Democracy Prevention.

Like many I have been trying to keep track of the Syrian conflict, which has gone from an uprising to a full blown civil war beyond anything seen in Libya. The conflict has raged for 18 months leaving over 20,000 dead and over 1.5 million people have fled their homes. It would seem the bat-eared Bashar is looking to outdo his father in this slaughter. I haven’t covered the conflict on my blog, until now, as I feel a tad under-informed to follow events consistently. With that in mind I have picked up on Saudi financial support (at least) for armed Islamist rebels in Syria. It seems the case that the US has ‘encouraged’ the Saudi bourgeoisie to fund and arm the rebels. No doubt the other Arab Gulf states are in on this too, given that the Saudi Kingdom leads the way in the Gulf Cooperation Council. Now the British have pledged £5 million to the rebels. There has hardly been a word about this until it became apparent that the money is probably going to Wahhabi fundamentalists in the opposition.

It was from the mouth of George Galloway that I first heard of Western support for al-Qaeda in Syria. Putting Galloway’s troublesome support for Assad aside, the case is that there are radical Islamist militants fighting in Syria with the backing of the Saudi bourgeoisie and, indirectly, the US government. Conveniently Galloway draws no distinction between the Muslim Brotherhood, radical Wahhabi elements and what's commonly called al-Qaeda - which really refers to a diffuse network of terrorists, ideologists and their financiers. It also should be emphasised that the Arab Spring has predominantly been a force for democratic reform in the region. Syria should be no exception. But there is indirect Western support for Islamic conservatism in the region at large. And it remains that Islam is a common means of association and identification in Middle Eastern politics. The alternative model of revolutionary nationalism died long ago.

Sami Ramadani has argued that the influence of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the US has been to pursue militarization of the conflict in order to block democracy in Syria. He argues that the non-violent resistance would have brought down Assad if it was not for the militarization of the conflict. There may be some truth in this given the contradictions in the Ba'ath Party and Syrian society that the army may have brushed aside Assad as the generals threw out Mubarak in Egypt. At the same time, it should be noted that the military establishment in Egypt has yet to be defeated. The systems which held these dictators in place have survived the revolt in many countries. It seems plausible that the peaceful movement for democracy in Syria may have dethroned the Assad family, but it seems less likely that the peaceful means could be used to bring down the Ba'athist regime. As inevitable as violence seems to be the only means to destroy the regime it is definitely the case that the US will do anything to prevent democracy from prevailing in the Middle East.

It should surprise no one that the Saudi Kingdom is promoting a particular version of political Islam in Syria to destroy a republican alternative. Its policy of petro-Islam has a long record of supporting Islamist militants, including the Taliban in its barbaric rule over Afghanistan. Many Syrian women are right to fear the impact of Saudi influence for this reason, just going on its appalling internal record on women's rights. But even comparatively progressive Turkey is seen as a regressive force. Remember the cries in the West that the fall of Mubarak would allow a Iranian style Islamist government to spring up and immediately go after the Jews? There are no such cries over Syria for the reason that the fall of Assad is perfectly compatible with American-Israeli strategic interests. Even if the GCC find a way to conjure a Sunni-Muslim despotism out of this chaos, it is totally within the contours of US interests. The problem is not Islamic politics, it is a particular Islamic politics.

The Autumn of the Colonel.

Escape to Hell.

There is no sign of the Colonel, with his family safely in Algeria, after Tripoli was seized by Berber rebels from the West and not from the East which has since led to the National Transitional Council taking seat in Tripoli. The Berbers had been suppressed under Gaddafi and in the end the Berbers sought revenge against the regime. The disparate militias which comprise the rebels will no doubt hold onto territory and barter for political power. The rumours of his whereabouts continue, some say the Colonel is hauled up in a flat in Tripoli, the labyrinthine tunnels under Libyan soil, somewhere in Algeria, the Libyan desert or in his hometown of Sirte. There is talk at NATO of putting a bounty out on Gaddafi, probably around the size of that put on Osama bin Laden. Days ago NATO thought that there were around 8,000 pro-Gaddafi troops hiding in South Tripoli, waiting to engage the militias in urban warfare. It is difficult to say what will happen next, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility of a guerrilla war. NATO would prefer to see him liquidated while the National Council claim to want to see a trial as do the leaders behind the intervention.

