Tunisians brought down the dictator Ben Ali. Today, they continue to fight against his men to head the transitional government. In this new chapter of our series "Understanding the Muslim world," Mohamed Hassan * ((photo-cons) explains the implications of the revolution of Tunisia and its root causes: how nationalism Liberal advocated by Tunisia under Bourguiba interests Western, plunging people into poverty, how a repressive state has put in place to maintain this system, why dictatorships in the Arab world are caused to fall, and how Islam became the condom imperialism
(Gregory Lalieu Michel Collon)
In December 2010, riots broke out in Tunisia. A month later, President Ben Ali fled the country after twenty-three year reign. What are the causes of this revolution? And why is it popular movement succeeded in bringing down the dictator where other attempts have failed?
For there to be a revolution, it is necessary that people refuse to live as before and that the ruling class is no longer able to govern as before. On December 17, 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi, a young seller of fruits and vegetables, has sacrificed out of desperation after police had confiscated his goods himself, and that local authorities have to stop working. The conditions were ripe for a revolution broke out in Tunisia Bouazizi and suicide was the trigger.
Indeed, the Tunisians did not want to live as before: they were not accepting corruption, police repression, lack of freedom, unemployment, etc.. Moreover, the ruling class could no longer govern as before. Corruption under Ben Ali had taken a phenomenal amount while the majority of the population had to face insecurity. To maintain this status, police repression would be higher but it had reached its limits. The ruling elite was completely disconnected from the people for whom there was no interlocutor. Therefore, when popular revolts broke out, the ruling class had no choice but to quell the violence. But with the determination of the people, the repression reached its limit. This is one of the keys to the success of the popular revolution of Tunisia: it managed to reach all segments of society, including members of the army and police who sympathized with the demonstrators. The repressive apparatus could no longer function as before either. If a revolt occurs but is not able to combine different segments society, it can not lead a revolution.
Even after the departure of Ben Ali, the protests continue. The situation that Tunisians refuse is not the result of one man? For
signs "Ben Ali emerges" signs were followed by "CDR releases. Tunisians are attacking the president's political party because they fear that one of his men to take power. But in reality, the root causes that led to revolt Tunisians far outweigh Ben Ali and the RCD. It is not enough to turn the president for the people earns his freedom and improves living conditions.
corruption, unemployment, social inequality ... What are the effects of imperialist domination of the West over Tunisia. For Tunisia, after independence, became a project of the United States.
What do you mean by imperialism?
Imperialism is the process by which capitalist powers politically and economically dominated by foreign countries. Western multinationals plunder the resources of Africa, Latin America and Asia. They find opportunities for capital they will accumulate and exploit cheap labor market. I say that multinationals are not buying as they plunder the resources at their fair value and the local people not benefiting from these riches. And this looting would not be possible if these countries operated, there were no leaders to defend the interests of multinationals. These leaders are getting richer in the process. They constitute the so-called comprador bourgeoisie. They have no political vision for their own country does not produce wealth and do not develop a real economy. But personally enriched by trading resources their countries with multinationals. Obviously, the people are the biggest victim in all this!
When you're a nationalist anti-imperialist cons, you are looking to develop for yourself. You nationalize key sectors of your economy, rather than leaving the management to foreign companies. This will create a national economy in the country and you allow it to grow on the basis of independence. That's what I call a national democratic revolution: national independent because of the imperialist powers, democratic as against feudalism and the elements reactionaries in the country.
However, Bourguiba, Tunisia's first president, was considered a socialist. And during his reign, the state played a very important role in the economy.
Bourguiba's political party was socialist in name only. If the state played an important role, it was only for the benefit of an elite only. This is called state capitalism. In addition, Bourguiba has systematically eliminated all the progressive elements and anti-imperialist in his party. So that this party became the party of one man, completely subject to U.S. imperialism.
Habib Bourguiba , great actor in the struggle for independence, was president of Tunisia from 1957 to 1987
What Was Tunisia important for the United States?
