Monday, May 23, 2011

فلنستولد الحق من أضلع المستحيل



ممم.. تبدو البداية دائما بالنسبة لي صعبة.. حين أبدأ الكتابة ارغب دوما في أن تبدو السطور الأولي من مقالي مثير وجاذبة للإنتباه, تجبر القرئ أن يكمل قرآءة ما أكتب حتي النهاية
لكني لن اهتم الآن بأن افعل ذلك.. يبدو الوقت ضيقا, والمشاكل أكبر من أن نبحث عن زخرف القول!!

خلاصة القول أن المجلس العسكري بالنسبة للثوار يبدو محيرا.. أليس هذا هو المجلس العسكري الذي استقبل الثوار جنوده بـ "الشعب الجيش إيد واحدة", وحملوا ضباطه وجنوده علي الأعناق فرحا بـ "المخلصين" المنتظرين؟!! إذا ما الذي يحدث؟؟

في اعتصام التحرير الأول, كان الموقف بالنسبة للمجلس العسكري الأعلي محيرا.. فالثوار مستميتين علي رحيل مبارك.. ولا يبدو في الأفق أي مخرج لهذه الأزمة.. في المقابل, فإن هناك ما هو أولي بالحفاظ من شخص حسني مبارك.. فمؤسسة الجيش تدير في متوسط التقديرات حوالي 20% من الإقتصاد المصري, بين أراض ومزارع ومصانع لا تتكلف العمالة فيها أي شئ, ويذهب كل حصيلتها لجيوب كبار القواد بلا وجود أدني وسيلة لمراقبتها أو مساءلتها.. هذه واحدة

الشئ الثاني يساوي 1.3 مليار دولار, هو حجم المعونات العسكرية الأمريكية, هنا ايضا بلا مساءلة علي أوجه إنفاق هذه المعونة.. بالطبع لا ننسي أن أمريكا لا تدفع هذا المبلغ للجيش المصري لوجه الله.. أمريكا تدفع مثل هذا المبلغ لأنه وسيلة الضمان الأساسية لتحييد الجيش المصري في معركة السيطرة علي مقدرات المنطقة وحماية إسرائيل.. وقد نجحوا في هذا كلية, ففي تقرير للنيويورك تايمز تحت عنوان "البنتاجون يضع رهانه علي جنرال مصري", جاء أن البنتاجون يراهن بعد سقوط مبارك علي شخصية "سامي عنان" من أجل أن يستمر الجيش في الحكم بلا تغيير حقيقي أو علي أقل تقدير أن يصبح للجيش دور أساسي من رسم السياسة المصرية ولو من وراء ستار

الأمر الثالث الذي حسب المجلس العسكري حسابه عندما بدأت الثورة هو أن أي أوامر للجنود بالتعامل مع الثوار وقتها كان أمرا غير مضمون العواقب, فلو حدث أن رفضت مجموعة من الجنود هذه الأوامر - وهو ما كان سيحدث في الغالب - فإن انقسام الجيش علي نفسه كان سيودي بكل هذه المصالح الخاصة بالمجلس العسكري والمصالح الأمريكية إلي الجحيم

لكل هذه الأسباب اضطر المجلس العسكري للتضحية بشخص مبارك من أجل المحافظة علي وضع ونظام مبارك, لأن شبكة المصالح ومنظومة الفساد هذه ليست مما يمكن التضحية به بسهولة, وأن عالم المصالح أولي وأهم دائما من الأشخاص

المشكلة ظهرت حينما اكتشف المجلس العسكري أن الثوار لم يحملوا حياتهم علي أكفهم من أجل خلع شخص مبارك, وإنما كانت الثورة من أجل خلع نظام مبارك.. نظام العمالة والفساد ورجال الأعمال في كل القطاعات
هذا الإصرار الثوري, الذي لا يهدأ إلا ليعود ولا يظهر السكوت إلا ليتضح أنه سكوت ترقب لا سكوت استسلام, يضع المجلس العسكري في حرجه الدائم والأبدي بين رغبته في عدم إحداث تغيير حقيقي للحفاظ علي مجموعة المصالح, وبين خوفه من تجاهل العمل الثوري الذي من الممكن أن يستمر ويتوسع ليطول رجال المجلس العسكري أنفسهم وهو ما يمكن أن يدمر ايضا شبكة المصالح هذه

إذا فهمنا هذا - في عالم تحركه المصالح والتوازنات - سنفهم كل ما فعله المجلس العسكري من محاولاته المستميتة لوقف وضرب اعتصامات التحرير ومجلس الشعب, إلا الحرب الإعلامية الرهيبة ضد إضرابات العمال, ومحاولة حصر مطالب الثورة في مجموعة من المطالب الإصلاحية الديموقراطية الظاهرية وليس تغييرا شاملا في النظام الإجتماعي وطرق توزيع الثروة في المجتمع, والتركيز علي عجلة الإنتاج باعتبار أن الثورة هي ما قتلت الإنتاج وليس 30 عاما من نظام الظلم والقهر والسرقة والفساد الذي قاده مبارك, وشارك فيه قواد وجنرالات الجيش

