Re: [Marxism] Mass anti-Syria protest in Beirut and comments on situat ion

["acpollack2@xxxxxxxx" <acpollack2@xxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Fred, for an excellent analysis. I hope folks will take note of the way 
Fred tries to assess in combination the variety of motivations and 
circumstances facing each of the forces involved.

Now THAT's Marxism! (it's also entertainment if you're so inclined :)

-- "Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: Mass anti-Syria protest in Beirut, and comments on the course
of the imperialist "war for democracy" in the Middle East.



The US media is portraying the latest demonstration by the
U.S.-supported "Cedar Revolution" wing of the widening political crisis
as far larger than the Hezbollah protests.  The Guardian is more
cautious.  It was to be expected that this protest would be much larger
than the previous actions by the Jumblatt-Christian -- middle-class
alliance, since it would not have been worth holding otherwise.

By force and threats, the US is attempting to impose pro-imperialist
"consensus democracies" on the Middle East to replace some of the
bourgeois nationalist regimes that have not been responsive enough to
the growing needs and demnds of US imperialism.

Washington has been able to bring France in as a partner, a significant
gain in "coalition-building" although whether it will go beyond Lebanon
remains to be seen.

"Consensus democracies" attempt to unite the divided ruling classes,
with middle-class backing, under direction from the "international
community" -- the imperialist banks and corporations, stock and bond
buyers, etc. The technique is to sponsor multiparty electoral systems
systems, united around the basic goals and policies of US imperialism.
The stability of this setup requires preventing mass organization , mass
representation, and mass action for their interests which is portrayed
as undemocratic because it rejects the "democratic consensus." The
structure is aimed at creating "political space" for narrowing layers
while pushing the masses far away from politics.

Of course, this also requires an economic situation that fosters the
emergence of a broad "new rich" layer and prosperity for at least

These are the kinds of regimes that came to dominate Latin American
politics after the defeats of the '60s and '70s and a wave  of military
dictatorships had beaten down the masses -- including the grinding down,
retreat, and defeat of the Nicaraguan revolution.

A good model of this kind of "democracy" existed in Cuba from the defeat
of a revolutionary upsurge in the 1930s, and ended as the consensus
began to break down when Batista who had ruled as a
democratically-elected leader under this setup from 1940-44, carried out
a military coup.  One of the most successful examples of reactionary
regimes of this type was in Venezuela. The COPEI/Accion Democratica
regime was consolidated by the 1970s and continued to stifle the
struggles of the Venezuelan masses until its disintegration culminated
in the election of Chavez in the late 1990s.

Of course, this system of governance, which provided a degree of
stability and trillions in profits to US imperialism for quite a few
years, has been in what may be a terminal crisis in Latin America since
the defeat of the attempted "people power"-military coups against Chavez
in Venezuela.  It is now headed toward an explosive and unpredictable
confrontation in Bolivia.

Can such stabilization take place in the Middle East at a time when it
is collapsing in Latin America?  Can it be carried out without
reawakening the masses, who have taken very heavy blows in the Middle
East over the decades since the Iranian revolution?  Can it take place
at a time when the economic conjuncture is worse for imperialism than it
was in the late 80s and 90s and downright apocalyptic for much of the
semicolonial world?  US imperialism  faces many problems in trying to
simultaneously strengthen, expand, reknit, and stabilize the empire.

Especially since, at the same time they have to destabilize the
semicolonial status quo which no longer met their growing demands for
sacrifices from the empire to keep the center in balance economically
and politically.

The immediate goal of attack in the Middle East is Syria, not Iran, and
the hope is that the current series of moves will isolate Syria, and
make it vulnerable to attack  or imperialist pressure to bring down the
regime (which would probably followed by some form of "peacekeeping"
occupation). Syria is the weakest target militarily and politically, and
in this operation the weakest target is always the next target.
(Remember, Malcolm X's comment that imperialism used to be an eagle, but
has become a vulture that feeds off the dead and dying.)

Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon will increase not lessen the imperialist
pressure and movement toward aggression against Syria.  This is not,
however, a judgement on whether Syria SHOULD withdraw. Withdrawal may be
the best way to retain broad mass opposition in the Middle East and
elsewhere to the attack being prepared.  It may also increase popular
pressure for US withdrawal from Iraq, including on the Shia leaders not
to treat the US presence as their "ace in the hole" against the Sunni
resistance -- which is the current trend of the top leadership of the
Shia alliance.

But the focus on the Syrian presence in Lebanon will be replaced by
others -- did they really withdraw?  What about weapons of mass
destruction? What about Syrian intervention in Lebanon, Iraq, and the
Israeli-occupied territories? What about the need to get rid of the
"totalitarian" Syrian government? What about Syria's role in terrorism?
What about 9/ll? Prove there are no Syrian ties to Al-Qaeda? And what
about the oppressed Kurds in Syria?  And the oppressed Sunnis (the top
leaders are from the Allawite minority? And what about women's rights?
And what about gay rights? (Why, those reactionary scum don't even allow
civil unions! Bomb Damascus!)

Anything will go as always, and the capitalist media will find its way
to push line, regardless of the facts, as long as the policies look like
a winner.  And we are in  the midst of another wave of euphoria about
imperialist invincibility on the issue of "democracy" in the Middle
East, so they will push it with even more unity than they initially had
around Iraq.