To understand the importance of that country to the U.S. strategy, we must analyze the political context of the Arab world in years 50 and 60. In 1952, officers overthrew the monarchy of King Farouk of Egypt and proclaim a republic. With Nasser at the helm Egypt becomes the basis of Arab nationalism inspired with revolutionary ideas of socialism. As evidenced by the nationalization of the Suez Canal, Nasser's arrival in power is a blow to the West because the Egyptian president's policy is totally at odds with the hegemonic Western powers in the Near and Middle East. Worse still: the anti-imperialist ideas of Nasser are emulated in the region. In Yemen for example, where in 1962 a revolution divided the country, the South becoming a bastion of Arab revolutionary movement. The same year, the independence of Algeria sends a strong signal to Africa and the Third World, the imperialist powers put on alert. Libya also note the Qaddafi coup in 1969. The colonel took power and nationalized major sectors of the economy, to the chagrin of the West. The same year, the Islamic revolution in Iran toppled the Shah, one of the most important pillars of U.S. strategy in the Middle East.
short, at that time, an anti-imperialist movement defies strong strategic interests of the United States in the Arab world. Fortunately for Washington, all countries in the region do not follow the path of Nasser. It the case of Tunisia. In 1957, a year after the independence of Tunisia, Bourguiba was one of the first Arab leaders to send U.S. in the prestigious journal, Foreign Affairs. The title of the article? Nationalism best antidote to communism. For the United States who want to counter the influence of Nasser is a godsend! Bourguiba wrote in his article: "With the regard, Tunisia has chosen to make unequivocal its way into the free world from the West." We are in the Cold War. The Soviets argued that Nasser's influence grows in the region. And the U.S. needs pro-imperialist agents Bourguiba as not to lose strategic control of the Arab world.
Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956
Can we be both nationalist and pro-imperialist?
Bourguiba was a liberal nationalist with anti-communist ideas which led him to join the imperialist camp in the West. In fact, I feel like George Padmore Bourguiba Arabic. Padmore was a leading Pan-Caribbean origin. In 1956 he wrote a book called Pan-Africanism or Communism: The battle ahead in Africa. Like Bourguiba, he fed anti-communist ideas and even if he declared himself a nationalist, his political vision was largely subservient to the interests of imperialist powers. Nationalism served as a cover, their policy is far from being independent. Padmore had a great influence on the first president of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, one of the instigators of the African Union. Its pro-imperialist ideas were able to spread across the continent with the result that we see today is celebrated around the golden jubilee of independence in Africa, but many Africans know they have never become independent. President Nkrumah himself later regretted having taken the advice of Padmore.
In Tunisia too, the submission to imperialist interests has quickly been felt and it turned out that nationalism advocated by Bourguiba was a facade. In the 70s, for example, the President has passed a series of measures intended to attract foreign investors: tax exemption on company profits for ten years, exemption from all duties and taxes for twenty years, exemption from Tax Income property values, etc.. Tunisia has become a vast workshop of Western multinationals in recent repatriation of profits.
Tunisia did she not still been some good progress under Bourguiba?
Yes, there have been positive developments: education, status of women, etc.. First, because Tunisia were the progressives in his elite players, but they were quickly dismissed. Then, because Tunisia was to be dressed in his finest dress. Indeed, this country played a major role in the strategy of the United States to counter the influence of communism in the Arab world. But what had you on the other side? Progressive revolutionary movements that had toppled backward and monarchies who enjoyed popular support. You could not counteract this movement by advocating a feudal system. Saudi Arabia has done so because it could use its oil money for that. But Tunisia, unable to rely on such resources, should provide some progressive image. In the fight against communism, it was supposed to represent a successful Third World countries have chosen the path of liberal nationalism.
But behind the scenes was less flattering. As I said, Bourguiba has systematically eliminated the progressive elements that do not follow his steps. The anti-imperialists who wanted an independent Tunisia both economically and politically, those who wanted to assert their own position in the Third World and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, all were opposed. Tunisia has in fact been used as a laboratory of the imperialist powers. And what was supposed to represent the success of liberal nationalism has become a dictatorship.