الحل؟ الحل بالطبع هو أن نفهم موقف الجيش هذا, ونبدأ في الحركة السريعة لحماية وإنقاذ ثورتنا واستكمال مطالبها مهما كان الثمن, الحل في أن تعود المظاهرات والإعتصامات, وأن تنتشر دعوات الإضراب وأن تتوقف مصر كلها عن العمل حتي تستكمل الثورة

تذكروا: سيقولون ها أنت تطلب ثأرا يطول.. فخذ الآن ما تستطيع.. قليلا من الحق.. في هذه السنوات القليلة... إنه ليس ثأرك وحدك, إنه ثأر جيل فجيل.. وغدا, سوف يولد من يلبس الدرع كاملة.. يوقد النار شاملة.. يطلب الثأر.. يستولد الحق من أضلع المستحيل...

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Egypt military trying political prisoners

The war against Libya and the eruption of European imperialism

(Image from AWIP)

The readiness of the European powers to line up almost unanimously behind the imperialist war against Libya is a defining moment in the political life of the continent.

On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin said of Iraq, “We believe that military intervention would be the worst solution.” Paris voted against war in the United Nations Security Council.

Together with opposition to the war from Germany, this led to the unedifying spectacle of putative leaders of the antiwar movement amongst “left” groups and the left social democrats hailing Europe as a counterweight to US militarism and even leading chants of “Vive la France!”

In the run-up to the war against Libya, France was in the forefront of demands for military intervention, with the Sarkozy government aligning itself with Britain and Washington against its longtime German ally and publicly denouncing Berlin’s reluctance to back war. With US support, France pushed through UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorising an attack on Libya. On March 10, 2011, France became the first country in the world to recognise the National Transitional Council as Libya’s government. It led the first air strikes on March 19.

France’s particular enmity towards Libya and the Gaddafi regime stretches back to the civil war in Chad and was made worse by the cargo hold bomb that destroyed France’s UTA Flight 772 in 1989—less than a year after the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. This may have played a part in France’s shift to military intervention in Libya.

More fundamentally, however, it is understandable only from the broader motive of eliminating a regime that France views as an obstacle to its historic imperialist ambitions in Africa. Crucially for Paris, as much as Washington, the mass movement against Western-backed dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia was seen as a threat to imperialist influence in North Africa. The war against Libya provides the opportunity to install an outright stooge regime and turn Libya in a base of operations against the threat of socialist revolution throughout the region.

Libya is also seen as setting a precedent for further military interventions, with President Nicolas Sarkozy asserting on March 24 that UN Resolution 1973’s citing of the “responsibility to protect” allowed for further interventions in Africa and the Middle East—beginning with the Ivory Coast. Yesterday, French and UN forces opened fire from helicopters on military camps operated by Ivory Coast incumbent leader Laurent Gbagbo. Paris has now sent close to 500 additional troops to reinforce its 1,500-strong military presence in its former colony to ensure the victory of its chosen puppet, Alassane Ouattara.

Similar foreign policy considerations animate other European powers in backing war against Libya.

Washington, through its military might and political influence over the Libyan opposition, intends to beat back the challenge to its domination from both China and the European powers. Prior to the war, US economic influence in Libya was minimal. Italy was Tripoli’s major trading partner, followed by Germany and China.

After the war, the National Transitional Council will be called on to ensure that a new balance is established. But most European powers have nevertheless signed on for a military campaign under US leadership in the hope of not being squeezed out of the division of the spoils of war, and because they, like France, have an overriding interest in the precedent set for similar colonial interventions.

The exception of Germany is not simply a continuation of its position in 2003. In the intervening years, Berlin has pursued a marked orientation towards new alliances that strengthen its position against the US.

Germany abstained on UN Security Council Resolution 1973 alongside Brazil, Russia, India and China—known as the BRICs—and against its NATO allies. Germany has, in fact, been seeking closer relations with Russia for years, on which it relies for its gas supplies. German trade with China is in excess of $100 billion a year.

Berlin may believe that its economic influence in North Africa and the Middle East is the best means of projecting Germany’s global interests, but like its European counterparts it must inevitably face up to the gap between such ambitions and its lack of military muscle if it is to avoid being sidelined by the US. As in the 1930s, mounting geopolitical tensions lead inevitably towards European rearmament.

What accounts for this renewed campaign of imperialist domination?

The financial crash of 2008, which wiped out trillions in paper capital assets, has proved to be a turning point in the fortunes of world capitalism, raising antagonisms between the major powers to a new intensity.

The crash was the culmination of a protracted process in which the US was transformed from the premier world economic power and guarantor of capitalist stability into the leading debtor nation and the chief source of economic and political instability on the world arena. It has no way of reversing its decline and meeting the challenge from rising powers, especially China, as well as its traditional rivals in Europe and Japan, other than to deepen the offensive begun in earnest in Iraq to secure its global military hegemony. China, Europe, et al must and will follow suit. This intensified struggle for markets, profits and resources ultimately threatens the eruption of a third world war.

