Posts Tagged ‘Imperialism’
Imperium. Perry Anderson. Critical Thoughts. New Left Review. No82 (New Series) 2013.
“American capitalism has resoundingly re-asserted its primacy in all fields – economic, political, military and cultural – with an unprecedented eight-year boom.”
Perry Anderson. Renewals. 2000.
“(New Left Review’s Relaunch)…scandalised many by demanding from the left a lucid registration of defeat ‘No collective agency able to match the power of capital is yet on the horizon’ Anderson noted……These judgements stand.”
Susan Watkins. Shifting Sands. 2010.
“In contrast to the economic structure, the political structure cannot be expanded indefinitely, because it is not based upon the productivity of man, which is indeed, unlimited. Of all forms of government and organisations of people, the nation-state is least suited for unlimited growth because the genuine consent at its base cannot be stretched indefinitely.”
Hannah Arendt. The Origins of Totalitarianism. (1)
The “unprecedented” American boom ended in Autumn 2008. But despite the absence of what Anderson has called an “answer to the prolonged slow-down of the advanced capitalist economies that set in forty years ago” America remains, post Soviet Collapse, the uncontested, hegemonic, global authority. (2) American power reaches outwards across the globe. This is not just grounded on the attraction of its economic strength, cultural appeal, or technological advances. An active exercise of domination is at work.
Within this received wisdom on the left, the Special Issue of New Left Review, Imperium, sets out to present the “outlook and continuity of objectives” of the “administration of empire, the thinking behind this rule. It also aims to “asses” this vast field, centring on what is decidedly not a “poverty of strategic theory.”
To former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, writing in 1997, U.S policy goals must be “to perpetuate America’s own dominate position for at least generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework” that can evolve into “shared responsibility for peaceful global management.” (3) By contrast, for Anderson, in 2002 the US’s objectives unfurling before the rather less peaceable invasion of Iraq, were described as part of a “structural shift in the balance between force and consent within the operation of American hegemony…” (4)
The present study is only the latest, then, of Anderson’s efforts to understand the leading role of America in what David Harvey has labelled the “new imperialism” and the global dominance of neo-liberalism. Following indications signalled by Robert Brenner he looks further into history to explain the particular form that the American state has taken. Imperium begins by stating, “Since the Second World War, the external order of American power has been largely insulated from the internal political system.” The focus is therefore on the “narrow foreign-policy elite, and a “distinctive ideological vocabulary” of “grand strategy.” (5)
Imperium concludes with, and starts from, the following historical narrative, “In the course of four decades of unremitting struggle, a military and political order was constructed that transformed what had once been a merely hemispheric hegemony into a global empire, remoulding the form of the US state itself” (Page 110 Imperium) Included in the Special Issue is a study of the above American “literature of grand strategy”, Consilium. We discover (to no particular surprise) that it is soldered around the idea that the “hegemony of the United States continues to serve both the particular interests of the nation and the universal interest of mankind” (Consilium Page 163)
These were the long years of the global fight against the Soviet Union. For Anderson the USA, he concedes, graciously or not, “was indeed an electoral democracy, did confront a socio-political system that was not” (Page 33 Imperium). During those decades the country has witnessed domestic opposition to “imperial force”. This, volatile, “constraint”, the limited “public tolerance” of foreign expeditions (we immediately think of the aftermath of Vietnam) has played a role. It continues to shape the decisions of the Obama administration. (Page 108. Imperium)
But behind this is there is, as he has commented on the second Obama Presidential victory an “all-capitalist ideological universe – a mental firmament in which the sanctity of private property and superiority of private enterprise are truths taken for granted by all forces in the political arena.” The Democrat President cannot ignore the culture that feeds Obama’s Republican opponents. One feature stands out, a domestic “nationalism peculiar to the United States as the capitalist superpower in the struggle with communism, intensely more hyperbolic than that of any Western society.” (6)
Outside this native soil there is little alive that is capable of offering a serious political challenge to policies dictated by the “new regime of accumulation” and the “liberal-capitalist order”. Gloomily in 2002 he talked of ‘resistance’ as “chaff in the wind.” In 2007 Anderson had a brief flicker of hope in “spectacular demonstrations of popular will” the World Social Forums in the first half of the last decade, and a “patchwork of resistance”. But they could not halt, “a further drift to the right” as a “new Concert of powers has increasingly solidified.” (7) Read the rest of this entry »
The people of Bangladesh have launched mass protests. Many have been held to demand the death sentence for the Islamists convicted of war crimes during the 1971 War of National Liberation.
The Pakistani army tried to crush the Bangla people with a cruelty that resembled the Nazis’ on the Eastern Front,
“…… we were told to kill the hindus and Kafirs (non-believer in God). One day in June, we cordoned a village and were ordered to kill the Kafirs in that area. We found all the village women reciting from the Holy Quran, and the men holding special congregational prayers seeking God’s mercy. But they were unlucky. Our commanding officer ordered us not to waste any time.”
Confession of a Pakistani Soldier. Bangladeshi Genocide Archive.
Official estimates say more than three million people were killed in the 1971 war.
Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets in Bangladesh in protest over sentences handed out in relation to alleged war crimes during the 1971 war of independence.
It took decades for a tribunal to be set up to look at the atrocities committed at that time, and the first verdicts came this year, including the conviction of a senior leader of Bangladesh’s biggest Islamic party.
A former leader from Jamaat-e-Islami was sentenced to death in absentia. Another leader, Abdul Kader Mullah, was given a life sentence last week.
Some protesters feel the sentences have been too lenient, or that the process has been flawed.
Meanwhile, supporters of Jamaat-e-Islami held separate protests calling for Mullah’s release.
Some in Bangladesh say that public protests could put unnecessary pressure on judges presiding over the tribunal.
Nick Cohen, comments,
“Do I hear you say that Bangladesh is far away and the genocide was long ago?
Not so far away. Not so long ago. And the agonies of Bangladeshi liberals are nothing in comparison to the contradictions of their British counterparts.
The conflict between the Shahbag and Jamaat has already reached London. On 9 February, local supporters of the uprising demonstrated in Altab Ali Park, a rare patch of green space off the Whitechapel Road in London’s East End. They were met by Jamaatis. “They attacked our men with stones,” one of the protest’s organisers told me. “There were old people and women and children there, but they still attacked us.”
The redoubtable organiser is undeterred. She and her fellow activists are going back to the park tomorrow for another demonstration. Her friends are worried, however. They asked me not to name her after unknown assailants murdered Ahmed Rajib Haider Shuvo, one of the leaders of the Dhaka rallies, on Friday.”
Cohen continues, that the Jamaat is not challenged in the East End, indeed it is accepted as part of the Establihsment.,
The scoundrel left led the way down this murky alley, as it leads the way into so many dark places. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway have backed the Jamaat-dominated East London mosque, and Islamic Forum Europe, the Jamaat front organisation that now controls local politics in Tower Hamlets.
The Jamaat still have a fight on their hands, as,
The British-Asian feminist Gita Sahgal launched the Centre for Secular Space last week to combat such indulgence of theocratic obscurantism. She told me that Jamaat perverts traditional faith and she should know. Not only did she name alleged Jamaat war criminals living in Britain for Channel 4 in the 1990s, she is also Jawaharlal Nehru’s great niece and a distant relative of the Indira Gandhi who sent the army into Bangladesh. I admire Sahgal and Quilliam hugely, but they are mistrusted, even hated by orthodox leftwingers. The feeling is reciprocated in spades and perhaps you can see why.
Now what Cohen calls the “scoundrel left” is very quiet about their relations with the Jamaat genociders at the moment.
But a taste of what they think of Bangladesh can be got from Bob Pitt and his ‘Islamophbia Watch’
This is how Islamophobia Watch greeted in 2010 the decision in Bangladesh’s ruling Awami League to restore the secular state.
Under the heading “Bangladesh set to become again a secular state”, left-wing blogger Andrew Coates has enthusiastically hailed what he claims is a decision by the government of Bangladesh to restore the secular foundations of the country’s constitution.