When Ben Ali Bourguiba succeeded in 1987, he continues on the same track?
Absolutely. One can even say that the submission to Western interests has grown. Ben Ali was a pure agent of U.S. imperialism. In 1980, as ambassador to Poland, he even served as a liaison between the CIA and Lech Walesa, the union leader who fought against the Soviet Union.
In 1987, when Ben Ali assumed the presidency of Tunisia, the country was deeply in debt by the capitalist crisis of 1973. Moreover, at that time, the ideas of Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys were very popular. These ultra-liberal economists believed that the market is an entity capable of regulating themselves and that the state should certainly not interfere in the economy. The technical elite Tunisian largely from U.S. schools were highly influenced by theories of Friedman. Ben Ali then left the state capitalism in effect at the beginning of the era Bourguiba. Under the supervision of the IMF and World Bank, he began a privatization program much more massive than what his predecessor had already begun in the 70s.
What were the effects of this new economic policy?
First, privatization of the Tunisian economy has allowed Ben Ali and his wife's family, Trabelsi, personal enrichment. Corruption has reached a very high level, Tunisia has become a country totally subservient to imperialism, headed by a comprador bourgeoisie. Obviously, Ben Ali and his clan did not have many raw materials to selling out to Western multinationals. But they took advantage of the education system established under Bourguiba to develop a service economy. Indeed, the Tunisian workforce is highly educated and inexpensive at a time. It therefore attracts foreign investors.
Tourism has also developed strong as to become the mainstay of the Tunisian economy. Here we see the lack of political vision of the elite. Indeed, no country can develop its economy based on tourism if not first developed a national economic base. The tourism industry consumes a lot but reported very little to the Tunisian people. Imagine: while Western tourists consume hectoliters of water to bask in pools, Jacuzzis or golf course, the poor peasants in the south face of the drying soil.
But it's not just the farmers who have suffered from this policy. Overall, the social conditions of the Tunisian people deteriorated while the president's entourage has amassed a huge fortune. Everyone knew the regime was corrupt. So to maintain this system, the system should prevent any disputes. The repression became even more brutal penny Ben Ali simple criticism or even the desire for modernity and openness were not allowed. Such a situation could lead to popular revolt. Moreover, trying to monopolize his clan the wealth of the country, Ben Ali has also drew the ire of some of the traditional bourgeois Tunisia.
You say that political repression was very strong. Is there anyway today, opposition forces can guide the people's revolution now that Ben Ali has fallen?
Genuine opposition parties were banned under Ben Ali. However, some continued to exist underground. For example, the first Tunisian Communist Party could not live openly and organize like any political party in a democracy. But he continued to operate secretly through associations of civil society (teachers, farmers, doctors, prisoners ...). The PGWPP was able to form a social base and fired a solid experience of this period. It is exceptional in the Arab world.
I think two major challenges now await the opposition parties. First, they must come forward and make themselves known to the general public in Tunisia. Then they must organize a united front of resistance to imperialism. In fact, the imperialist powers seek to maintain the system without Ben Ali Ben Ali. We see now with the Union government National rejected the Tunisians, which is very positive. But the imperialist powers will not stop there. They will certainly seek to impose an International Electoral Commission to support candidates who defend to their best interests. It is therefore necessary to resist interference by creating a united front to build a true democracy.
Opposition parties are they able to overcome their differences to create such a front?
I know that some political parties were reluctant to associate Islamo-nationalist movement Ennahda. This movement emerged in the 80s. He advocated an anti-imperialist line and in fact, has suffered political repression. Why not combine Ennahda in front of resistance to the interference of foreign powers? Tunisia is a Muslim country. It is normal that a political force emerges with an Islamo-nationalist trend. You can not prevent that.