The US currently has fairly wide support from the imperialist allies for
this course.  Note Donald Rumsfeld's comment that the talk about "Old
Europe" was just "Old Rumsfeld."

Washington is hoping that permitting a Shia-dominated government (with a
Kurdish veto power) in Iraq will effectively neutralize the Iraqi masses
in the event of an attack on Syria, which the Kurdish organizations will
support.

(Washington's need for pro-US Kurdish nationalist leaders to stand guard
over a nationalist-tending Iraqi government is yet another reason for
the administration to oppose Kurdish independence. Iraqis, on the other
hand, should begin to see the value of being rid of their former
oppressive rule, now being exercised in a semi-colonial form by
Washington, over Kurdistan.)

The Bush administration counts on an anti-Syria, more-friendly-to-Israel
government in Lebanon seeing the attack as strengthening their hand, and
neutralizing the Hezbollah by buying them off or (more likely in the
long run) waging war against them with US and Israeli support (including
troops if needed).

The Palestinian leadership will be under growing pressure to stick to
verbal protests, lest they disturb the possibility of winning an easing
of the war against Palestine and a few concessions from Israel.


Threats by Israel to attack Iran (an attack that cannot be waged without
US endorsement since Israel cannot afford to be punished by Washington)
are intended to make the Iranian government tolerate an attack on Syria
as "buying time" for themselves.

In fact, a massive attack on Iran will only become politically realistic
once Lebanon's government is under Washington's and Tel
Aviv's thumb, and Hezbollah is embattled, and the Syrian government is
toppled and replaced with a more reliable one. The imperialists hope
these changes will create a relationship of forces in which Iraq's and
Lebanon's Shia would remain passive while Iran is attacked.

This is a jerry-built strategy which is nearly certain to fall apart
eventually at one or more key points.  The Iraqi resistance (defined
BROADLY and INCLUSIVELY -- that is, viewed more broadly than the
Sunni-based military resistance but also INCLUDING the Sunni-based
military resistance WITH ALL ITS PROBLEMS)is part of the progressive and
legitimate mass response to this assault.

As is the resistance being put up by Hezbollah in Lebanon.  The class
and other divisions among the US-encouraged "Cedar revolution" forces in
Lebanon are also sure to become sharper over time, including after a
Syrian withdrawal.

The mass response will find a way forward, but US imperialism is trying
to escalate its takeover drive to get ahead of the pace of this response
and, if possible, head it off.

BUT IT IS PREMATURE TO DECLARE THAT US IMPERIALISM HAS ALREADY BEEN
DEFEATED IN IRAQ, MILITARILY OR POLITICALLY.

The utopian fantasies of  the neoconservative ideologues CANNOT BE USED
TO JUDGE THE OUTCOME, but only more realpolitik standards of US
imperialist military and political power and economic gain.
This was never likely, in the real world, to be a short war and the
initial Bush presentations -- before the selling of invading Iraq as a
pushover became hot and heavy -- presented it as potentially eternal.

The neocons' dizzy predictions of easy victory and massive support from
the joyous natives were useful for firming up the will to carry out the
war, but cannot be the standard for determining imperialist success.
Neoconservative fantasizing serves primarily as chiliastic,
final-conflict war propaganda for the political classes, the media, the
professoriate, the conservative intellectual youth, and so on..

The battle is still being waged.  The outcome in Iraq so far, like the
battle overall,  is mixed, not yet defeat or victory.  As Yogi Berra
wisely insisted, "It ain't over till it's over!"
Fred Feldman




The Guardian (UK)
Beirut demonstrators demand full withdrawal

James Sturcke and agencies
Monday March 14, 2005


Beirut protesters demand the full withdrawal of Syrian troops from
Lebanon. Photograph: AP


Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators gathered in Beirut today in the
biggest anti-Syria protest since the assassination of the former prime
minister Rafik Hariri.
The crowds demanded a full withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon and
an international investigation into the killing of Mr Hariri on February
14.

The protest, in Beirut's Martyrs' Square, comes after a pro-Syria rally
last week, organised by the Shia group Hizbullah, which drew an
estimated 500,000 demonstrators. Today, protesters also denounced the
reinstatement last Thursday of the prime minister, Omar Karami, who is a
staunch supporter of Damascus.

Meanwhile, Syria continued to withdraw its troops today. Under intense
international pressure, some Syrian troops have already gone home and
others have pulled back to the eastern Beka'a valley. Syrian
intelligence vacated offices in two northern towns today, having shut
down offices in towns to the east of Beirut last week.

Today's protest comes after a string of meetings between the Syrian
president, Bashar Assad, and the UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen, who
indicated he had obtained further details of a pullout timetable from
President Assad. UN security council resolution 1559 calls for Syria to
withdraw all its 14,000 troops from Lebanon.

A senior Lebanese army officer said yesterday that 4,000 Syrian soldiers
had returned to Syria, but he said a date for a complete withdrawal
would not be set until an April 7 meeting of Syrian and Lebanese
officers.

As part of the tit-for-tat protests, at least 100,000 pro-Syrian
demonstrators turned out yesterday in another Hizbullah-organised
protest in the southern market town of Nabatiyeh, burning Israeli flags
and waving posters of President Assad, his late father, President Hafez
Assad, and the Lebanese president, Emile Lahoud.

Syria has been Lebanon's main power broker since sending troops to its
smaller neighbour in 1976 to help quell what was then a year-old civil
war.


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism