A stunning election victory for Hamas. The Iraq
imbroglio. Iran�s nuclear standoff with the West. Syria and Lebanon.
KEVIN SIMPSON looks at�
A region in turmoil
THE 25 JANUARY landslide victory of Hamas in
legislative elections in Gaza and the West Bank was a major political
earthquake. As with naturally occurring earthquakes, aftershocks have
followed � new events, together with the national, regional and
international repercussions of the surprise election results.
Among these have been the international coverage of
video footage showing British soldiers raining truncheon blows on
defenceless and barefoot Iraqi teenagers; new photographs depicting
brutal torture of Iraqi detainees in the notorious US-policed Abu Ghraib
prison; and mass demonstrations across the Middle East against the
publication in Denmark and other European countries of cartoons of the
Prophet Mohammed. There has also been press exposure of Pentagon plans
for high level bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, and joint
US-Israeli discussions on how to drive a new Hamas administration from
power in the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Underlying these events is the incandescent anger of
the workers and poor peasantry throughout the Arab world. Recent
developments also show that, from a state of barely �managed�
instability, events periodically appear to spin out of the control of US
imperialism. Increasingly, events are the exact opposite of what US
imperialism and its allies in the region desire. This represents a new
and potentially explosive phase of social and political processes in the
region. It reflects enormous accumulated tensions that can no longer be
reconciled with old methods of rule or with capitalist regimes which
have been in power for decades.
Why does this instability exist? The answer lies in
the conditions of exploitation created by the world capitalist system,
and by the historic drive of the Western imperialist powers for new
markets and cheap sources of commodities like oil, and for geopolitical
influence, which continues in a more extreme form to this day.
Artificial entities
PRIOR TO THE first world war, the Middle East was
part of the feudal Ottoman (Turkish) empire, a war ally of the German
ruling class. Towards the end of the war, victorious French and British
imperialism divided up the region between themselves and moved in as the
Ottoman regime collapsed.
In many cases, partially artificial entities were
created whose ethnic, religious and national makeup, and therefore
borders, were determined by the Western imperialist powers� desire to
control the region through policies of divide and rule. Lebanon is an
example. Originally a smaller territory, with a large Christian
majority, French imperialism added other areas with Muslim majorities
which wanted to be part of Syria on Lebanon�s eastern border. This left
a country with a smaller Christian majority. This made it easier to
control and weakened the potential regional influence of Syria. However,
it laid the basis for future bloody conflict because of the failure of
capitalism to solve the national, social and economic aspirations of the
majority. This pattern has been repeated throughout the countries of
Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America that make up the
neo-colonial world. In the Middle East, serious conflicts around the
national question continue to this day, while others threaten to
re-erupt with a vengeance in the future.
Large regional oil reserves acted as a magnet for
Western imperialism, particularly the US, which became one of the
dominant world superpowers following the second world war. Thus US
imperialism supported the formation of the Israeli state in 1948. The
Israeli state became US imperialism�s closest ally and the key supporter
of its economic and political interests in the region. However, Israel�s
formation meant hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven into
exile and their lands confiscated. As a result, the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict remains one of the most bitter in the region.
Imperialism�s intervention was not just for economic
reasons. It was also designed to act as a barrier against the mass
movements of the working class and poor peasantry that swept the Middle
East, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s. One of the by-products of
these struggles was the development of a state sector and limited
welfare provision in some countries, like Egypt and Iraq.
In many cases, these movements were revolutionary at
base and as such represented a major threat to capitalism and
imperialism. This was, for example, the main reason why British and
French imperialism agreed with the Israeli capitalist state in 1956 that
Israel would invade Egypt�s Sinai Peninsula. Using the invasion as a
pretext, British and French forces would land in Egypt�s Suez port,
ostensibly to separate the two warring sides. In fact, the real reason
was to reoccupy the Suez canal following its nationalisation by Gamal
Nasser�s radical nationalist regime. British and French imperialism were
prepared to provoke a war between Israel and Egypt in an attempt to try
to protect the profits of Western imperialist companies and, in effect,
issue a warning to the rest of the neo-colonial world not to go down the
same road.
