[Debate] Sami Ramadani: After the Spring

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Arguably, Al Jazeera's Libya coverage was as bad as or perhaps worse
than its Bahrain and Syria coverage (someone needs to do a study
comparing them).  But so far no AJ staffer appears to have resigned
specifically in protest of the former, though there have been a string
of resignations -- some high-profile -- in protest of the latter,
including the latest -- the resignation of AJ's Tehran Bureau chief
mentioned by Ali Hashem.

<http://bit.ly/HLh7Pt>
After the spring

Sami Ramadani considers the response to the popular uprisings from the
region's dictators and other reactionary forces, as well as the role
of imperialism

The massive upheavals in so many Arab states are the product of
circumstances unique to each of them. They are shaped by the nature of
the antagonistic social and political forces engaged in these
momentous conflicts. The outcomes of these uprisings will inevitably
vary due to the specificities of and prevailing conditions in each
country. This can be clearly seen from the diverging outcomes from
Tunisia to Egypt, to Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and Iraq.

However, it is also abundantly clear that the upheavals have broadly
similar internal and external causes, and the cultural bonds and
historical links between the peoples of these countries have vividly
reasserted themselves despite the century-old colonialist-imposed
borders and divisions. The mass feelings of solidarity and common
purpose are palpable indeed. The power of those rhythmic revolutionary
chants invented by the Tunisian masses - 'The people want to overthrow
the regime' and 'Depart! Depart!' - was immense. They were made even
more powerful when picked up by the masses in Cairo. Today, they have
become the great anthem of the uprisings across the Arab world.

As to the ramifications and consequences of these upheavals, the
regional and international shockwaves are still being keenly felt, but
even some of the short-term outcomes are still in the balance. Longer
term, the picture is even more complex and unpredictable. The balance
of forces is constantly shifting between the revolutionary forces that
have flexed their muscles on the streets, workplaces and campuses, and
the forces of domestic and international counter-revolution. Having
recovered from the initial concussions, these have predictably
embarked on the path of bloody confrontation.

The Libyan exception

Though the uprisings have enjoyed worldwide moral support, they have
been materially self-reliant - with the exception of Libya. There the
democratic uprising was speedily transformed, with its political
leadership falling into the grip of former regime stalwarts and its
military 'wing', according to the Wall Street Journal, being trained
by former 'al-Qaida' elements who were kidnapped by the US and
'rehabilitated' in the Guantanamo Bay torture cells.

These self-appointed leaders succeeded in focusing attention on
seeking western military intervention at an early stage of the popular
uprising. They encouraged the people on the streets of Benghazi to
prematurely resort to arms even before the Gaddafi dictatorship
unleashed its savagery on the people. In addition to the brutality of
the regime, this early rush to arms was one of the main factors
preventing the uprising from gathering momentum across Libya,
particularly in the capital Tripoli where more than a quarter of the
population lives.

In a throwback to the months before the 2003 occupation of Iraq, when
some of the opposition figures elided opposition to Saddam's
dictatorial regime with backing for US-led intervention in Iraq,
Libyan opposition figures based in Paris and London denounced
Gaddafi's regime and called for western intervention. Al-Jazeera
satellite TV played the leading role in publicising these figures and
promoting their messages hour by hour at an early stage of the
uprising in Benghazi. And although the channel gave space to the
protesters opposed to any external intervention, it constantly
promoted former regime personnel and Nato-backed figures based in
Paris and London who were calling for western intervention almost from
day one of the uprising in Benghazi.

The studio expert guests who backed intervention were also given
prominence. These included a well-known former Egyptian general,
turned media military expert, who was interviewed numerous times
giving military advice and later calling for intervention long before
any Libyans within Libya called for it. This coverage reminded me
strongly of the BBC's coverage of Iraq before the invasion.

In contrast, the organisations and popular figures that came to the
fore in Tunisia and Egypt stressed the peaceful nature of the protests
and constantly appealed for restraint in the face of violent
repression. People forget that in Egypt about 500 peaceful protesters
were killed and many thousands injured by Mubarak's security forces,
but the protest organisers insisted on discipline and mobilising
millions of people across Egypt in a magnificent show of people's
power and defiance. Having peaceful, disciplined millions of people on
the streets, who only used limited violence in self-defence, played an
important role in thwarting the Tunisian and Egyptian rulers from
getting the army generals to order the soldiers to open fire on the
people. The crowds engulfed the conscript soldiers and fraternised
with them, and the soldiers responded by letting, or even encouraging,
the protesters to take rides on their tanks!

Biding their time

Nonetheless, it has become crystal clear that the generals in both
Tunisia and Egypt are biding their time. And while willing to ditch
the ex-presidents Bin Ali and Mubarak, they are making other
concessions only after being challenged by the people on the streets
and in the workplaces. In both countries revolutionary enthusiasm
remains high, despite repressive measures. Significantly, most of the
working class and students have been active in both upheavals, with
large-scale strikes making economic and political demands.