Since the intervention began there have been some 8,000 bombing raids in which NATO has dropped 30,000 bombs, almost 200 bombs a day for 6 months and NATO has suffered no casualties whilst an estimated 60,000 Libyans have been killed. NATO even bombed the irrigation system which supplies northern Libya with the majority of its water, though there are reports that the Gaddafi loyalists have cut-off the water supply. The fact that Tripoli is reliant on imported water has not been raised much in the mainstream media. A city of 2 million requires a ready-source of drinkable water, it is difficult to assess where this is on the priority of the National Council let alone the Western powers behind them. There has been much more coverage of the release of Libyan assets and speculation about the next moves made by the still-at-large Colonel. There has been very little coverage of the exemption of Libyan banks from economic sanctions. There is plenty of praise for David Cameron in his role in the intervention, little mention of the way the British and the Americans crushed an attempt to indict Gaddafi for war crimes in March.

Now there are ominous signs of war crimes and racist violence in the wake of the regime's collapse. It should be kept in mind it was Gaddafi who put together death squads comprised of thugs imported from Chad, Niger and even Serbia. So the rebels have reasonable grounds to suspect migrants, but that certainly does not justify killing people on mass in such a fashion. All the while Libya is a major route for people looking to pass through to the coast and travel to the European mainland in search of a better life. The new regime has a promise to uphold to the EU regarding a strict blockade to illegal immigration from Africa to Europe. The Italians will be eager to sink any boats coming their way and Italian fishermen are essentially allowed to kill anyone who climbs aboard their boats. The days when Gaddafi once sent an Egyptian submarine to sink the QEII as it sailed in celebration of the 25th anniversary of the establishment of Israel. An order which was only countered when Sadat intervened and had the sub return to the base in Alexandria. Consequently, Sadat described Gaddafi as "100% sick in the head and possessed by the devil."

Colonel Gaddafi may still have the support of around 54 clans of the Warfalla tribe, the largest tribe in the country, which played a key role in the expulsion of Italian colonists after being neutral when the Italians first seized the country. No doubt the tipping point was the genocide committed by the Italians in which over 500,000 Libyans died between 1911 and 1941, at least 65,000 died in concentration camps in the Sirte desert. The grievances were never acknowledged, let alone resolved, as the country was seized by a intensely conservative monarchy with links to the old imperial powers. The monarchy soon gave the US and UK military bases in Libya. The discovery of oil in 1960 transformed Libya into one of the richest countries in Africa, which enabled programmes of modernisation and unification of society. These programmes were restricted by the conservative attitudes of the monarchy. Incidentally, the rebel flag of Benghazi is the old monarchy flag which is also a Senoussi flag and that might hint at a specific tribal affiliation of the TNC. It was Gaddafi who overthrew King Idris in 1969 and seized the state apparatus.

Libya without Gaddafi.

"I am the one who created Libya, and I will be the one to destroy it." - Muammar al-Gaddafi

The personalised regime of Colonel Gaddafi has taken a page out of the Israelis' book and resorted to using cluster bombs against the population. The 1.2 million people who have been maimed, mutilated or murdered under him is a long way from the reforms delivered in the 1970s which provided the Libyan people with free health-care and free education. Nasser said of Gaddafi shortly before his death "I rather like Gaddafi. He reminds me of myself when I was that age." By the end of the decade Gaddafi had emerged as the dominant figure from a power struggle in the regime with a faction seeking to embark on greater socio-economic development. With the rival faction crushed, Gaddafi moved to support terrorist groups abroad until he became a scapegoat for the US government and Libya endured a US bombing campaign. The evidence which ties the Libyan regime to the Lockerbie bombing and the disco bombing in Germany is highly questionable. But it is undoubtedly true that Gaddafi supported the IRA and other groups.

And yet we know that the US and the UK, among other states, have intervened to block attempts to charge Gaddafi with the crimes he has committed against his own people. This is just after the international tribunal on crimes committed in Sierra Leone and the trial of Charles Taylor came to an end. All the while the media focus in Britain is still on the matter of al-Megrahi and David Cameron talks as if Gaddafi will face a war crimes tribunal. Keep in mind that it would seem that the Obama administration are bailing out the regime in Tripoli. The Central Bank of Libya has been exempted from the sanctions imposed on the country by the US. Though it is not that the US is looking to prop up the Colonel, the regime is to be reconstituted including the bourgeois tendencies of Benghazi that have agreed to respect old oil arrangements and may have even agreed recognise the state of Israel. It should also be noted that the military leadership of the rebels have links with the CIA.