But each of these movements must be studied separately, with its own specificities. This was done by the communist PGWPP. They studied scientifically objective conditions that apply Tunisia. Their conclusion is that the Communists and Islamo-nationalists have been victims of political repression and that even though their programs differ, they share common ground: they want an end to dictatorship and the independence of Tunisia. The Communists have proposed an alliance with the Islamo-nationalists long ago. Of course, the PGWPP does not make Tunisia a Islamic state. Its political agenda is different from that of al-Nahda. But it is the Tunisian people who will judge these differences democratically. Elections should be a contest open to everyone. That is true democracy.
Precisely opposition parties gathered in front of 14 January to fight against the interim government of Mohamed Ghannouchi, a henchman of former President Ben Ali. A hopeful sign?
Absolutely, Tunisia is on the right track: all opposition parties banned so far have created a united front to prevent the system is maintained without Ben Ali Ben Ali. Also underline the role played by the base of the union UGTT. The head of the union authorized under Ben Ali was corrupt and working with the state police. But since the basis of the union put pressure on its leaders and members who UGTT were part of the transitional government have resigned. Although much remains to be done, democracy wins Tunisian institutions under pressure from the people.
Western powers opposed to that. They want to impose democracy in Tunisia where only low-intensity "good" candidates would be allowed to stand for election. If you look at the type of democracy that the United States enjoy, you come across Ethiopia. The U.S. government has provided $ 983 million to countries in the Horn of Africa for the year 2010. That same year, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, in office since 16 years, was reelected with 99.5 percent of the vote! It's even better than Ben Ali! The reality is this: behind their rhetoric in support of the Tunisian people, the Western powers continue to actively support many other Ben Ali in the world.
The United States could not they support other candidates pro-imperialist, but in the eyes of Tunisians, were not associated with the Ben Ali era?
It would be difficult. There is a part of the comprador bourgeoisie which was lésinée by the corrupt system of Ben Ali. But this elite is not strong enough control the popular movement and not enough grounding in the Establishment to win.
The United States had also thought of another strategy: a few months ago, while Ben Ali was still in power, the U.S. ambassador has visited a Communist leader in prison. Officially, a simple observation visit in the framework of respect for human rights. Unofficially, the U.S. anticipated the departure of Ben Ali and wanted to test the waters. Their goal was to get the Communists against the Islamo-nationalists, divide the resistance to imperialism to weaken more. But the Communists Tunisia does not fall into the trap. They are very familiar with the strategy developed by Henry Kissinger in the 80s in the Middle East. They published a very good study on the subject and know they should not take orders from outside or adhere to ideologies manufactured by foreign powers.
Why the U.S. have they abandoned Ben Ali? Had he gone too far in personal enrichment? According to a cable Wikileaks, the U.S. ambassador was very critical of the system of quasi-mafioso Tunisian president, organized corruption are obstacles to investments by foreign companies.
This is not the problem. The United States does not care about corruption. Instead, it is a key element of the system of domination on the U.S. South. In fact, Washington was aware of the internal situation in Tunisia and knew that Ben Ali would not be able to govern. The West must now ensure that the replacement of Ben Ali will continue to defend their interests. The stakes are high. The capitalist crisis is causing serious problems in the West. Besides this, China is getting stronger and now provides more loans than the World Bank and other imperialist powers combined. She even wants to buy a significant portion of the debt of the euro area partly because it has economic interests with European countries, on the other imperialist powers to divide, the EU is historically associated with states USA.
In such a context, the Tunisian people's movement, under the auspices of a revolutionary leadership, could establish an independent government and take advantage of this situation of a multipolar world. The imperialist powers fear that countries that were traditionally under his rule become economically independent, turning also to China. Tunisia could build relationships with the Asian giant to develop its commercial ports. And it would seriously question the concept of the Mediterranean Dialogue, this expansion of NATO to the countries of the Mediterranean that is not a dialogue but a mere instrument of Western domination.
Another country that seems to fear democracy in Tunisia and in the region, Israel. Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom said shortly after the fall of Ben Ali that the development of democracy in Arab countries threaten Israel's security. This country often called only democracy in the Middle East, would he be afraid of competition?
