without a mass party for working people that can be a lever for achieving a socialist revolution, all sorts of prospects could open up. That's why building such a party is now the most important task for revolutionaries.

The imperialist powers want to showcase Tunisia as a democratic 'model' of a capitalist-controlled transition. Imperialism would be panicked if there is a workers' movement going in the direction of controlling the economy. That is something they want to avoid at all costs because of the consequences for the entire region. This is the reason why there is such an aggressive ideological campaign in the media to attack workers on strike, a campaign aimed at scaring people, saying that strikes and sit-ins are "pushing away investors and destroying jobs", etc.

But this campaign seems to have little effect on the working class. The capitalists expected that with a new elected government, it would have sufficient authority to bring social stability. The demand from the new President of the Republic, arguing for a "social truce of six months" has reflected this. But it does not work. The continuous pressure put on the government because of the struggles and strikes could result in imperialist countries providing the Tunisian government with more financial support to calm the situation. But their margin of manoeuvre is limited, given the general economic conjuncture.
What role has been played by the left forces in Tunisia?

The left has historically played a central role in many important working class struggles and social gains, including on women's rights and to provide a public healthcare system.

There are now many organisations on the left. However, the litmus test in Tunisia today is the application of a socialist programme to take the workers' struggles forward.

The country could experience a Greek-style period of protracted struggle, because of the lack of a mass workers' party with a socialist programme to carry the movement towards challenging the capitalist system.

There can be no permanent solution for society's problems within capitalism. Those forces on the left who argue that a first, 'democratic capitalist' stage needs to be fulfilled before talking of socialism are misleading the working class. But capitalism is only interested in exploiting workers, not in putting in place a real democracy.

The only way out of the impasse is for the working class to achieve socialism. Concretely, a socialist programme must address the questions of a full jobs programme based on sharing the work and on massive investment in public infrastructure, a decent welfare for all, workers' control of industry and banks... But unfortunately the left does not put forward a clear programme on these issues.

The CWI in Tunisia demands the non-payment of the country's 'debt' from the old regime, the nationalisation of the banks and of the entire wealth of the ex-ruling clans under democratic control of the working class and the population, and a government based on the workers and on the people who have made the revolution, in order to fulfil these measures. At the moment we argue for the organisation of a general strike as a first step to unite in one powerful show of strength all the people who are struggling in different parts of the country.

What message would you like to give to workers fighting austerity measures and the crisis of capitalism in other countries?

After the revolution the media opened up a bit in Tunisia. So instead of the usual football matches on TV, we were also able to see workers' struggles in Europe, such as in Greece. Greece is to Europe what Tunisia was to the Maghreb and the region, in the sense that these workers' struggles have been hugely inspiring.

In Britain there has recently been a regeneration of the trade unions and workers' strikes after a relatively long period of quiescence. This is very significant, as it also shows the limitations of the rulers' propaganda, and how the situation can be transformed if working people organise and take their fate into their hands.

Egypt Update: Military rulers “agree to form a national salvation government”

No trust in a ‘national salvation’ regime based on the interests of the ruling class, military tops and imperialism - latest from http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5433


Reuters news agency reported this afternoon that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) in Egypt has agreed to “form a national salvation government and will stage presidential elections before July”. The leader of the Wasat Party (a ‘moderate Islamic party) is quoted as saying presidential elections will now be held before July 2012, brought forward from the military’s previous timetable of late 2012 or 2013.


The military regime has been forced to make a partial retreat in the face of mass struggle. This is entirely as a result of the courageous mass protests of youth and workers. But as the CWI has warned from the beginning of the revolutionary movement in Egypt, the masses cannot put any trust in a ‘national unity’ or ‘salvation’ government. This is a trap for working people and youth! It will be made up of elements from the army and various bourgeois parties, possibly including the Muslim Brotherhood, and pro-capitalist politicians. It will primarily act in the vested interests of big business, including the army’s huge wealth.







Scenes today in Tahrir square


The reported concessions by the military regime follow mass protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and elsewhere, demanding the military - the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) - relinquishes power. The last four days have seen the biggest challenge to military rule since the overthrow of Mubarak. Scores of people have been killed and hundreds injured in three days of protests. Two people died today in the port city of Ismailia after state forces clashed with some thousands of protesters. Late last night, tens of thousands occupied Tahrir Square after the puppet cabinet of Prime Minister Essam Sharaf announced its offer to resign.


Parliamentary elections were due to start on 28 November and to be staggered over the next three months. Protesters are angry over a draft document setting out principles for a new constitution, under which the military and its budget could be exempted from civilian oversight. The military also intended to delay the presidential election until late 2012 or early 2013.


Under growing pressure from the streets, the SACF leadership held talks with some opposition political leaders today, including the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The MB’s ‘Freedom and Equality Party’ is expected to do well in elections and refused to take part in today’s protests.
Youth resist state forces


The angry youth on the streets, however, are resisting riot police, troops, rubber bullets, tear gas and ‘birdshot’ and demand the removal of Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi - who heads the SCAF regime and was defence minister for 20 years under Hosni Mubarak - and that the military cleared out. Under military rule, torture and jailings continued unabated.


The Brotherhood called for the elections to go ahead. They are partly leaning on those sections of the population who are concerned that the protests are bringing chaos to much of Cairo and the city to a standstill, hitting the economy and their livelihoods. They also fear that the protests could actually have lead to the indefinite postponing of elections and democratic rights.


The regime will hope that its reported agreement to form a ‘national salvation government’ and to stage presidential elections before next July will be enough to dissipate the mass street protests. It is unclear which way things will now develop, particularly in the absence of a mass revolutionary socialist opposition. Up to now, during this latest phase of the revolution, the working class has not yet decisively entered the arena of struggle, using its methods of struggle, such as mass strikes and the general strike, which played a crucial role in ousting Mubarak.


But the SCAF’s partial retreat could also encourage the revolutionary youth and workers to push for the removal of the entire regime. According to the AP news agency, the “reported deal was immediately rejected by protesters in Tahrir Square. ‘We are not leaving, he leaves,’ they chanted, referring to Tantawi”.


The regime will hope that its concessions will be enough, at this stage, to see mass protests fall back. The bourgeois opposition, frightened by the developing revolutionary mood in society going beyond their narrow aims, will also want to see the protesters return home, so that they and the generals can start ‘governing’ in the best interests of Egyptian capitalism.







Protests today in Egypt


Build an independent movement that fights for a workers’ government


To win the aims of the revolution – for genuine, lasting democratic rights and real social and economic change - the working class and youth can have no faith in a ‘national salvation’ government of opposition bourgeois politicians and military chiefs but need to build an independent movement that fights for a government of the representatives of workers, small farmers and the poor.


In putting forward a programme to develop the mass struggle, the revolutionary opposition needs to take into account the wider concerns in society mentioned above. There is a danger that the regime and pro-bourgeois opposition forces will be able to rest on broader, more conservative sections of society, potentially isolating Tahrir Square and other protests. Therefore, as well as proposing the demands already outlined on socialistworld.net, the CWI supports the building of an independent mass workers’ movement and for the urgent formation of democratic committees in all workplaces, communities and amongst the military rank and file to not only co-ordinate mass resistance to the regime but also to maintain order and supplies, and to act as the basis for a government of workers’ and poor. A workers’ government would crush the remnants of the dictatorship, defend democratic rights and start to meet the economic and social needs of the mass of Egyptians.


Socialistworld.net spoke to Amr, on Monday night, a student activist at the German University in Cairo (GUC), about the situation on the ground and the views of students and workers:


“Our GUC struggle continues [for students’ recognition] but now the main focus is to finish what’s happening in Tahrir Square. Twelve of our fellow GUC students have been injured, so far. There are many students in the Square and protests are taking place at colleges all around Egypt. The students and youth want to teach the police another lesson for their brutal actions against protesters.


“Many layers of Egyptian society are protesting. The clash between the people and the regime is also about the people and capitalism. People are now starting to feel that the ‘parliamentary elections are no real choice and that what is happening in Egypt now is another revolution but this time actually it is against the whole regime and the big capitalists.




“Very clearly the SCAF has to leave office right now. There have been many martyrs over the past 3 days. The police and army are clearly seen carrying out brutal repression. The youth are heroically fighting back with stones. The protesters are getting organised again, to defend themselves against repression. The police and soldiers were captured on cameras killing people and it is very obvious that they are the ones who started the violence.


“An activist who was injured on the 28th January, losing sight in his right eye, also lost sight of his left eye, just two days ago, after he was hit by a rubber bullet.


“On Tuesday 22 November, there will be marches from everywhere in Cairo to Tahrir Square – it is being called ‘saving the revolution day’. Socialists and student activists are calling for a new general strike. We are appealing to the staff at our university for industrial action.


“It is possible that under huge pressure, the SCAF regime will try to put together a ’national unity’ or ’national salvation’ government - a coalition of pro-capitalist forces and with remnants of the old regime – and go for presidential elections. But if this was to happen, I think that young people and workers will come to see that such a regime will represent much of the old regime’s interests and capitalism, and mass opposition will grow.






Tahrir square last night
“The Left is growing, especially after the big strike wave in September - the highest wave since 1919, excluding the last two days of the Mubarak regime. The Left will need to develop, towards a mass alternative for workers, maintaining its independence - in organisation and socialist programme – to show a way out for the working masses and youth.”

