The friends and enemies of Egyptian democracy

The government of Hosni Mubarak yesterday swore in a new cabinet in a last-ditch attempt to cling on to power. Egypt's opposition, meanwhile, is calling for a million people to take to the streets to remove from office the dictator who has ruled the country with an iron fist for the past 29 years.

Disappointingly, the modest calls for democracy emanating from Washington and London appear transparently about Western governments emerging on the right side of history, rather than the genuine promotion of democratic rule in Egypt. Western leaders, rather than wholeheartedly endorsing the push for freedom by the Egyptian masses, are instead calling for 'restraint' and 'managed transition'.

The reality behind Western relations with Egypt is more shameful than mere disingenuous words however.

To have 'Made in the USA' tear gas used against you, only to be retrospectively lectured by Hilary Clinton, using the plural 'we' and acting as the ventriloquist's dummy for the 'aspirations' of the people her country helped to repress for the past quarter of a century, is not simply to be on the receiving end of realpolitik as to be unapologetically fucked by the realities of imperialism. Most insulting for Egyptians perhaps is the assumption that they will not notice the armed forces of the Mubarak regime executing and maiming civilians with weapons made in the US and supplied by the US at the rate of $1.5 billion a year – for the past 29 years.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague weighed in with his own lofty contempt for the Egyptian people, saying that Britain, too, has always been 'in favour of greater freedom and democracy, of a more open and flexible political system… [and] freedom of expression'. This, despite the fact that there is little evidence of any UK government having challenged Mubarak over his appalling human rights record during the course of his rule.

The Egyptian government, however, is a pillar of US policy in the region. Just as in the past the US supported the violent regime of Augusto Pinochet and other unsavoury dictatorships as 'bulwarks against communism', so in recent years Mubarak's Egypt has been feted as a 'cornerstone of stability and security in the Middle East' by those who see democracy only in terms of how beneficial democratic majorities are to Western interests.

Encouragingly, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood - the largest opposition group in Egypt - has not yet featured prominently in the protests, which have been spontaneous and built on a disenchantment with the neo-liberal economic policies favoured by business elites surrounding President Mubarak. Socialists should be wary of forming alliances with self-proclaimed Islamists simply because they proclaim an opposition to American imperialism.

Less certain is what happens next, both in Egypt and the wider Middle East. It is unclear who will emerge victorious from the power struggle in Egypt; it is even less certain whether other autocratic governments in the region will be next to face the democratic forces of mass mobilisation. Despite the contemptible maneuvering of our political leaders here in the West, our solidarity should unapologetically be with the people of the Middle East who stand up to tyranny, regardless of the political orientation of the regime in question.

Solidarity with Egyptian workers!

A short exchange on the Muslim Brotherhood

"So what are you suggesting James, that the Egyptian people should stay quiet and put up with the dictatorship because you think the alternative is worse? This looks like a mass uprising of workers and youth to me. All power to them, I say!"

It indeed looks like an uprising of workers and youth, which I fully support. Let us hope it is not hijacked by the Islamists - as Iran was. You do concur in that respect, I take it?

"This isn't 1979 James. The Egyptian masses have learned from the experience of Iran and as far as I am aware they show no inclination towards wanting an Islamic republic. When a people rise up against their oppressors there are no guaranteed outcomes, there never are. All we can do as onlookers is to applaud the bravery of the Egyptian workers and youth, celebrate their achievements, build solidarity with them and attempt to follow their shining example.

The Alliance for Workers' Liberty don't understand that the real enemy of humanity is not Islam but Imperialism, US and British imperialism in particular. The dictator Mubarak is a puppet of imperialism and an ally of Israel. If the Egyptian masses succeed in sweeping him into the dustbin of history they will be doing a great service not only to themselves and to the Palestinians but to all humanity.

I don't see any need for your emphasis on condemning the Muslim Brotherhood. That is exactly what the dictators and their imperial backers want - to use islamophobia to spread fear of the unfolding Arab revolution."

It is not "islamophobic" to condemn parties that are openly anti-Semitic and wish to implement Sharia Law. If it is, then you are essentially saying that Islam is Islamism - precisely what Islamists as well as the fascists in the British National Party say. I fail to see how it furthers the debate to adopt such a misguided line.

You say that the AWL do not understand imperialism? Do you include in that the imperialism espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood - who, after all, wish to construct a Caliphate for the 21st century?

"Are you serious James? On the one hand we have the very real imperialism of monopoly finance capital, the global rule of the wealthiest, most powerful and most bloodstained ruling class in all human history. And on the other we have the Muslim Brotherhood, a small opposition group that "wishes to construct a new 21st Century Caliphate." That you should see these as in any way comparable is quite frankly laughable."

I must say that it is you who cannot be considered morally serious due to your excuse making for a group that is openly anti-Semitic, wishes to implement Sharia law and restore the Islamic empire. You are yourself supporting imperialists and are willing to make the most sordid compromises with anyone, just so long as they preach anti-Americanism first and foremost.

Which begs the question: which type of movement is off limits to you? Do you support the BNP ahead of the Labour Party? After all, the BNP opposed the Iraq war while making noises about "American imperialism"; the Labour Party took the country to war. Do you support the government of Iran - a regime which denies the Holocaust and hangs homosexuals - simply because they oppose the US government? How about those in Yemen who throw acid into the faces of unveiled women? Would "only an idiot" criticise such atrocities simply because the groups in question proclaim an opposition to the United States?