In Tunisia, the trade union leaders were forced to resign because of
their cooperation with Bin Ali's regime. In Egypt, the workers have
dismantled the entire edifice of the official 'trade union'
organisations, which acted as the direct arm of the regime. However,
there is as yet no powerful nationwide umbrella structure for the
emerging free trade union movement. The current attempts are brave and
have potential but remain relatively weak. Furthermore, there are no
large working class or left parties or other organisations that can
shape the course of events. To that extent, political parties on the
left in Tunisia have played a more visible and prominent role in
mobilising the masses to challenge the regime, while anti-sectarian
religious figures came to prominence in Tahrir Square. But the
potential for the democratic left in both countries remains good.

The Muslim Brotherhood is still the largest organisation in Egypt, but
is being challenged by both the much more sectarian religious
movement, the Salafis, on the right, and by a myriad of political
organisations on the left and other secular groups. Despite the fact
that the younger members of the Brotherhood were part of the coalition
of groups that sparked the initial wave of protest marches, most of
the leadership was ready to reach a deal with Mubarak's regime, and
did so publicly after Mubarak appointed his place-man Omar Sulaiman as
vice president. This caused a major revolt in the Brotherhood's ranks
and it had to make a hasty retreat.

The Brotherhood has always acted as an expression of some of the
poorest people's demands and often confronted the central and local
authorities. However, this role was coupled, since the early 1970s and
Sadat's era, with that of acting as the lid on the people's mounting
anger against the fabulously rich, US-pampered ruling circles, who
further stoked the anger by forming a de facto alliance with Israel
against the Palestinian people and supporting the US-led occupation of
Iraq.

Despite its relative organisational strength, the Brotherhood does not
have majority support among the millions of active participants in the
uprising. On the contrary, and despite being culturally religious in
their sentiments, most of the people have expressed the sort of
demands that have been traditionally championed by the Egyptian
secular left.

Although regional and international issues were not at the cutting
edge of the people's demands, the latest (13 May 2011) one-million
strong rally in Tahrir Square was dedicated to the Palestinian
people's struggle. 'Down with the US, down with Israel' and sacking
the remaining Mubarak regime figures were the main slogans of the
rally. It ended with a call for a march to the Rafah crossing into
Gaza to commemorate the Nakba (Catastrophe) Day - the founding of
Israel on 15 May 1948.

The mood at the rally, the largest for several weeks, was angry
following clashes between Muslims and Christians in the Cairo suburb
of Imbaba the week before. All speakers at the rally were cheered to
the rafters after accusing the Mubarak regime thugs, the US and Israel
of being behind the clashes, which were described as a 'an attempt to
sow discord between Muslims and Christians in order to crush the
revolution'. Mubarak's interior minister is being investigated for
'planning' the bombing of the Al-Qiddisine church in Alexandria on new
year's eve. The public prosecutor is also investigating several
attacks on churches last year in which the security forces were
suspected of involvement.

A common feature of some of these incidents is the withdrawal of
police guarding the churches hours before the attacks. There are about
10 million Christians out of Egypt's 82 million population, and the
potential for the counter-revolution and the Salafis to instigate
damaging divisions in this way is big.

Meanwhile, and with al-Jazeera commanding the TV screens, Nato is
gradually destroying Libya's infrastructure, much as the US did in
Iraq during the years of sanctions and subsequent occupation - all in
the name of human rights and supporting democratic movements. The
decision to intervene in Libya is a reflection of the fact that the
regime was regarded as an unreliable friend of the US and the giant
oil corporations, including BP. This despite the fact that since 2004
Gaddafi had been rehabilitated by Bush and Blair following the renewal
of the oil contracts with Exon, BP and other oil corporations.

If the intervention fulfils the aims of its enforcers, it will lead to
them securing Libya fully for the Nato powers and let them use the
country as a base against the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. Alas,
the heroic struggle of the Libyan people for a genuine democratic
revolution would have been thwarted by the combined forces of Nato and
Gaddafi's regime.

Al-Jazeera and the counter-revolution

Though al-Jazeera has now become the most influential political tool
of counter-revolution in the Arab world, its role in Libya and the
impact of the sectarian nature of its coverage of the Bahrain uprising
would have been much less lethal had not been for the massive prestige
and authority it had gained at the height of the Tunisian and Egyptian
uprisings. Tens of millions of people across the Middle East and north
Africa turned to the main al-Jazeera channel and to its direct feed
channel, al-Jazeera Mubashir, transmitting live from the streets of
Tunisia and Egypt, with its intrepid reporters in the thick of it all.

This prestige and authority has given this powerful channel a unique
position to influence events and perceptions, particularly in relation
to Libya, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Iraq. If it is not on al-Jazeera,
it is not happening. If al-Jazeera actively backs military
intervention then it must be necessary. And if al-Jazeera dismisses a
heroic and beleaguered people's uprising in Bahrain as being marginal
and sectarian then it is right to ignore the Saudi tanks that were
sent to crush it, and to ignore the presence of the US fifth fleet
protecting the Bahraini ruling elites and the other ruling families
across the Gulf.