He bases his post on reports that the Supreme Court in Dhaka has upheld a ruling that the government can reverse amendments made to the constitution in the period following the military coup of 1975. Coates approvingly quotes law minister Shafique Ahmed as saying: “In the light of the verdict, the secular constitution of 1972 already stands to have been revived. Now we don’t have any bar to return to the four state principles of democracy, nationalism, secularism and socialism as had been heralded in the 1972 statute of the state.
It is the same government that then set up the War Crimes Tribunal.
We wonder what Pitt and his friends think of the Jamaat thugs attacking Bangladeshis protesting at the genocide in London.
Histoire de l’anticolonialisme en France. Du XVI à nos jours. Claude Liauzu. Pluriel. 2012 (2007)
“Ce pays est à toi! Pourquoi? Pace que tu y as mis le pied? Si un Tahitien débarquait un jour sur vos côtes, et qu’il gravât sur une de vos pierres ou sur l’écorce d’un de vos arbes: ce pays est aux habitants de Tahiti, qu’en penserais-tu?
This is your land! Why? Because you’ve walked on it? If one day a Tahitian came to your coast, engraved on one of your stones, or on the bark of one of your trees, this county belongs to the Tahitians what would you think?
Supplément au voyage de Bougainville. Diderot. 1772.
The French intervention in Mali is a good moment to read up on the history of French colonialisation. And opposition to it. There are few better guides than Claude Liauzu. Deceased in 2007, he wrote 20 books, mostly on the subject. In 2005 he was the moving force in the campaign against a law recognising the contributions made by “répatries” (pieds-noirs) that included plans to introduce into the National Syllabus the “rôle positif” of France in its colonies, notably in North Africa. The campaign partially succeeded, and in 2006 the Constitutional Council annulled this section of the decree.
The Histoire de l’anticolonialisme en France is not, then, a dry academic study concerned with opposition to French colonialism. It is coloured by Liauzu’s “post colonial humanism.” That is, it is as much a political intervention as a history. Liauzu refused all “Manichean”, simplistic, judgements. The epigraph at the front of the present volume notes the “ambiguity” of colonialism. The Universalist message of Year ll of the French Revolution let, an epigraph at the start of the book states, let students dream during the colonial night. Did it help pave the way for anticolonialism? Liauzu shows both how it did, and yet also how the Revolution’s legacy was also ambiguous.
Liauzu aims to embody this today. He criticises both to the Western centred fear of the “choc des civilisations”, and “third worldism”. As a historian and committed anti-colonialist, Liauzu is primarily concerned with the violent creation of the French Empire to its height during the era of 20th century imperialism, and with the persistent, if minority, opposition to it. The views and strategies of that opposition should concern a wide audience, well beyond the Hexagone.
From Early Critics to the French Revolution.
The Histoire begins with the first critics of colonial conquest, from the 15th century Dominican Las Casas, to the 16th century doubts about the superiority of Europeans in Montaigne’s Essais. A beautifully compressed summary presents European doubts about colonial domination. The meat in this section deals with Enlightenment thinkers and the French Revolution. Diderot, cited above, was a critic of colonialism, but also a believer that it was necessary to bring some peoples out of barbarism (Page 50) The contradiction between universal human rights and French republicanism brought the issue to political reality. The Déclaration des droits de l’homme of 1789, by definition proclaiming human equality, made slavery inconceivable.
A movement led by the Abbé Grégoire (1750-1831), the Société des amis des noirs had been formed in 1788. Influenced by British ‘abolitionists’, including Thomas Clarkson (1760 – 1846) (who would write up debates in the Revolutionary Assembly for the Ipswich local paper!), its demands for the abolition of slavery came to the forefront with slave revolts in the Caribbean. Slavery was abolished in 1794. There were, Liauzu observes, over 24 official festivals celebrating the event. But the colonies were not freed. They became ‘assimilated’ as departments (that is, on the same footing as metropolitan French counties and electoral divisions).