Taken to its conclusion, your position is no different to that which led certain British communists and socialists to support National Socialism in the 1930s - they said then that the real problem was US and British imperialism.

Trotsky exposed such unthinking moral equivalence then and the analysis loses none of its force today:

The wiseacres who claim that they see no difference between Bruning and Hitler are in fact saying: it makes no difference whether our [working class] organizations exist or whether they are already destroyed. Beneath this pseudo-radical verbiage hides the most sordid passivity.'

Of course, the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt would make little difference to you personally, hence your freedom to remain indifferent. It would however make a huge difference to the Egyptian working class; and that's who we support, not aristocratic Islamists who wish to reverse the historical process and travel back in time to pre-capitalism and clerical rule.

Stalinist Monopoly

Poland's Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) has released a Stalinist boardgame called "Kolejka," or "Queue", to remind young people of the daily hardships under Soviet imperialism.

Players get a list of ten goods which they then have to buy. Getting hold of the products however, such as toilet paper, toothpaste, shoes, coffee or furniture, is a difficult task - just as it was during the days of repressive Stalinism (and is today in a certain fashionable 'third world' holiday destination).

Players move around the board trying to buy basic goods but food supplies run out before they reach the counter. If a bed is needed, they are offered stools instead. Players needing the last pair of shoes in the shop are beaten to it by someone with connections or a bribe to pay.

The game goes on sale in Poland on Feb. 5.

The question is, will you be the tattered shoe, or the ripped boot?

Where's Livingstone's rainbow flag when he turns up to work for Press TV?

Ken Livingstone recently criticised London Mayor Boris Johnson for cancelling the annual gay pride reception at City Hall. Johnson was previously criticised in 2008 for scrapping the LGBT advisory panel, cutting funding for Soho Pride, and withdrawing the Greater London Authority from Stonewall’s list of the most gay-friendly employers.

Without wishing to excuse the repugnant Tory agenda of Boris Johnson, these policy changes look decidedly insignificant in light of news that his Mayoral challenger Livingstone has been trousering money from an organisation that is sponsored and editorially controlled by the Iranian Government - a government that regularly flogs and executes homosexuals.

Livingstone recently presented seven shows on English-language Press TV, three of which have been broadcast since he became Labour's London mayoral candidate in September. It has subsequently come to light that he was paid thousands of pounds for his appearances on the station.

It can be said today by no serious person that they are unaware of the Iranian regime's human rights abuses and brutal persecution of homosexuals. When the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not denying the Holocaust and sponsoring Hezbholla, it likes to boast of causing as much suffering as possible to those found guilty of 'sodomy'. Court decisions in cases of those convicted of such 'crimes' are often arbitrary and based simply on a 'judge's knowledge,' whereby the judge in question can use his discretion to decide on a case in which no conclusive evidence exists.

Press TV has also been accused of colluding in the torture of prisoners.

Jo Glanville of the Index of Censorship says any respectable journalist should simply refuse to work for the channel.

'The way they behaved, by going into the prison in that way and essentially colluding with the torture and illegal detention of a journalist - that should finish their reputation once and for all in this country.'

The incident she is referring to is of course this one:



Where's Livingstone's rainbow flag when he turns up to work for Press TV?

All we need now is for George Galloway to be on Question Time for the umpteenth time supposedly representing the 'voice of the left'. Oh, hang on...

US relations with the Tunisian dictatorship

'The United States has very good relations with Tunisia, which date back more than 200 years. The two governments are not linked by security treaties...[but] have an active schedule of joint military exercises. U.S. security assistance historically has played an important role in cementing relations.'

And then, without a trace of irony:

'Ben Ali ran for re-election unopposed in 1989 and 1994. In the multiparty era, he won 99.44% of the vote in 1999 and 94.49% of the vote in 2004. A May 2002 referendum approved constitutional changes proposed by Ben Ali that allowed him to run for a fifth term in 2009.'
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5439.htm

Baring in mind the vitriol directed at an elected politician such as Hugo Chavez (and I myself am no fan of the Venezuelan leader), it appears strange at first that there has been so little previous condemnation in mainstream political circles of the Tunisian dictatorship.

The stinking compromises of international diplomacy do eventually reveal themselves however; and perhaps need no better illustration than the intervention of Colonel Gaddafi, tyrannical ally of 'the West' and 'personal family friend' of Tony Blair, who on Saturday appeared on Libyan state television with a special appeal that was nothing if not a transparent attempt to shore up his own dictatorship. Labelling Tunisian protesters troublemakers who have been 'led astray by WikiLeaks', his real fear appears to be that the uprising will spread and topple his own dictatorship.

President Obama’s envoy to Israel-Palestine, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, recently made a stop in Tunisia prior to landing in Tel Aviv. Meeting Tunisian Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi, Mitchell praised the two country's 'strong ties', while adding that he was in the country to express greetings and high consideration to Ben Ali on behalf of President Obama.

At the time of Mitchell's visit Ben Ali was the leader of a country that had imprisoned more journalists than any other in the Arab world.

Meanwhile, back in Britain, William Hague has called for a 'a rapid return to law and order'. It should be fairly obvious at this point what sort of 'order' Hague is alluding to - a return to free-markets and business of usual for 'British interests', regardless of the level of democracy present in the country, or not, as the case may be (and quite often is).

Cuba, Venezuela, Syria - 'Enemies'.

Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Libya - 'Allies'.

You need not be an apologist for any of these regimes to spot the difference.
It's the economy, stupid.