Al-Jazeera's sectarian coverage of the Bahraini people's uprising,
falsely depicting it as a mere Shia protest stirred up by Iran, has
been as damaging in its impact as its coverage of Libya. Although
al-Jazeera has always had a sectarian undertone at an editorial level,
a marked shift in direction came when the Qatari ruling family, the
main financial backers of the Qatar-based channel, buried their
long-standing conflict with the Saudi ruling family in the wake of the
revolutionary tidal wave reaching Bahrain and threatening the ruling
family next door.

The channel's silence towards the violent suppression of the
protesters in Bahrain, headquarters of the US fifth fleet, was backed
up by live interviews with Sheikh Qaradhawi, a very influential
Egyptian cleric and a guest of the Qatar ruling family. He dropped the
pretence of backing the people's demands for freedom, attacked the
Bahrain uprising and implicitly backed its brutal suppression.
Earlier, he took everyone by surprise when he issued a fatwa to kill
Gaddafi.

The Libyan scenario has now become the counter-revolution's blueprint
for Syria, where the regime is engaged in the violent suppression of
the democratic protest movement, using the many tentacles of the
state, including the regular army. What distinguishes Syria from the
rest of the Arab regimes, however, is that it has refused to come
under the US-led umbrella, backed the resistance organisations of
Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon, and forged an alliance
with Iran.

This certainly makes it a prime target for US-led meddling and
possible intervention. For it is not the Syrian regime's repressive
nature that worries Washington and Tel Aviv but its regional policies
and refusal to concede full sovereignty over the Israeli-occupied
Golan Heights. Even today, and as in the past, the US would be
prepared to accommodate the Syrian regime if it abandoned its regional
stance.

White House headaches

Who to back and who to abandon among the hordes of pro-US dictators
has certainly given the White House severe headaches. One such
headache is Yemen's dictator, a recent convert to the Washington-led
'war on terror', president Ali Abdullah Saleh. The criteria used by
the US mean that if the people threaten the entire edifices of the
repressive states, and if the dictators fail to stem the tide of
revolution, then the US would be prepared to ditch the dictators in
order to preserve the repressive structures and social divides in the
hope of absorbing and dissipating the people's anger. The motto is to
take cover and fight another day.

However, fighting another day is a very precarious option in Yemen,
where the uprising attracted the participation of millions of men and
women. The many regional, sectarian and tribal divisions that the
regime had sought to exacerbate have not prevented the two-month old
uprising from sustaining a heroic momentum, despite the violence
deployed by the security forces. One complicating factor for the US is
that the Saudi ruling family is keen on preserving more of the regime
than is possible in the face of a great mass revolt. The US-backed
Saudi and Gulf regimes' plan for a gentle handover of power to another
regime figure has been decisively rejected.

No such 'gentle' transition is remotely possible in another crucial
arena of struggle, where the people of occupied Iraq face a powerful
death machine. In one sense the protest movement in Iraq hasn't
stopped since the 2003 US-led occupation, but it is noticeable that
peaceful marches and protests are becoming the norm in the country,
with two twin demands forming the cornerstones of the people's
protests: 'No to the occupation' and 'No to corruption'. At the same
time, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose organisation can still bring a
million people onto the streets of Baghdad, has declared that his
Mahdi Army will resume military attacks on US forces if they do not
withdraw by end of the year. Bridging the sectarian divide nurtured by
the occupation and its Iraqi allies remains the biggest task facing
the struggle of the Iraqi people for liberation and democracy.

Four important issues have been underlined by these historic
uprisings. The first is that the tidal waves of spontaneous people's
power across the Arab world are overwhelmingly democratic and
anti-imperialist in nature, despite the setback in Libya. The second
is the relative absence of strong democratic left organisations to
further the struggle in months to come. The third is that the
counter-revolutionary forces ruling the region, led by the Saudi
regime, are still strong and capable of bloody retaliation. And the
fourth is that the bonds between the corrupt dictatorships and
imperialism are as strong and integral as ever.

Monopoly capitalism has relied on the Middle East and north Africa as
its milch cow for a century or more. No such high level of
exploitation and control, in such a fabulously rich and strategically
vital region, could be sustained without backing parasitic and corrupt
social classes ruling through an extremely repressive political order,
armed to the teeth by the big powers. This is even more true today.

The notion that democracy in the region is also in the interest of the
ruling classes in the US and its Nato allies was and continues to be
an illusion and a fabrication. It becomes a dangerous fantasy when
taken up by some liberal circles and champions of humanitarian
intervention, whether in Britain, the US or France. This fantasy could
kill a million people and destroy an entire country, as in Iraq, and
might yet do the same in Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

-- 
Yoshie Furuhashi
<http://mrzine.org/>