Bonaparte undid this “intégration républicaine” in 1802. He brought back the colonies under Paris’s direct rule, re-established slavery, laid down a colour bar, and forbade mixed marriages. Only in Saint-Dominique (Haiti) would the resistance of the people, led by Toussaint Louverture, (though eventually captured and imprisoned by the French) succeed in throwing out the French.
In a nutshell the French Revolution illustrated political and intellectual divisions that would mark the 19th century. That is, between those who wanted the French Republic’s values to be universal – human rights for all – and those who were interested in the rights of the French state; between those who promoted these as political principles and who considered that it was never right to take anther people under their control (a tiny minority) and those who were concerned with the interests of the French nation. Historically these issues were settled by the victory of the colonial party. Trade and control of resources won. An “impérialisme liberal” emerged, led by “bourgeois conquérants”, promoting economic expansion. If there was support for ending slavery, which was finally abolished in 1848, this too was accepted as economically rational.
Algeria and Civilisation.
The conquest of Algeria, which began in 1830, brought these themes to public debate. In the 1840s some republicans demanded ‘assimilation’ of the Algeria as equals, by the 2nd Republic in 1848 failed to make the indigenous Muslims or Jews French citizens.
Critics of this, and other colonial expeditions (as France ventured further into Africa and the Far-East) complained about their uncertain value. A certain ‘anti-colonialism’ which focused on the cost of overseas possessions, developed. Even the French right could sometimes criticise it as a “luxury” (Page 132) It would remain influential throughout the century, paralleling similar objections in Britain. By the end of the 19th century the British Radical John Bright’s complaints about the Raj would still focus on the cost of governing India.
Others justified the occupation as a means to spread civilisation. Jules Ferry (1832 – 1893) in 1885, French Minister several times, and republican stalwart, retrospectively justified the “suppression of piracy in Algeria” in 1885. For Ferry the “superior races” had a right to “civilise the inferior races”. The forceful anti-Clerical was following many others, from religious or secular backgrounds. Liauzu notes that, although without any racist assumptions, Marx would not regret the disappearance of a “nest of pirates” in Algiers (Page 88) Frederick Engels would himself claim in 1848, “The conquest of Algeria is an important and fortunate fact for the progress of civilisation” (1) People could, like Victor Hugo, criticise the violence used by the French to secure the conquest of North Africa, and others, while still accepting that colonialism would ultimately civilise and improve the world.
The Worker’s Movement.
The Histoire describes pacifist opponents of colonisation and those who stood on the side of the colonised, called ‘indigéophiles’ by Liauzu. As the century wore on they became more common. Within the workers’ movement and the left there was early opposition. Proudhon was, he notes, firmly anti-colonialist calling for universal national independence and federation, not empires. Despite his views on Algeria (shared by Marx) Engels advocated that colonies should be taken charge of by the working class and led to independence. . (Page 180) Louise Michel, exiled after the Paris Commune to New Caledonia, made contact with the Kanaks and denounced the way they were forcefully “civilised”. Her views, Liauzu states, were not shared by most of her fellow deportees. But solidarity, or at least sympathy, with the colonised became more current by the end of the century. The secularist writer Anatole France (1844 – 1924) wrote the Île des pingouins (1908) in part, as a satire of “civilising” colonialisation.
Within the formal workers’ movement anti-colonialism began to take a political shape. The Parti Ouvrier français (POF) of Guesde adopted it as a principle. The POF was the only French political party to denounce the blood-stained conquest of Madagascar. Influenced by Marx’s son-in-law, Paul Lafargue, it was identified with the expiration of capital and surpluses. It was denounced for its boost to the militarism that was leading Europe into wars. Read the rest of this entry »
A serious analysis of French Intervention in Mali has to start from what’s happened and what is happening in the African nation itself.
In the latest Le Monde Diplomatique Philippe Leymarie begins,
What other country has experienced so many crises at once?” asked Cheaka Aboudou Touré, the ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) representative in Mali, early in December. There’s the political crisis: all of Mali’s institutions have been vulnerable since the coup in March 2012 that overthrew President Amadou Toumani Touré (1). Then there’s the security crisis: the army is demoralised and under-equipped, and its generals have stopped wearing their uniforms. There’s also a territorial crisis: Mali is split, with the north controlled by Islamists (especially Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, AQIM), who have joined with Tuareg rebels against a background of cross-border crime. Finally, there’s a humanitarian crisis, with 800,000 refugees and displaced people. And yet, Touré concluded, Mali is still more than alive, people are resilient and the hospitals work. “All they lack is leaders who’re up to the job.”
On the le Monde Diplomatique Blog (Only in French) published on the 14th of January Leymarie applies this analysis to the present intervention. For starters, he notes, what are the aims of the war?
comme dans le cas de la Libye, en 2011, ils sont confus. On a tout entendu : assurer la sécurité des ressortissants français ; agression caractérisée ; guerre contre le terrorisme ; coup d’arrêt aux groupes armés ; empêcher la prise de Bamako etc. Si les groupes djihadistes ont bien cherché à progresser vers le Sud, il n’est pas prouvé qu’ils avaient l’intention de lancer une opération jusqu’à Bamako, la capitale (située à plus de 800 kilomètres de Konna, la localité dont ils avaient pris le contrôle la semaine dernière). Maintenant, on en est aux frappes sur les bases de repli des groupes armés. A quand le « nettoyage » de terrain ?
As in the Libyan case, in 2011, they are confused. WE’ve heard it all, the ensure the security of French residents in Mali, aggressive postures, the war against terrorism, clamping down on armed groups, stopping the fall of Bamako (the country’s main city AC), and so on. If the jihadist groups have indeed tried to reach the South, they have yet to prove their will to extend this right up to Bamako (the capital, situated more than 800 kilometres from Konna, the area which they took over last week). Now they are at the point of striking at the rear bases of the armed groups. Will reach the point where the aim is to clear them out of the whole of the country.
Before proceeding lets us remember two aspects of this conjuncture.
The first is that, as Leyamire has noted, the government of Mali, such as it is, is not a simple entity. The regime set up after the
coup in March 2012: (it is ) a triumvirate of prime minister, president and army that the French embassy described as the “least bad solution”, though the singer Salif Keita called it “a three-headed snake” (2). The three agreed neither on the return to constitutional legitimacy nor on the best response to the crisis in the north: should Mali wait for the EU and ECOWAS to help the army regenerate, or launch an immediate offensive to retake the towns that had fallen to Tuareg rebels and radical Islamists?
In this context it is worth remembering that apart from the obvious political interests of the army and politicians themselves, a substantial element of Mali political life is influenced by Islam, including a Wahabite current at odds with the dominant Marabout influenced Islam of the land.
The second is that there is substantial support for the French intervention in Mali. Only this morning on La Première, the Belgium public radio, a spokesperson for that country’s Mali community, undermined his backing for the French. Reports from many sources indicate that this is true for a very large section of the population in Mali itself. The fact that the Islamists in the North are vicious oppressors may have something to do with this.
Now lets look at how the Stop the War Coalition is reacting.
“John Rees, a national officer of Stop the War Coalition, was interviewed on RT television on 14 January 2013 about the French intervention in Mali, supported by the UK government. Here.
RT: Paris says it’s waging ‘a war against terrorism’ in Mali – So its goals seem noble at least …
John Rees: Well, we’ve heard this so many times. I’m surprised that they haven’t bored themselves by repeating this line.
We heard it over Afghanistan, we heard it over Iraq. We heard it over Libya and we should recall that more than a decade ago, at the beginning of this process, the head of the security service in Britain warned the then PM Tony Blair that the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq which spread the threat of terrorism, not reduce it.
That warning has proved sadly absolutely correct. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded it- there is now. Al-Qaeda had not spread to Pakistan in the way that it has now since the invasion of Afghanistan. As we heard from your correspondent, the intervention in Libya has led directly to the spread of al- Qaeda in Mali now. We should at least have learned by now that this is not the way you reduce the threat of terrorism, this is actually the way in which you bolster it, in which you increase its attractiveness to young people in the region.
In other words Rees does not even bother to analyse Mali as a country.
It is Afghanistan all over again.
RT: Should France just sit back and let terrorism and extremism reign over Mali where it could perhaps become a haven for extremism and terrorism and just threaten regional stability but become a base for terrorist operation worldwide…
JR: If the French want to do something about reducing the antagonism between their state and the Muslim people both in France and abroad, they should start at home. They should start withdrawing the laws which make it illegal for women to wear Islamic hair dresses in France. They should withdraw the law that now makes it illegal for Muslims to pray in the streets in France. Perhaps if they want better relations with the Muslim world, they could start by bettering the relations with the Muslim community in France itself. That would be a far more significant step forward than bombing yet another Muslim country.
The intervention in Mali is the result of France’s attitude to Muslims . They are all bound up with the same French republican secularism, or ‘Islamophobia’.
Rees manages even to mix up (no doubt intentionally) the ban on ostentatious religious symbols in schools, which implies stopping female pupils wearing Islamic headresses (‘le voile’) with the (formal, not systematically enforced) prohibition of wearing the full-body Burkha in public.
RT: When will African nations be left to solve their internal problems by themselves – without foreign interference?
JR: I think when they stand up to the imperial powers. I think it is a mistake on the part of the Mali government, no matter what its difficulties to call for help from the very who are people responsible since colonial times for so much of a disaster in that part of the world. Only a small look North and East would tell you that in the Middle East constant attention of the imperial powers have generation after generation worsened the problem not made it better.”
There’s a bit more on the StWC’s site but that’s about it.
So Mali’s multiple crises, which are looked at here (above) are of no real account.
One could extend them, to include the way Al-Qaida au Maghreb islamique has developed, its alliance with the other Islamists in Mali, the conflicts between the Jihadists and the Tuaregs (the latter rebelling for national rights, the former to establish the Reign of god on Earth), not to mention the ‘banditry’ in the desert regions affected, and so the many various economic and social difficulties of the land and its brave people. Not to mention the other regional influences at play, from Algeria onwards.
Looking at these would be, for anybody seriously interested in Mali, would be the real meat of any discussion of the issue of French Intervention.
We could then and only then try to explain exactly what it is that France is intervening in, and why its action is not beneficial.
But, no Rees knows better, a lot better.
All the country needs is to take a stiff measure of self-assertion, say no to the Frenchies, and be free to sort itself out – no doubt after a good talking to from Rees.
Get rid of the French imperialists and all will be fine.
Oh and by the way don’t forget to deal with those secularists in France itself as well.
That would mean France getting on better with ‘the Muslim world’, a vast planet which perhaps includes (Rees does not exclude at any rate) Al-Qaeda au Maghreb?
And they wonder why the Stop the War Coalition has no political credibility whatsoever.
One major factor that explains the inability of some on the British left to support, clearly, Egyptian democrats is their long-standing links with the Muslim Brotherhood.
This is not just a matter of domestic alliances with the (then) Muslim Association of Britain in the Stop the War Coalition (StWC).
On the principle of being ‘with’ the MB – indeed anybody – when ‘fighting’ ‘imperialism’ and the its allied states this reached its highest point in the Cairo Conferences, from 2002 to 2009.
Wikipedia is the most convenient source of the history of this alliance,
The first conference was held on the 17–19 December 2002, at the Conrad Hotel on the banks of the Nile . Four hundred attended. Speakers included former United Nations (UN) humanitarian coordinator for Iraq Dr Hans von Sponeck. Former Algerian president Ahmed Ben Bella (TC Note- who had become an Islamist) chaired the conference. One outcome of the conference was the production of the ‘Cairo Declaration’, which took a stance against the then looming Iraq war; it also noted the negative effects of capitalist globalisation and U.S. hegemony on the peoples of the world (including European and American citizens). In addition, it noted that “In the absence of democracy , and with widespread corruption and oppression constituting significant obstacles along the path of the Arab peoples’ movement towards economic, social, and intellectual progress, adverse consequences are further aggravated within the framework of the existing world order of neoliberal globalisation”, while firmly rejecting the ‘advance of democracy’ justification for attacking Iraq.