This crisis also dictates a sustained escalation of the class struggle.

Rescuing the banks by emptying government coffers cost the US and European powers trillions. But it was only the beginning of an economic crisis, the likes of which has no equal since the 1930s. After the bailout comes the macroeconomic impact—the onset of recession and the driving up of state debt to 50 percent, 80 percent, a hundred percent and more of GDP.

The only way the bourgeoisie can claw any of this lost revenue back is through the drastic lowering of working-class living standards—a policy of class war at home to accompany imperialist war abroad. Governments throughout Europe are intent on imposing a fundamental realignment of class forces in the interest of the major corporations and the super-rich by means of historically unprecedented austerity drives involving hundreds of billions of euros in cuts, the slashing of wages and a hike in exploitation.

The connection between the new stage in the eruption of imperialist militarism and the turn to class war against working people is reflected in the media’s routine use of military terminology when discussing the austerity measures being imposed.

The March 24 edition of the Economist notes how far this economic blitzkrieg has already gone. It writes:

“The authorities have applied shock and awe in the form of fiscal and monetary stimulus. They have prevented the complete collapse of the financial sector—bankers’ pay has certainly held up just fine. The corporate sector is also doing well… But the benefits of recovery seem to have been distributed almost entirely to the owners of capital rather than workers. In America total real wages have risen by $168 billion since the recovery began, but that has been far outstripped by a $528 billion jump in profits. Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research reckons that this is the first time profits have outperformed wages in absolute terms in 50 years.

“In Germany, profits have increased by €113 billion ($159 billion) since the start of the recovery, and employee pay has risen by just €36 billion. Things look even worse for workers in Britain, where profits have risen by £14 billion ($22.7 billion) but aggregate real wages have fallen by £2 billion… labour’s share has been in decline across the OECD since 1980. The gap has been particularly marked in America: productivity rose by 83 percent between 1973 and 2007, but male median real wages rose by just 5 percent.”

This is only the beginning of what the ruling elite has in mind.

The attacks levelled against workers will deepen, even as crisis-ridden regimes such as Sarkozy’s in France or the Conservative-led coalition in Britain utilise flag-waving over Libya as a means of diverting attention from their domestic agenda.

The working class must formulate its own response to this fundamental political shift. Just as the bourgeoisie’s foreign and domestic policy is dictated by the global interests of the major corporations and the super-rich elite, so too must workers elaborate their own unified international strategy.

Opposition to war cannot be confined to pacifist appeals to either governments or the United Nations, under whose imprimatur the war against Libya is being waged. Neither can a stand against war be expected from any section of the Labour and trade union bureaucracy. Like the struggle to defend jobs and services, the fight against war requires the waging of the class struggle by the workers themselves.

The only viable answer to imperialist war is the independent political mobilisation of the working class in the struggle to replace the rule of capital with a system based upon social equality and genuine democracy. It means workers setting out to take power into their own hands, linking opposition to war with a struggle for decent jobs, social services, health care and education for all, to be paid for through the redistribution of wealth from the ruling elite to working people—the expropriation of the corporate and financial oligopolies and their conversion into democratically-controlled public enterprises.

Source

Saturday, March 26, 2011

FREE RADWAN


My friend, Mohamed Radwan, has been arrested in Syria!!

Radwan is an Egyptian engineer with an American passport. He works these days in Syria. The Syrian regime arrested him trying to convince Syrians that there is a foreign conspiracy against Assad. No poeple, don't believe him..

Spread his word, his story..

(I will update more about Radwan once I am able to pull myself together)

Egyptian Military Abuses Women Protresters With Virginity Tests!!

Serious allegations that the Egyptian military is applying "virginity tests" to women protesters they arrest from different protests. The testimonies came from different sources and yet, the army didn't launch an investigation till now.
These allegations of human rights violations by the Egyptian military are not the first. A lot of documentations of torture of protesters are available and collected by human rights activists and organizations. The systematic torture by military thugs are not stopping till now despite these reports!

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Is A No-Fly Zone The Only Way To Help Libya?


Well, America is not that humans-loving! From our experience from Afghanistan and Iraq - the US never give anything for free or for the sake of humanity! So, when they go for a no-fly zone in Libya, there must be another thing than stopping Qaddafi from massacring the Libyan people!!

Put this in mind when you are thinking in the no-fly zone resolution the Security Council just made. This doesn't mean that I am a pro-Qaddafi or endorsing him. Qaddafi is one of the biggest criminals in the human history. I am with the Libyan revolution till forever.

Now, we need to think of something that enables Libyans to continue and succeed in their revolution without allowing western imperial powers to invade and consume Libya's resources in the name of helping the revolution! How can this be done?

Aids and arms need to be smuggled inside Libya, revolutionaries to go there if anyone interested in, hospitals to be opened for Libyan in Tunisia and Egypt. These are examples, I am just triggering a discussion and this can be updated later.

My only point for now is: this is not a only-two-options-available situation between Qaddafi or Western imperialism. There is a third option: to continue the revolution by ourselves...