The National Council in Benghazi is not totally representative of the rebellion as a grass-roots movement for democracy. The National Council consists of professional politicians and military officials, mostly defectors from the Gaddafi regime. As many of the rebels have been maimed and killed in battle, the rebellion overall has lost it's "popular character" in that the real decisions are being made in Benghazi. The rebel forces are being armed with weapons from Qatar and there have been moves to export Libyan oil through Qatar. These are the reasons that the recent summit was held in Doha, it had nothing to do with what might be best for Libyans. Though the possibility of recognising the National Council as the official government of Libya was discussed. It should also be noted that Qatar has been in bed with the US for many years. Qatar was on board with the intervention from the beginning and was one of the biggest advocates of a no-fly zone.

The way in which Qatar has acted is not a simple expression of self-interest, it should be understood as a part of the GCC as well as an extension of US-Israeli interests in the region. The major issues are oil and the tacit alliance between Israel and many Arab states. The fall of Gaddafi is welcome because he has outlived his usefulness, the rebels have seized control of the oil fields in the country and have produced a government which is even more insidiously pro-Western than before. It may even be under this leadership that the country could undergo further neoliberal reforms, which would continue the decline of health-care, education and standards of living. All of which began as Gaddafi sought to improve relations with the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union and had succeeded by the early 2000s. But as the rebel forces might be able to take Tripoli there has been talk of a "boots on the ground" intervention and a partitioned country as previously mentioned.

Whether or not the rebels can actually take Tripoli is the most important factor, a fractured nation could be the result of this conflict and a Gulf emirate model could emerge in the oil-rich east whilst western Libya descends into poverty. This might be seen as a pragmatic solution by the US, Britain and France. A further inflammation of tensions between rival tribes, as well as religious sects, as class interests relate to the geographic situation of particular tribes. This is a serious possibility as a great deal of the oil fields have been secured. A partition along such lines would be a disaster, as similar partitions have been in Ireland, Cyprus and Palestine. Even if Tripoli is taken Libya might only emerge as a bourgeois democracy, at best, with the regime only fragmented and the Colonel deposed. This might make it a wonderful holiday destination for white people, whether or not it would improve health-care in the country is another matter.

Critical Thoughts on the Intervention in Libya.

 "Despotism is a legitimate form of government in dealing with barbarians, provided that the end be their improvement." - JS Mill

Since the UN sanctioned an intervention in Libya to impose a no-fly zone, by shooting down planes and air-strikes against Gaddafi strongholds, there has been word of civilian killings in air-strikes and a great deal of ambiguity in the press about the nature of the intervention. An intervention that is being executed by the US, along with former colonial giants: Britain, France and Italy et al. The no-fly zone has been imposed in the midst of massacres carried out by death squads hired from Serbia by the "Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution". We have seen the way Iman al-Obeidi has been silenced after she claimed to have been raped by the counter-revolutionaries. At the same time the colonial past of Libya should not be forgotten, in the thirty-plus years of Italian colonial rule over 500,000 Libyans died - including 60,000 in concentration camps. The sheer brutality in which Libya was dominated by the Italians can be distinguished from colonial regimes in Egypt and Morocco.

This is the reason, as pointed out by Richard Seymour, that the vilification of Colonel Gaddafi is a way of externalising evil from the West. The man referred to as a "Mad Dog" is to be understood within a historical context, in which he is responsible for his own actions but not the pre-conditions of such choices and decisions. If he had been born into a respectable middle-class family in a country which was not recently ravaged by colonial genocide. But if that were the case he would not be Gaddafi. It is true that the Colonel is a despicable human being who has slaughtered civilians, as well as political prisoners and exiled dissidents in the past. As David Fox insists that we have the right to strike at Gaddafi from the air, conveniently there is no mention of the potential civilian deaths this might incur. Instead The Sun resorts to the line that the death squads of Gaddafi are 'posing' as civilians to evade attacks from "Our Boys". But also that there were 300 civilian supporters, including children, of Gaddafi being used unwittingly as "human shields". So if we kill any civilians, they might not be civilians but if they turn out to be it was Gaddafi's fault anyway.