Under a democratic facade, Israel is a fascist, apartheid state. In the region, it can not ally with repressive dictatorial states, led by comprador bourgeoisie that weaken the body of the Arab nation. Currently, these Arab states are rich countries inhabited by poor people. But if a democratic government in the full sense of the term emerges, it will increase economically the Arab nation as a whole. And this economic development will lead to an alliance of Arab countries against the state racist oppressing the Palestinians. Israel fears this course.
Moreover, there is a very big gap between the official positions of Arab dictatorships and the popular sentiment about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since Egyptian President Sadat visited Israel in 1977, Egypt's position is "we want peace." But it is a position imposed by force to the population. And the current Egyptian government is not content to maintain peaceful relations with Tel Aviv. It participates actively in the strangulation of Gaza, while the majority of Egyptians in solidarity with Palestinians.
It's the same alignment of Arab dictatorships on Washington politics. Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are allies of the United States while the populations of these countries are anti-imperialists. I was in Egypt when Muntadhar al-Zaidi, a journalist in Iraq, threw his shoes on George W. Bush. The Egyptian population was celebrated as a hero. I heard of fathers wanting to marry their daughter with the reporter. Still, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is one of the most faithful allies of Washington.
Do you think the revolution Tunisia a domino effect could cause the downfall of other dictatorships in the Arab world?
70% of the population in Arab countries is less than thirty years and knows that unemployment, police repression and corruption. But all these young people want to live. And to live, they need change. This is the reality of each country. It is therefore not even need a domino effect, the objective conditions are ripe for further revolutions erupt.
People no longer want to live as before. But for their part, the ruling classes are they unable to govern as before?
course. And we see in Egypt today. There are police everywhere in this country. But it is impossible to control everything. A state police has its limitations and the Arab world have reached.
Furthermore, information plays a very important role today. Tunisians, Egyptians and peoples of the Third World are better informed through Al-Jazeera as part of an Internet and social networks on the other. The evolution of information technology has increased the level of education and consciousness of people. The people no longer a mass of illiterate peasants. You have a lot of very smart young people, with a certain practical sense, able to circumvent censorship and of mobilizing the Internet.
there in these countries the opposition forces can guide the popular revolutions?
Why Punishment is so important if these dictators were not in danger? Why the comprador bourgeoisie, so greedy, she would spend so much money in the repressive apparatus if she was not afraid to be reversed? If there was no opposition, all this would not be necessary.
the side of Western observers, many fear that the collapse of these regimes Arab favors the rise of Islamism. As summarized so finely Christophe Barbier, editor of L'Express, "Ben Ali is better than the bearded." These fears proved on of Islamism are they based?
Islamism became the condom of imperialism. Western powers justify their strategy of domination in the Arab-Muslim world under the guise of fighting against Islam. There are Islamists everywhere today. Soon, we shall find even traces of Al-Qaeda on Mars if it is useful to the imperialists!
In reality, the West has always needed to invent an enemy to justify its hegemonic designs and incredible military spending (financed by taxpayers). After the fall of the Soviet Union and the demise of the communist enemy is Islam and Al Qaeda who have played the roles of villains villains.
But the West has no problem with Islamism. It adapts very well to this trend in countries like Saudi Arabia. Moreover, he himself fostered the rise of Islamist movements to counter the Arab nationalism at a time. The real problem for the West is anti-imperialism. That's why he tries to discredit any popular movement in the Arab world who is opposed to its interests by affixing the label "Islamist."
Finally, it should not be very smart to think that the Arab dictatorships are bulwarks against the rise of religious fanaticism. Instead, these repressive regimes have led some of the population to be radicalized. Who could afford to say that such and such people have no right to democracy? In a truly democratic country, different political forces may emerge. But the bourgeoisie comprador ruling in the Arab dictatorships can not convince people. She can not even face to face. To defend the imperialist interests, you must prevent other political forces to emerge because they are likely to convince the people against a corrupt elite. The West has always sought to maintain dictatorships that served its interests by waving the specter of Islamism. But the Arab peoples need democracy. They claim it today and nobody can not go against these claims.
Source: www.michelcollon.info
0 comments:
Post a Comment