However, it is not just the historic exploitation
for economic and political reasons that lie behind the latest phase of
instability. It is also a consequence of neo-liberal economic policies,
which have led to intensified economic exploitation, and US
imperialism�s much more aggressive, interventionist military and
political strategy in the region.
Neo-liberal wave
FOR THE LAST ten to 15 years, a brutal new wave of
re-colonisation by the imperialist powers has swept the Middle East with
the implementation of neo-liberal policies. In many countries this has
involved tearing apart what little remained of the state sector, as well
as the destruction of local productive capacity, as markets have been
opened to intervention by rapacious Western multinationals. Many Middle
Eastern states have begun ending state subsidies of fuel and essential
food items, under the pressure of Western �creditors�. Corruption,
always a problem in undemocratic, dictatorial regimes where there is not
even limited accountability of those who rule, has worsened
immeasurably. Massive kickbacks have been made by Western companies
seeking lucrative contracts in newly privatised sectors of the economy.
In many cases, corrupt payments have been used to buy support from
opposition parties and politicians, often with the expressed approval of
Western imperialism.
It has been revealed by the PA attorney general, for
example, that up to $800 million disappeared from its bank accounts
under eleven years of Fatah rule. Much of it was used to buy support
amongst Palestinian politicians for the imperialist sponsored Oslo
�peace process�.
Hatred of the effects of imperialist-driven
neo-liberal �reforms� is closely associated with local politicians who
are linked by a thousand chains to the multinational companies. This
process has never been clearer than it is today: Egypt�s cabinet
contains, for example, transport minister, Mohamed Loutfy Mansour, whose
family is one of the richest in Egypt, holding the General Motors and
Caterpillar dealerships and McDonald�s franchise there.
Neo-liberal policies have had a catastrophic effect
on living standards, with alarming levels of poverty. In Egypt, 44% of
the population live on less than $2 a day. Similarly, in Jordan, 30%
live below the poverty line, with more likely to fall within this
category as a result of government plans to end state fuel subsidies by
the end of next year. Even Israel, which used to have a more developed
welfare state, has not been spared. There has been a huge polarisation
in wealth, with one-third of all Israeli Jewish children now being born
into families which are living in poverty.
Other processes, moreover, have added greatly to
regional instability. The Bush administration, and particularly the
neo-conservative wing within it, has turned to a more unilateralist and
interventionist approach in the neo-colonial world. The conditions for
this were partially created by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Prior
to 1989, US imperialism and the Soviet Union, the two world superpowers,
divided the world into spheres of interest and mostly attempted to limit
the extent of conflicts between countries under their influence.
Following the collapse of Stalinism, world relations became much more
unstable, creating greater opportunities for US imperialism to extend
its strategic and economic influence.
The clearest examples of this change in approach
have been, of course, US imperialism�s invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq, which have resulted in utter disaster. The conflict in Iraq,
despite so-called �democratic� elections, has moved closer towards civil
war in recent months. Shia Ashoura day ceremonies have been attacked,
with retaliation against Sunnis, who have been captured and
assassinated. The bombing of the golden-domed al-Askari mosque in
Samarra, one of Shia Islam�s most revered sites, has led to retaliatory
attacks on Sunni mosques. A recent editorial in the International Herald
Tribune commented that US policy-makers "should realise that they have
been tipping crucial power balances in the region, frightening
longstanding clients and allies while enhancing the regime in Iran".
(Iraq�s Sectarian Fire, 17 February)
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, organised
under different auspices � �the war against terror� and �the clash of
civilisations� � have been viewed by Arabs and the Muslim world as
evidence of a new attempt by US imperialism to re-colonise the Middle
East, aiming to take control of the oilfields, step up economic
exploitation to even more unbearable levels, and to launch a general
attack against Islam.
Bush & democracy
THE IMPERIALIST-INSPIRED Oslo �peace process�, an
attempt to stabilise the conflict in Israel/Palestine, has been a
complete failure. As far as the Palestinian masses are now concerned,
this agreement was just an attempt to further enslave them under more
brutal conditions of military occupation and have their oppression
subcontracted to the Fatah�led PA. Behind the cover of this agreement,
Israeli settlements were massively expanded, with the tacit support of
US imperialism. Ariel Sharon�s more recent withdrawal from Gaza was used
as camouflage to step up settlement activity and the building of a new
Berlin-type wall in the West Bank. As far as many Israeli Jews are
concerned, their security situation has worsened as a result of the Oslo
accords, and the agreement was purely between the different Arab and
Israeli elites and had more to do with opening up markets and boosting
profits than with bringing peace.