This is the routine line of the press used reflexively to cleanse "Our Boys" of any responsible for bloodshed and in this case it was deployed in advance by the Right. It has been used to defend the use of white phosphorus in Gaza and Iraq in the past. You might even hear from reactionaries a similar plea to defend war crimes committed in Afghanistan. Terms like "Mad Dog" are applied in disregard of the details, in the same way that Hugo Chavez is repeatedly labelled a "dictator", the BBC labelled Nasser as a "barking dictator" just as the British were about to be humiliated in the Suez Canal. Nasser was a bourgeois nationalist and a dictator, but the policies he initiated were far better for the majority of Egyptians than the infitah reforms of Sadat and Mubarak. Not to mention that it was Mubarak who kept prisons where children could be tortured in front of their parents, but this is conveniently absent in the Western media and Tony Blair still insisted that Mubarak is a "force for good". Incidentally Saddam Hussein, a monster if there ever was one, was described as a "little Hitler" even though all of his atrocities were supported by the US and Britain.

"We have to reserve the right to bomb the niggers." - David Lloyd George

We were also told that it was Saddam who was to blame for the "missing" weapons of mass-destruction. It was also the fault of the Iraqi army that the military targets were situated among civilians, effectively using them as "human shields". When it would be laughable to expect the American government to build administrative buildings and military offices in the middle of a deserted landscape in Utah. This kind of thinking is ignorant the crimes of Fallujah, we ought not elevate it to a level where it can gain a monopoly over the moral high-ground. We should also keep in mind that the West has effectively taken a hypocritical stance of aggression in this instance. There is support for an intervention in Libya as the regime slaughters it's own people, but the US fully supports the repression currently going on in Bahrain and Yemen among other places. The repression has been comparably successful. Western interests are being defended by the cops on the beat, namely the Saudis. Not like in Libya where the decision to crackdown on the population as a whole, not just demonstrations, led to a schism in the regime.

As John Rees pointed out prior to the intervention, the rebels have acquired some air capability which has been overlooked in the media. Numerous officials of government and the military have defected as a result of Gaddafi's horrendous onslaught. A few jets have been shot down by the rebels and hundreds of pro-Gaddafi troops have surrendered. But it might be rash to conclude that the rebels could easily defend themselves from Gaddafi's jets without any assistance. The Left accept intervention from Egypt and Tunisia, in the form of weapons and funding for the rebels, is necessary. We all agree that some kind of intervention is necessary, because a non-interventionist position would presuppose that we had never meddled in Libya in the first place. We're embedded in the situation, Gaddafi emerged as an alternative to pro-Western monarchy and provided crude answers to the legitimate grievances of Libyan people. Let alone the sanctions used to punish Libya, which destroyed the welfare state developed in the 1970s and led to neoliberal reforms in the 21st Century.


We can see the liberal doctrine of interventionism is being reheated and served on plastic plates. Intervention is not inherently imperialist, the context and details matter. After all it is true that the Anglo-French intervention against Germany in 1939 was a reaction to the German invasion of Poland, which was at the time a military dictatorship, this is the closest we've ever come to a just war. It is not that the intervention in Libya fits the model of a just war and Gaddafi is not Hitler. The cause for intervention was to avert a massacre in Benghazi. The intervention in Libya might well lead to a destructive partition which would leave the country torn in two, festering rage between an impoverished west and an oil-rich east. The West might support the rebellion in order to remove the annoying dictator completely, but the air-strikes could escalate into an intervention with "boots on the ground" as the major threat to Benghazi is artillery. The threat of greater civilian casualties would only increase as a result.

When War Pigs Fly.

The revolution in Libya has "stalled" as the revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries are battling it out. The point of no return has been passed in Libya, it's live free or die, Gaddafi is clinging onto Tripoli and some areas which are dominated by his tribe, but the revolution snatched over 90% of Libya from his manicured fingers in recent weeks. The vehemence of the Colonel's death squads procured from Chad, Niger and Serbia have failed to restore Gaddafi's power. The "passionate" support for Gaddafi in Tripoli is really the result of a recent bribe and a concentration of wealth in the capital. Though the Libyan elite has been split down the middle by Gaddafi's actions, which has been reflected by the defection of numerous officials and soldiers, out of megalomania the Colonel thinks he can hold on. But Uncle Sam has other ideas, the Obama administration have taken the first steps to funnel cash and weapons to the revolutionaries in liberated Benghazi.