Egypt: Protesters and army battle for streets

David Johnson, Socialist Party (CWI England & Wales) and Niall Mulholland, CWI - http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5430


Tahrir Square Last Night

Thousands of activists fought running battles with security forces for control of Tahrir Square, Cario, last weekend, and at the start of this week. At least 33 people were killed and over 1,750 injured. There have also been big protest demonstrations in Alexandria, Suez, Mansoura and other cities. Street fighting continued last night in central Cairo, turning parts of the city into “a war zone”. Today, Monday 21 November, clashes are reported as armed state forces try to clear Cairo’s Tahrir Square of protesters.

"The military promised that they would hand over power within six months," one protester said. "Now 10 months have gone by and they still haven’t done it. We feel deceived."

On Friday 18 November, a massive demonstration took place in Tahrir Square – the biggest for several months. The majority taking part in those protests were reportedly supporters of Islamist parties. But in the evening a few hundred youth set up a new occupation on the central roundabout. The state forces launched a brutal attack against the camp early Saturday morning. This led to tens of thousands of protesters returning to the Square to defend their right to protest. “The people demand the overthrow of the regime,” was the slogan chanted, as it had been before the former dictator, Hosni Mubarak, fell earlier this year. Indicating some splits at the top about how to respond to the latest street protests, Culture Minister Emad Abu Ghazi reportedly resigned in protest at the government’s handling of the demonstrators.

The Guardian newspaper (London 21/11/11) described the scene, “By Sunday morning, following 24 hours of fierce street fighting and the conquest of Tahrir by revolutionaries, the furniture of the anti-Mubarak uprising was once again wheeled into place in the capital. Civilian checkpoints dotted the square, corrugated iron sheets were torn down for barricades, and the makeshift field hospital...

“When the military attack finally came, dissolving once and for all any lingering boundaries in protesters’ minds between the army on the one hand and the hated black-clad riot police that symbolised Mubarak’s security apparatus on the other, it was brutal and ephemeral…” But “outnumbered and outfought, the soldiers fled, though not before some had been captured by protesters. Fires blazed in all directions, but Liberation Square – the plaza’s name in Arabic – had once again been liberated, although how long for, no one dares predict.

“’We’ll stay here until we die, or military rule dies,’ said 27-year-old Mahmoud Turg with a matter-of-fact intensity.”

Army clings onto power

Last weekend’s events come after growing anger at the role of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which is trying to retain its grip on power. The council, led by Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, is supposedly charged with overseeing the country’s transition to democracy after three decades of dictatorial rule under Mr Mubarak.

Elections are to be held on 28 November, but it is becoming clearer to many that the SCAF will do everything to hold onto power, whatever the human toll. Instead of repealing Egypt’s hated emergency laws, the generals have extended it, while protecting their own privileges. An estimated 12,000 people have been brought to military tribunals over the last 10 months, a higher figure than under Mubarak’s 30 years of rule.

Calls for Tantawi’s resignation were heard during the weekend’s protests. The BBC reported that the demands of the protesters “have changed over the course of the weekend”. Crowds gathered last Friday demanded the military set a date for the handover of power but now “they want the military leaders to resign immediately and hand over to a civilian administration.”
The longest continuous street protests since President Hosni Mubarak was removed in February has raised questions over whether elections due to start next week will take place.

Several opposition parties are reported to have stated they will not take part in the coming elections. Mohamed ElBaradei, a pro-capitalist opposition figure, has offered himself to lead a ‘national government of salvation’.

Scenes of demonstrators in Tahrir Square being brutally attacked by police baton charges, tear gas (made in the USA), bird shot and rubber bullets were reminiscent of the days following the January 25th demonstration. It was those demonstrations that began the 18-day movement that forced the former president, Hosni Mubarak, from power.

Over the past few months, there have been deepening and unbearable tensions between the SCAF regime and the masses seeking democratic rights and a better life. Now these deep-seated and mutually incompatible differences have burst asunder, in what many activists are calling “the Second Revolution”. Like other revolutions, the Egyptian revolution is not a single act but a process. The masses fought hard to remove Mubarak at the cost of many lives. After he was overthrown, strikes broke out in many sectors and protests continued by youth, students and other layers. For big swathes of the population, exhausted by struggle and yearning ‘stability’, they put hopes in the new regime to oversee democratic elections and a better life. But now big sections of the population have correctly concluded that the SCAF is an attempt to continue the Mubarak regime in new clothes and that a new revolutionary upsurge is needed to win real and long-lasting democratic rights and fundamental social and economic changes.