The UK Stop the War Coalition, in particular John Rees of the SWP, initiated the signing of the declaration by European leftists, including: Jeremy Corbyn MP, George Galloway MP, Tony Benn, Susan George (scholar/activist based in France), Bob Crow, Mick Rix (general secretary, UK train drivers’ Aslef union), Julie Christie, George Monbiot, Harold Pinter, Ghayasuddin Siddiqui (Muslim Parliament), Tommy Sheridan (Scottish socialist), Dr Ghada Karmi (research fellow, Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter), Tariq Ali. attended.
I shall miss out the specific references to Iraq and concentrate on what the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty highlighted of the original ‘Cairo Declaration’.
Selective and misleading extracts from the ‘Cairo Declaration’ have been published in “Socialist Worker” (18th January 2003). The carefully edited extracts refer to the internationalist struggle against neo-liberal globalisation, the growth of poverty and unemployment as a result of capitalist globalisation and US hegemony, and the need for total opposition to war on Iraq.
Such worthy sentiments, however, are not representative of the politics encapsulated in the ‘Cairo Declaration’.
The ‘Cairo Declaration’ criticises the US for ‘maintaining the existing uni-polar world order’ and blocking a shift in the balance of power ‘towards multi-polarity.’ This is not an obscure and coded call for working-class struggle against capitalist inequality. It is a complaint that the domination of international markets by large-scale US capital (uni-polarity) is squeezing out the local capitalist classes and elites (multi-polarity).
It would be tedious to go through all these ‘conferences’ declarations but this one indicates the truth of this analysis (from the 3rd Conference 2003),
• The U.S. monopolizes political, economic and military power within the framework of capitalist globalization, to the detriment of the lives of the majority of the world’s people.
• The U.S. imposes control through naked aggression and militarized globalization in pursuit of its rulers’ interests, all while reinstating the characteristic direct occupation of classical colonialism.
• The U.S. global strategy, which was formulated prior to September 11 2001, aims to maintain the existing unipolar world order, and to prevent the emergence of forces that would shift the balance of power towards multi-polarity. The U.S. administration has exploited the tragic events of September 11, under the pretext of fighting terrorism, to implement the pre-existing strategy. Attention to this global context helps explain current world developments:
• Prioritize the interest of monopolistic capitalist circles above those of the people, including Europeans and U.S. citizens.
• Integrate the economies of different countries into a single global capitalist economic system under conditions which undermine social development and adversely affect the situation of women, child health, education, and social services for the elderly. In addition, unemployment and poverty increase.
The last conference in 2009 was unde the banner of ”The International Campaign Against Universal Imperialism and Zionism”. Its main slogan was “Pro-Resistance and Anti-Occupation with its crimes”, will be discussing a number of issues such as supporting the resistance, developing the struggle against the occupation of Iraq, confronting the racist policies of imperialist governments and issues against dictatorship and globalization in Egypt and the Arab world.
Workers’ Liberty’s comments on the 2003 Cairo Declaration, are relevant,
The Cairo Conference was convened by an organisation committed to the defence of the national security of Egypt. At best, the conference was financed by local businessmen. (At worst, the Iraqi government had a hand in funding it.) Those attending the conference including representatives of the Iraqi Baath regime, members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, a delegation from the Cuban Castroite regime, and various veteran Stalinists lamenting the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I will not go into the issue of Israel, or Stalinism.
The most important point is that they aligned themselves with a section of the pious Egyptian bourgeoisie – with all tis own financial and capital links with Gulf States.
The MB’s anti-globalisation and ‘anti-imperialism’ now stand as a cover for their promotion of their own religious-political national interests.
These interests are increasingly anti-democratic and anti-working class.
But will those in Britain who have worked with them draw a balance sheet?
It seems highly unlikely.