Since Oslo, particularly after the election of
George Bush, US imperialism has adopted a twin-track political strategy
towards regimes it views as unstable and a danger to its interests. On
the one side, there have been US broadside attacks on countries like
Syria and Iran for being part of the �axis of evil� and, on the other
side, has been Bush�s campaign for �democracy� in the region. This is
not just propaganda rhetoric. US imperialism realises that many of the
regimes in the Arab world are no longer as stable, or therefore as
reliable for US imperialism, as they were in the past. The US is seeking
new political representatives of the Arab elite whose record is not as
tarnished as their predecessors, but who remain compliant with US
interests. The problem is that in fomenting splits and divisions, all
the accumulated anger over social and economic conditions can be
released, leading to results that are the opposite of what imperialism
wants.
The dramatic victory of Hamas reflects a sharp
increase in levels of poverty, a deepened hatred of the USA�s brutal
occupation of Iraq, as well as resentment of US support for the Israeli
state�s continued oppression of the Palestinian masses. For imperialism,
political developments have entered unchartered territory. Possible
regional developments could culminate in the escalation of bloody
conflicts within countries, and between them. Although not the most
likely, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that there could even
be an unravelling of the tenuous regional balance of power which has
existed since the end of the second world war, possibly even a new
redrawing of the region as a result of tension, war and disintegration.
Standing in national elections for the first time,
Hamas won seats in all the major towns and cities in the West Bank and
Gaza, even in places like Bethlehem, where there is a large Christian
population, and Nablus, which was historically a stronghold for Fatah.
It is the first time in over 40 years that Fatah has lost its position
as the predominant organisation amongst Palestinians.
This was a crushing defeat for Fatah and
particularly for the weak PA president, Mohammed Abbas. But it was also
a severe blow and a huge surprise for both the Israeli ruling class and
Western imperialist powers. Their plans for an imposed �peace
settlement� are now in complete disarray. The Hamas win represents a
crushing refutation of Bush�s �democratisation� campaign in the region.
His administration will be less likely to praise the virtues of �free
and fair elections� now.
The Hamas victory
THE HAMAS VICTORY was largely a huge protest vote
against the corrupt Fatah leadership who, incapable of meeting
Palestinian aspirations, wallowed in corruption at the head of the PA
while the majority were crushed under Israeli military occupation.
It is true that political support for Hamas�s ideas
has risen amongst some layers of the poorest in the vacuum that exists
in the West Bank and Gaza. However, rather than signifying overwhelming
support for Hamas�s Islamist policies, the extent of the election
victory mainly reflects anger against Fatah. One Palestinian woman
summed up the mood of many: "For ten years Fatah haven�t done anything
for us. We have to try Hamas. We can�t say if they will be better but we
have to try". (Guardian, London, 24 January)
Hamas orientated its entire campaign around this
mood. Running under the slogan �Change and Reform�, Hamas highlighted
the rampant corruption of the PA and promised a clean-up. Its aim,
however, expressed in its founding charter in 1988, is to create an
Islamic state on the territory encompassed by Gaza, the West Bank and
Israel. Such a state would be ruled under Sharia law. This would be an
oppressive, reactionary society which would be hostile to an independent
movement of the working class in defence of its rights and socialist
ideas. It would also mean the widespread oppression of women and would
represent a move backwards socially and politically.
While Hamas has organised elements of mass protest
during the second intifada, these have always been strictly controlled
from above and only used intermittently. One of its tactics has been
suicide bombings. Genuine socialists oppose these tactics, which play
into the hands of the Israeli ruling class. Resort to suicide bombing is
a symptom of the desperation and despair of many Palestinians. But
instead of mobilising mass action against oppression, the tactic relies
on individual martyrs, while providing the Israeli state with another
pretext for increasing repression. Moreover, suicide bombings tend to a
political strengthening of the Israeli regime, at least in the short
term, as they drive Israeli Jewish workers and sections of the middle
class into the arms of the Israeli ruling class. Living under daily
threat of bombings, they feel they have no option but to support the
government�s oppressive measures as the only available means of trying
to protect their security. Internationally, suicide bombings repel
workers and many who sympathise with the Palestinian cause.