In September, there were massive strikes - national strikes of teachers and postal workers, 62,000 Cairo public transport workers - and even low-rank police officers, who were protesting against corruption and privileges of senior officers. Workers were drawing the conclusion that they could not rely on the new government and would only get improved living standards and real democratic rights by organising and taking action.

On 9 October, there were attacks on a Coptic church that led to a protest demonstration of 10,000 to Maspero, the state TV broadcasting centre. The demonstrators were attacked by troops driving armoured cars in to the crowd, killing scores of protestors. Television reports blamed the demonstrators for the violence. Continuing military trials of civilian opponents of the regime have been highlighted by the arrest of blogger Alaa Abd El-Fattah for reporting the role of the military in the Maspero attack.

Meanwhile, Michael Nabil Sanad continues his hunger strike in protest at the three-year prison sentence he received in April. He had written an article accusing the new government of continuing the corruption and anti-democratic practices of Mubarak.

On 27 October, a prisoner, Essam Atta, was horribly tortured to death. The photo of his dead body was a gruesome reminder of Khaled Said, a young blogger killed by two policemen in Alexandria in 2010. The ‘We are all Khaled Said’ Facebook group was one of the movements that called the January 25th demonstration. Many had hoped that such scenes had ended with the end of Mubarak’s rule.

Over the weekend of 19/20 November, there were huge protests in the delta port of Damietta against continuing pollution from the Mopco fertiliser factory. Twenty thousand demonstrators blockaded the port and roads into the city. They were attacked by army and police, with two people killed. At the other end of the country, in Aswan, a mass rally of Nubians protested against the shooting of a Nubian boatman by a policeman.

Same methods of repression as Mubarak regime

These incidents have shown that SCAF are using the same methods of repression as the old regime. This is only to be expected, as these same senior officers served Mubarak for decades. They have massive economic interests, with large companies owned by the armed forces. They are determined to protect these interests, as well as those of the rest of the Egyptian ruling class.

This is why the CWI argued on 11 February, the day of Mubarak’s removal, that the working class and youth should have, “No trust in the military chiefs!” and needed to build an independent movement that fights for “a government of the representatives of workers, small farmers and the poor!”

The forthcoming elections are to the lower house of a parliament that will draw up a new constitution. Two thirds of the seats are elected on a local list basis, with individuals elected to the remaining seats. The election process will strengthen supporters of the old regime, many of whom are running as ‘independents’ or members of the ‘loyal opposition’ parties that Mubarak allowed to give a democratic veneer to his regime.

The government have now declared that the new parliament will not have control over the armed forces, which would continue to control their own budget and policy. After initial outcry, the SCAF ‘compromised’ and said it would be accountable to a National Council. Half would be elected from the parliament and half from SCAF, with the president as chairman. This would leave the armed forces with effective control over themselves.

While Islamists are expected to become the largest bloc in the new parliament, its supporters are divided between several parties. The biggest is the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) ‘Freedom and Justice Party’, which claims to model itself on the AKP that forms the Turkish government.

Young Muslim Brotherhood members broke away in frustration at the older leadership, reflecting pressure from youth activists they had worked with following the January 25th revolution. These younger Muslim Brotherhood members were expelled from the Muslim Brotherhood and set up four new parties. Increasing numbers of conservative Islamists support a number of more hard-line Islamic Salafist parties.

The electoral support of the Islamist parties is based on their record of charitable work, filling some of the massive gaps in social support under Mubarak, as well as their record of opposition to Mubarak and perceived lack of corruption. There have been reports of these parties handing out meat and half price medicines at some election rallies. Arguments over candidates’ lists between these different parties have taken place over the past few months. With growing class conflict, some of these Islamist parties will reflect differing class interests.

Revolution hijacked

The demonstrations across Egypt this weekend show an increasing number of youth and workers understand the SCAF is intent on hijacking their revolution. The youth and workers are courageously resisting the army and police on the streets of Cairo and elsewhere. The movement needs to urgently create democratically-elected and run committees of mass struggle and defence against state repression. The army rank and file can be won over, with a firm and decisive appeal to join the uprising. The soldiers’ grievances about low pay, bad conditions and treatment by their senior officers need to be addressed by the mass movement, alongside calling for the right of soldiers to organise a free independent trade union, to form soldiers’ committees and the election of officers. This can help win the rank and file of the army and sections of the police to the side of the masses. Mass workers’ action, including a general strike, to overthrow Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the whole rotten, brutal regime needs to be organised alongside an offensive to moblise and organise the masses as the basis for a government formed by representatives of workers, the youth, small farmers and the poor that can take immediate action against counter-revolution and for democratic rights, immediate steps to improve living standards and break with capitalism.

The masses are instinctively opposed to a constitution approved or drawn up by the military. The CWI calls for the rapid election of a real democratic parliament, a revolutionary constituent assembly, which not only agrees rules for elections but also a programme to change the conditions of the Egyptian masses. Such a parliament can only be convened – if it is really to represent the majority of the population – under the control of democratic workplace and neighbour committees. Representatives of the workers and poor farmers should form the majority in this parliament or constituent assembly.

Real change in the interests of workers, the poor and the youth requires genuine democratic change. Democratic popular committees in workplaces and neighbourhoods can re-develop or spring up anew in the cauldron of events now taking place on the streets. Such bodies, linking up at city, regional and national level, can form the basis for a revolutionary constituent assembly and a government with a majority of workers and poor.

A workers’ and poor people’s government would introduce genuine democratic reforms, including regular elections for representatives, on average workers’ wages and subject to recall should they act against the interests of workers and the poor. It would also guarantee the right to organise independent trade unions, the right to strike and the right to organise political parties.
These are needed to struggle for decent pay and working conditions, guaranteed jobs, and also decent housing, education, pensions and healthcare. The newly formed independent trade unions need to build their own independent workers’ party to campaign for these ideas.

Such a government would nationalise all the major companies and banks under democratic workers’ control, so that the economy could be planned in the interests of the big majority of the population, instead of being run for benefit of the rich.

The struggle between revolution and counter-revolution continues as the working class strives to complete what it began on January 25th – winning full democratic, social and economic freedoms. A workers’ party putting forward a socialist programme, linked to the daily needs of millions of workers and poor, could gain mass support, and undercut the false alternative of the Muslim Brotherhood. Linking up with workers and youth across the region, such a mass movement could lead to a federation of democratic socialist states, ending poverty, corruption and oppression.

The CWI says:

• Defend the revolution: Clear out Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces
• No compromise with the old remnants of the regime - No to rule by the military chiefs or the elite.
• No trust in any new ‘national unity’ regime based on the interests of the ruling class and imperialism
• For the urgent formation of democratically-elected and run committees of mass struggle and defence against state repression
• No to sectarianism – For the unity of all workers across religious lines
• Immediate lifting of the state of emergence. Immediate freeing of all political detainees and prisoners. No prosecution or victimisation of activists in the revolution
• Full political freedom. Freedom to publish and organise. Democratic control over the state media and opening up of state media to publish the views of all political trends supporting the revolution
• No restriction of the right to strike and take other industrial action. Full freedom to form trade unions and conduct trade union activity. For democratic, combative trade unions
• Formation of democratic rank and file committees in the armed forces and police
• Arrest and trial before popular courts all those involved in the SCAF regime’s repression and corruption. Confiscate the assets of the looters and corrupt.
• For the immediate elections to a revolutionary constituent assembly supervised by committees of working people, the poor and the youth
• For a government of representatives of workers, the youth, small farmers and the poor
• Nationalise the major companies and banks under democratic workers’ control, so that the economy could be planned in the interests of the big majority of the population, instead of being run for benefit of the rich

Libya: Gaddafi Dead - What now?

By Robert Bechert, CWI, http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5364


Independent action by Libyan workers, youth and poor vital to prevent revolution’s derailment

While the defeat of the last major forces defending Gaddafi’s dictatorial and increasingly megalomaniac regime was widely welcomed, the way in which it fell means that clouds now hang over the future of the Libyan revolution. There are now both opportunities and dangers facing the working masses and the youth in Libya. The combination of the absence of an independent workers’ movement, the bitterness resulting from an increasingly brutal civil war and particularly NATO’s intervention, have combined with Libya’s own history and characteristics to produce a complicated political and social situation.

In August we wrote, just after Tripoli’s fall, that it “was greeted with rejoicing by large numbers of, but by no means all, Libyans. Another autocratic ruler, surrounded by his privileged family and cronies, has been overthrown. If this had been purely the result of struggle by the Libyan working masses it would have been widely acclaimed but the direct involvement of imperialism casts a dark shadow over the revolution’s future ...

“While many Libyans are celebrating, socialists have to be clear that, unlike the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, the way in which Gaddafi has been removed means that a victory for the Libyan people was also a success for imperialism. Without NATO acting as the rebels’ air force or the soldiers, weapons, organisation and training that NATO and some other countries like the feudal Qatar autocracy supplied, Tripoli would not have fallen to the rebels in the way that it has.” (‘Gaddafi regime crumbles’, 26 August, 2011)

Read the full article here: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5364

CWI Leaflet: The day of inter-continental resistance

On 15 October, all around the globe, the “enraged”, the “indignad@s”, the “occupiers of Wall Street”, demonstrators all over Portugal, in Santiago Chile and in Cairo – and many, many more – will take the streets to challenge the power of big business. The magnificent movements of young people and workers in these struggles, with common causes, methods and demands, instinctively reach out to each other across borders and continents.

After more than three years of ongoing capitalist crisis, the capitalists and their politicians show their inability to offer any way out of ongoing misery for the vast majority, called the “99%” in the movement in the US. Instead, the ruling elites want to make workers and youth pay for the failure of their system, to continue to bail out bankers and millionaires. That’s what this rebellion is against and where the demand for fundamental change, the demand for “revolution” as the youth movement for example in Spain puts it, comes from.

The CWI fights for

· An end to the dictatorship of the markets; break the power of the tycoons! Massive taxation of the rich and their profits!

· Massive investment in jobs, free and decent education and public services! Stop the cuts and austerity!

· Nationalisation of the banks and the major companies that dominate the global economy; bring them under workers’ and public control; for a plan to use the resources in the interest of working people, not leave them under the rule of profit and big business!

· A joint fight back against national divisions, racism and sexism.

Download leaflet as PDF here 

Read the rest of the article here

Report from London coming soon

Libya: Gaddafi regime crumbles

By Robert Bechert, CWI - http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5249
After six long months of bloody, protracted struggle the overthrow of the dictatorial Gaddafi regime was greeted with rejoicing by large numbers of, but by no means all, Libyans. Another autocratic ruler, surrounded by his privileged family and cronies, has been overthrown. If this had been purely the result of struggle by the Libyan working masses it would have been widely acclaimed but the direct involvement of imperialism casts a dark shadow over the revolution’s future. The continuing battles in Tripoli and elsewhere indicate the instability of the current situation in Libya and also how the revolution that began there last February has, in many ways, been thrown off course.

Role of Nato

While many Libyans are celebrating, socialists have to be clear that, unlike the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, the way in which Gaddafi has been removed means that a victory for the Libyan people was also a success for imperialism. Without NATO acting as the rebels’ air force or the soldiers, weapons, organisation and training that NATO and some other countries like the feudal Qatar autocracy supplied, Tripoli would not have fallen to the rebels in the way that it has. Even the capture of the Bad al-Aziziya compound in central Tripoli was only achieved after a massive NATO aerial bombardment and an assault led by Qatari and other foreign special forces.

Now, despite their fears of exactly which way events in Libya will unfold, the imperialist powers are attempting to present Libya as a success for ‘liberal interventionism’, i.e. their right to intervene in other countries on ‘humanitarian’ or ‘democratic’ grounds. Of course, this was always hypocritical as ‘liberal interventionism’ does not apply to imperialism’s dictatorial friends and allies in Saudi Arabia, Yemen or elsewhere. The NATO powers hope that, after the disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq, they can win justification for further interventions in defence of their own interests.

Despite the involvement of large numbers of Libyans in the fighting and the mass arming of the population, there are not, so far, any signs of Libyan workers, youth and poor establishing their own independent rule over society. In fact, in a manner reminiscent of the collapse of the Stalinist regimes twenty years ago, imperialism has taken advantage of a spontaneous movement that knew what it was against but had no clear programme of its own.

Unfortunately, this overthrow of a dictator has not had the same character as the revolutions in Tunisia or Egypt, or even of the early days of the uprising in Benghazi when popular committees were established and briefly were the power in that city. Tragically, Gaddafi’s ousting was not simply the result of a popular mass movement, like in Tunisia and Egypt, forcing the dictator out. The momentum of the Libyan revolution’s early days was lost and, unlike Tunis or Cairo, Tripoli did not see one mass protest after another and strikes undermining the regime.

(Benghazi, 23 February 2011)

This was not simply due to the Gaddafi regime’s brutal repression of the mid-February protests; repression has not immediately stopped the repeated demonstrations in Syria.

The Libyan regime’s brutal reaction was not accidental; Gaddafi and his coterie feared the mass movements which were then developing in North Africa. As we explained in March: “Gaddafi’s first reaction to this year’s dramatic revolutionary events was to side with the dictatorial, corrupt autocrats. Just after Ben Ali fled from Tunisia, Gaddafi told Tunisians that they had ‘suffered a great loss’ because ‘there is none better than Ben Ali to govern’. Perhaps revealing how he viewed his own future, Gaddafi added that he had hoped that Ben Ali would rule ‘for life’.” [‘Stop the bombing – No to foreign intervention!’ 23 March, 2011.]

The Transitional National Council

Gaddafi, learning from the overthrow of Ben Ali and Mubarak, launched a counter-offensive against Benghazi and other centres of the revolution. These were certainly threatened but could have been defended by mass popular defence alongside a revolutionary appeal to workers, youth and the poor in the rest of Libya. But the self-appointed leadership of the uprising would not do such a thing. Dominated by a combination of defectors from the regime and openly pro-imperialist elements, the Transitional National Council (TNC), pushing aside the initial popular mood against any foreign intervention, looked to the imperialist powers and semi-feudal Arab states for support.

The main imperialist powers seized this opportunity to step in, justifying their intervention on ‘humanitarian’ grounds to save lives. But these same powers adopted a mild approach to the Syrian regime’s repression and maintained a virtual silence on the brutality of their close ally, the Bahraini regime. This simply confirmed that the Libyan intervention was based on a cynical calculation. Some imperialist leaders, like Sarkozy in France, sought to gain advantages for themselves, but their general aims were to establish a more reliable, pro-imperialist regime in Libya, seize a more lucrative share of Libya’s oil and gas wealth and, above all, intervene to seek to control the revolutions sweeping North Africa and the Middle East.

This intervention by the big imperialist powers, mainly the US, Britain and France, changed the situation as they attempted to establish a client opposition leadership. Under the false flag of protecting civilians, their aircraft carried out over 20,000 attacks on more than 4,000 targets in Libya.

NATO’s intervention allowed Gaddafi to rally support against what some Libyans saw as an attempt by the US, Britain, France, and others to regain control over Libya’s assets. Against this, there can be no doubt that widespread illusions were created that NATO was acting in the interests of the anti-Gaddafi revolution, an illusion that the major capitalist powers are now using as they attempt to control developments in Libya and secure the country for further exploitation.

No alternative to Nato’s intervention?

This is why the idea that the UN decision to intervene and NATO’s actions could be supported was to accept the derailing of the Libyan revolution. The idea that there was ‘no alternative’ to NATO was already disproved in the magnificent Egyptian movement that led to Mubarak’s ousting. The imperialist powers intervened for their own reasons not in the interests of the Libyan working masses and youth. Any failure to explain this as, for example, the small British AWL grouping did when it initially uncritically supported NATO’s role in the fighting in Tripoli, politically disarms the workers’ movement, leaving it unable to warn of imperialism’s intentions. The AWL has consistently supported NATO’s bombing and it now seeks to justify this by claiming the organisation of workers will be “easier” now after Gaddafi’s overthrow, something which it is not at all certain to be the case (see also: The ‘no-fly zone’, the Left and the ‘Third Camp’). In reality this is a rationalisation of their view, shameful for a self-proclaimed left organisation, that the military assault by the imperialist NATO alliance had to be supported as Libyan workers and youth had no chance on their own of defending themselves or defeating Gaddafi.

But what will happen now is not clear. The current situation indicates that there are elements, whether for political or tribal reasons, who are continuing to fight against the TNC. At the same time, there is no real unity amongst the main elements that fought Gaddafi. The population is also becoming heavily armed. This poses the possibility, even if the current battles end, of further fighting in the future, including tribal, national or religious conflicts.

Partly in view of this, we now see, alongside the start of a scramble for contracts, the main imperialist countries stepping up their intervention, including increasing talk of a ‘stabilisation force’.

Diverted revolution

However, at this time there is undoubtedly some support within Libya for NATO’s actions but this will not last. While obviously NATO has been planning for Gaddafi’s overthrow, including learning from what are now seen as the ‘mistakes’ made in Afghanistan and Iraq after the initial military victories, events will not necessarily go the way the imperialists hope. Although the combination of Libya’s small population and its oil and gas wealth will allow at least some rebuilding and social concessions, they will not automatically resolve all the issues now coming to the surface in Libya including potential regional and tribal tensions. There are also questions over the position of the Berber minority, about 10% of the population, and those who continue to support Gaddafi or, at least, oppose foreign intervention.

The very fluid situation that has now developed is, to a great extent, a result of the way in which the revolution has been diverted from a developing mass movement, with its own organisations, debates and policies, into a purely military struggle under NATO tutelage.




(Head of the National Transition Council, Mahmoud Jibril, and European Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, in Brussels on Wednesday 13 July 2011)

Currently, the self-appointed TNC is attempting, with NATO help, to impose itself on the situation. But there is no guarantee that it can, in reality, do this. The TNC is currently largely a fiction. For a time, it appointed a ‘government’, but that was dissolved after the still unexplained 28 July ‘arrest’ and subsequent killing of Younes, Gaddafi’s former interior minister who became the TNC’s top military commander. Jibril, who is still being presented as the ‘head of government’ has generally been out of the country because “he fears for his own safety in Benghazi” [The Times, London, 23 August, 2011.] If "prime minister" Jibril does not feel safe in Benghazi, up to now the TNC’s main base, it is understandable that the TNC leaders hesitated over when to move to Tripoli.

The TNC itself, as we commented before, was “simply relying on a combination of NATO air power and the masses’ desire for change to secure victory”. [‘Defend the revolution! No to imperialist intervention!’ 30 March, 2011.] The TNC, based in the east, clearly lacked standing in the west, as was shown by the fighters in Misrata who rejected its authority. Whether it can now build its position and, if so, for how long, are open questions.

Alongside a Libyan national consciousness that especially developed over the last decades, many regional, tribal and clan loyalties remain despite the country now being heavily urbanised. Added to that is the position of the Berber minority, who played a crucial role in the battles against Gaddafi’s forces in the south-west and in the advance on Tripoli.

Libya itself is a relatively new creation, having been initially formed by Italy in the 1930s and again, this time under US pressure, in the late 1940s. A decline in the feeling of being ‘Libyan’ alongside a growth of regional and tribal tensions, or the development of fundamentalist Islamic forces, could pose the possibility of a break-up of Libya, even of a Somali or Yemen style development. Tribal tensions could develop as a result of any lengthy fighting if Gaddafi is able to follow the example of one of his heroes, Omar Mukhtar and the armed resistance to the Italian take over and occupation after 1911. However, against this there is the fact that one of the motive forces in the movement against Gaddafi, the young people who reacted against the stifling effect of a corrupt dictatorship, saw themselves as Libyan.
No trust in NATO, build an independent workers’ movement

For the Libyan masses, especially the youth, workers and poor, this revolution was for an end to oppression and the stifling, corrupt regime, and for higher living standards. But despite any immediate oil-funded concessions and rebuilding, these aims will, in the long run, come into conflict with the reality of the crisis-ridden capitalist economy. A new world recession would hit Libya in the same way as in the 1980s when its gross domestic product collapsed by over 40% as the oil price fell.

But to prevent the danger of a new collapse of the economy and to block the asset stripping of the country, a break with capitalism is required. The TNC is obviously not going to do this; on the contrary it is dominated by pro-capitalist elements.

From the beginning of the anti-Gaddafi uprising we argued: “What have been missing are independent organisations of Libyan workers and youth that could give a clear direction to the revolution in order to win democratic rights, end corruption and secure for the mass of Libyans democratic control over, and benefit from, the country’s resources.” [‘Stop the bombing – No to foreign intervention!’ 23 March, 2011.]

A programme for the Libyan revolution that will genuinely benefit the mass of the population would be based on winning and defending real democratic rights, an end to corruption and privilege, the safeguarding and further development of the social gains made since the discovery of oil, opposition to any form of re-colonisation and for a democratically controlled, publicly-owned economy planned to use the country’s resources for the future benefit of the mass of the people.

This is why Libyan workers and youth should have no illusions in NATO or put any trust in the TNC which is, in essence, tied to imperialism. This tie-up was illustrated in the TNC’s draft Libyan constitution, first published by the British foreign ministry, which declares that “the interests and rights of foreign nationals and companies will be protected”. But neither the TNC nor any other government based on capitalism will be able to meet the aspirations of the population in this period of world economic instability or prevent the development of a new exploitative elite.

The creation of an independent movement of Libyan and migrant workers, poor and youth that could rely on its own action and struggles to implement such a real revolutionary transformation of the country is the only way to thwart the imperialists’ plans, end dictatorship and transform the lives of the mass of the people.

To achieve these goals such a movement would need to defend all democratic rights, be against the privatisation of Libya’s assets, demand the withdrawal of all foreign military forces and oppose all foreign military intervention, demand the democratic election of a Constituent Assembly and, above all, reject participation in any government based on capitalism. Instead it would strive for a government of representatives of the workers and poor based upon democratic structures in the workplaces and communities.

The dangers facing Libya now is that the combination of imperialist domination over the new government and the absence of a movement of the workers and poor leads to the possibility of regionalist, tribal or religious conflicts.

However, as Tunisia and Egypt have shown, the mass overthrow of dictators is not the end of a revolution as the working masses strive to achieve their demands and aspirations. Although developments in Libya have taken a very different course, the demands of the masses have not gone away and in the struggle to win them lies the possible of building a socialist movement that can truly transform the country.

Unlike with Mubarak, Gaddafi’s overthrow has had a mixed response in the rest of the Middle East. Partly this is because he was seen by many as ‘anti-imperialist’ but mainly because of NATO’s role. The contrast between NATO intervening in Libya while doing nothing to stop Israeli attacks on Gaza and being allies of the Saudi and other dictatorships is clear to many. But a workers’ movement in Libya, Tunisia or Egypt that challenged both the old order and imperialism would receive a wide echo, offering the possibility of revolutions that open the way to a socialist future.