This does not mean socialists have a pacifist
approach. We believe in a mass, democratic struggle of the Palestinian
working class and poor peasantry to end the occupation. Such a movement
will have to be armed to defend itself against attacks by the Israel
Defence Force (IDF) and others, but those bearing arms should be
accountable to the Palestinian working class as a whole.
Whatever they said publicly, Hamas�s military and
political leaders knew that a campaign of suicide bombings on its own
would not defeat the Israeli ruling class. There was also a certain
war-weariness amongst the Palestinian masses. This forced Hamas to look
at the possibility of entering the political process. Undoubtedly, the
entrance of Hezbollah in Lebanon into parliament, and more recently
government, had an effect.
Hamas did not want to win an outright majority in
these elections. It would rather not have taken the responsibility of
ruling Gaza and the West Bank in a situation of economic collapse where
it would face hostility from some Arab regimes, the Israeli ruling class
and, of course, the might of US imperialism. This is why it spent the
first days after the election appealing to Fatah to join it in
government.
Since the elections, US imperialism�s strategy of
dealing with Hamas, supported by the Israeli ruling class, has evolved
beyond ritual denunciations of �terrorist� governments and threats to
cut off funding completely from the PA. It is likely that, with Israeli
and EU help, US imperialism will attempt to create divisions within the
PA by diverting funding to the office of president Abbas, a Fatah
leader, and undermining Hamas support by further Israeli repressive
measures against the Palestinian population.
US imperialism intends to keep some money flowing
into the PA to ensure there is not outright anarchy or civil war between
the different militias. However, other measures of increased repression
and reduction in funding for Hamas government programmes aim to force it
out of office.
In an excoriating critique of the Bush regime, an
editorial in the International Herald Tribune gave its opinion of this
strategy: "They [the Palestinians] are already driven to distraction by
fury, frustration and poverty. Is it really possible to expect that more
punishment from the Israelis and the Americans, this time for not voting
the way we wanted them to, would lead them to abandon Hamas? In the long
sorry history of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, there is not a shred
of evidence to support the notion that pushing the Palestinian
population into more economic desperation would somehow cause them to
moderate their political views. Experience teaches the exact opposite".
(Dealing with Hamas, 16 February)
At the first meeting of the new Palestinian
legislature, Abbas warned that no-one could question the legitimacy of
the Oslo Accords. Hamas MPs disagreed. They were later met with the
response by Sa�eb Erekat, the president�s spokesperson, that unless
Hamas cooperated, its candidate for prime minister or even the entire
parliament would be dismissed and new elections called.
Tense situation
AS FAR AS Hamas is concerned, it is very unlikely
that it will formally renounce its call for the destruction of Israel or
disarm in the foreseeable future, despite the massive pressure from the
US and EU imperialist powers and the Arab regimes to do so. This would
cause huge divisions inside its ranks. Following the elections, Hamas
leaders did say that, in return for a withdrawal by Israel to the 1967
borders, they would be prepared to announce a ten-to-15-year ceasefire.
Up to now, Hamas has been careful how it proceeds.
It has made much of the fact that Christians stood on its election lists
and that it has not moved against bars and casinos in areas where it
controls the local councils on the West Bank. Its women MPs have been
interviewed in the Western press saying they are committed to the fight
for women�s rights in their own party and in the PA as well. However,
while the moderate wing of Hamas has a majority in its leadership this
does not mean events cannot escalate.
For example, what would happen if Ehud Olmert, prime
minister and leader of the new Israeli party, Kadima, made good his
promise to impose a unilateral �final settlement� on the Palestinians?
This would involve only limited further withdrawals from the West Bank
and end any idea of concessions over East Jerusalem or the return of
Palestinian refugees from the camps dotted around the Middle East. For
the Palestinian masses this would represent the completion of what they
view as a giant open-air prison camp, and throwing away the key. A mood
could develop amongst them that they had nothing else to lose and a
struggle to the end would be the only way of changing things. Under
these circumstances, Hamas could be forced to move onto the offensive,
launching armed attacks against Israel, with a counter-offensive
launched by the IDF. As part of this process, nascent frictions that
already exist between the Muslim majority and Arab Christians in the
West Bank (who in the past have been a base of support for Fatah) could
be whipped up by Hamas, Fatah or the machinations of the Israeli secret
services. The situation could rapidly deteriorate out of control. But
that is only one possible scenario. Hamas�s victory has added to the
instability that other processes are creating in the region.
Iran regime strengthened
THE IRANIAN REGIME has clearly been as one of the
main beneficiaries of the Iraq war. Two of the main Shia parties (Sciri
and Al Dawa) which won a majority of the seats in the Iraqi
elections were once based in Iran and are linked to the regime. While
they are not mere pawns of the Iranian regime, the success of the Shia
parties in the Iraqi elections has created new pressures along the
Sunni-Shia divide in the Arab world. The Saudi, Jordanian and Egyptian
regimes could whip up the fears of the Sunni majority in these countries
of a �resurgent� Iran. The Saudi regime is already under pressure
because of gains by more critical and conservative Islamic candidates in
the very limited municipal elections last year. This could be a useful
way of diverting the undoubted anger that exists towards the elites in
these countries.
In the standoff between Western imperialism and Iran
concerning the development of its nuclear industry, the newly elected
hard-line Ahmadinejad administration has been strengthened considerably.
The new president was not the preferred candidate of the theocratic
Iranian elite at the beginning of the election campaign last June.
Despite his conservative Islamic views, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the
elections on the basis of the populist promises he made to change the
living conditions of the impoverished population of Iran. He distanced
himself from the regime which had presided over widespread price
increases, inflation and cuts in subsidies. This represents a big danger
for the rest of the elite, especially since the increase in the price of
oil has brought an extra $36bn into government coffers which could
encourage demands for more reforms from the working class and poor
peasantry
Since his election, Ahmadinejad has taken an extreme
anti-Israeli and anti-US line. There have been attempts to limit his
influence, with (for example) three candidates proposed by the new
president for the post of oil industry minister being rejected by the
rest of the elite.
However, by reporting Iran to the UN Security
Council because of its refusal to abide by conditions set by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for production of uranium,
Ahmadinejad�s position has been strengthened and the theocratic elite
may be forced to close ranks behind him. Ahmadinejad has exposed the
rank hypocrisy of US imperialism�s position, pointing to the nuclear
technology promised to India by the Bush administration and the lack of
any real action against Pakistan, despite its flouting of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. This has fuelled the feeling of the vast
majority of the Iranian population that they should have a right to
develop their nuclear industry. Faced with what they perceive to be
enemies on their borders (and surrounded by nuclear powers � Russia,
Pakistan, Israel), many Iranians also support the acquisition of nuclear
weapons.
Television coverage has shown hundreds of students
signing up to be suicide bombers should the US launch bomb attacks
against Iran, plans for which have been exposed in the Western press
over the last few weeks. One Britain-based research group said thousands
of casualties could result if the US or Israel launched such an attack.
It also put the likelihood of an attack as above 50% and said such a
conflict could rapidly spread, possibly drawing in Israel, Iraq, Lebanon
and some of the Gulf states.
This is not the most likely possibility. However, it
could not be ruled out that the IDF would launch a limited attack,
particularly if the Olmert-led government wished to boost its image of
being strong on security issues in advance of Israeli elections at the
end of March. In the 1982 election campaign, the Likud government led by
Menachem Begin ordered the bombing of Iraq�s Osirak nuclear facility.
This was a move that was widely viewed as helping it win the elections.
It is also the case that the leaking of the Pentagon
plans to bomb Iran can be utilised by the Bush administration to put
pressure on the Iranian government to draw back and come to some sort of
compromise. News of the sale of 500 bunker-busting bombs to Israel by
the US belongs in the same category.
Potential flashpoints
NONETHELESS, EVEN A limited attack by the Israeli
state on only one of Iran�s nuclear facilities could light the fires of
conflict around the Middle East. So behind the scenes, massive pressure
will be applied on Israel�s leaders by the EU imperialist powers and by
sections of the US ruling class not to go down this road.
Further potential flashpoints exist, particularly in
Syria (where there are strong links with the Ahmadinejad administration)
and Lebanon. Since the assassination last year of Lebanon�s ex-prime
minister, Rafiq al-Hariri, UN reports have fingered the Syrian regime of
Bashar Assad as being responsible. The withdrawal of the majority of
Syrian forces as a result of the mass demonstrations that followed the
assassination was a defeat for the Syrian regime, and has resulted in
increased aggressive rhetoric by Assad. It has also left a certain
vacuum which different political forces whose roots go back to the
Lebanese civil war have been attempting to fill. While there is still an
extremely strong mood amongst the majority of the Lebanese working class
against any return to the nightmare of conflict between the confessional
communities (Sunni and Shia Muslims, Christians, Druze, etc), this by
itself is not a guarantee that tensions and conflict could not develop,
especially in the absence of a strong united workers� movement.
The latest elections saw an increase in votes for
sectarian parties, and in recent demonstrations against Western
embassies, protesting against the publication of cartoons of the Prophet
Mohammed, some Christian communities came under attack.
The external pressure from Western imperialism may
provoke uncontrollable divisions within Syrian society as well. The
Ba�athist regime has traditionally rested on the Alawi minority, which
makes up 10% of the population. While the Bush administration has
slightly moderated its language by calling for �change within the
regime� rather than �regime-change�, this is only a change of form and
not content. Part of the reason for this may have been the splits that
have appeared in the Syrian Ba�athist regime. In January, Abdel Khaddam,
former vice-president of Syria for over 21 years until last summer,
launched a vicious attack on Assad, claiming at a Paris press conference
that "millions of Syrians cannot find food and many more are searching
for food in the garbage while the wealth is being accumulated in the
hands of a few". Khaddam is a Sunni Muslim and his comments
opportunistically reflect the anger of the majority of the population
who have become increasingly impoverished as the Alawi elite enriches
itself. Khaddam has formed an alliance with the outlawed Muslim
Brotherhood to fight for a �democratically elected government�. Without
an independent working-class voice in Syria, anger amongst the masses
can be diverted in other more divisive directions.
So are the prospects completely negative for the
Middle East? Imperialist intervention, the effects of neo-liberal
policies, and the absence of mass socialist parties of the working class
have undoubtedly made the situation very complicated.
But even under these conditions, there have been
signs of the working class seeking to exert its own independent
influence. Last summer in Gaza saw the formation of independent workers�
committees to fight for free schooling and health facilities for the
children of the unemployed, the implementation of an unemployment
benefit scheme, and the cancellation of all utility debts for families
where the main breadwinners were without work. These committees were
independent of the Palestinian General Workers� Union, which until
recently was seen as a tool of the Fatah-led PA. Committees also
developed in refugee camps where Hamas influence was strong and yet
maintained their independence of Islamic influence. While the lack of a
developed programme or ideology will probably limit their further
growth, this was a very significant development.
There have similarly been many strike movements
against privatisation in Egypt and in defence of jobs and wages in
several industries in Iran, particularly around the time of last year�s
presidential elections. The development of powerful movements of the
working class in the Middle East, even confined to economic or social
issues, would be a massive step forward. In some circumstances, these
could halt or slow down moves towards war or ethnic conflict.
However, in order to lay the basis for a solution to
the national question and the huge social and economic problems which
blight the region, a movement with a more developed programme and
strategy needs to be built. Such a movement needs to have at its core an
understanding that, without the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism,
long-lasting peace and security in the region is impossible. It is
necessary to struggle for a socialist confederation of the Middle East,
under which the resources of society would come under the auspices of a
democratic plan of production controlled by the working class and poor
peasantry, with democratic rights guaranteed to all minorities.
Without a struggle such as this, the history of the
Middle East will continue with the same script as before: imperialist
intrigue, intermittent war and internecine conflict.
|