The middle-men are the House of Saud of course, who hate Gaddafi for ideological as well as personal reasons. The secular model offered by Arab nationalism has been the traditional threat to the Saudi Royals, who rely on a fundamentalist establishment to prop up their corrupt monarchy. This is without the constant insults Gaddafi has hurled at King Abdullah and the attempt to assassinate the King last year. The surface reasons for an intervention in Libya are that Gaddafi has resorted to brute force in the face of a democratic uprising. But at another level the West is worried about the flow of oil and the impact of the upheval on oil prices. The concern that we might see another oil shock amongst the British elite was reflected in Cameron's hubristic talk of a no-fly zone and funds for rebels. For which the Obama administration slapped David Cameron on the hand, opting for a more subtle approach. Notice that the British government only condemned Gaddafi after the US and began talking of intervention soon after the American neocons turned up in revolutionary garb to call for a US-led strike on Libya.

The mistake made by the pro-American administration in Whitehall was that they attempted to dutifully follow pre-empted decisions made in Washington. The Prime Minister then had to back away from calls that Washington believes in, but will not pursue so openly which is why the US has deployed four warships for "humanitarian" purposes and "military objectives". At the same time, £1 billion of the Gaddafi fortune has been frozen in Britain. An occupation at LSE is calling for the return of every penny of Gaddafi's investment in that institution and has succeeded in prompting a resignation... Sadly, the British government continues to follow dutifully on behind Washington, in foreign as well as domestic affairs. From the Iraq war to paying for nuclear weapons, which are a part of the American nuclear command system, let alone shipping off numerous wanted"terrorists" around the world sometimes for a trial over a burst condom and sometimes simply a spot of waterboarding.

The coalition government formed in "Free Libya" has made agreements to respect old arrangements with oil giants. The uprising and counter-revolutionary violence has caused oil prices to rise. Britain has a great deal of assets and invested interests in Libya, as we have in Egypt. If the military had struck against the demonstrations in Tahrir Square there would have been a similar schism as seen in Libya and Egypt would have been torn apart, the British and the Americans may have even invaded in such a scenario. It would seem that the Colonel has outlived his usefulness to Western powers as a "reformed" dictator, who might one day transform Libya into the Norway of North Africa as Anthony Giddens hoped. At this point it is practical for the Americans to supplant the old Arab nationalist order with a new regime that would have the enthusiasm of the people behind it - for now at least. The little embarrassment over selling arms to Libya felt by the British and the Americans seems to have evaporated. The traditional means of redemption are being sought, ultra-violence.

There are good reasons to oppose neoconservatives on the issue of military intervention, as there is a long and ignoble list of atrocities. The Reagan administration turned a blind eye to CIA-sponsored trafficking in drugs and guns in order to arm the Contras, a group of right-wing terrorists in Nicaragua, though this actually armed the Iranians and created a crack epidemic in California the spectre of "Communism" had to be defeated apparently. The Contras ended up killing thousands. Similarly in Afghanistan the US poured money into arming the Mujahideen, who would later carry out mass-rapes and slaughter 50,000 people in the 1990s. The preference of the Democratic Party for sanctions kept the Iraqi people under the heel of Saddam throughout the 1990s, while a no-fly zone was set up Saddam was still given the opening to crush an uprising through air-strikes. So we are right to be worried about where the sanctions against Libya and a no-fly zone may lead.

The wave of sanctions imposed under Clinton led to the deaths of over half a million people through starvation. The less "subtle" method of the Bush administration, favoured by neoconservatives,  ended up killing 1 million more people and left 4 million displaced. This leaves out the countless millions who have been dispossessed by the economic "shock therapy" Iraq was put through, which privatised and deregulated all public services over night. Efforts were then made to ensure that multinational corporations would not have to worry about paying any taxes in Iraq. All rammed through by a coterie of unelected bureaucrats and officials, mostly American, who also redrew the Iraqi Constitution. The occupation of Iraq stood in firm opposition to democratic elections for 2 years before finally giving in. Notably the artful oik (our current Chancellor) and Michael Gove both fawned over Blair, Gove declared "I love Tony Blair" in The Times just prior to the war.


Intervention in such cases as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and Nicaragua (among a lot of other places) was immoral. But the Libyan revolutionaries are not the Mujahideen nor are they the Contras. It would seem that to support the revolution would be to oppose Gaddafi's counter-revolution. There are parallels between Libya and Iraq. The old nationalist order versus an uprising, sanctions are pursued. In the case of Iraq it was a disaster and we have yet to see what will come of the sanctions against Libya. Importantly, there is a distinction between the kind of intervention led by hawks, in Washington and Whitehall, and the kind of intervention which might actually help the revolution. A no-fly zone could keep Gaddafi's forces on the land, apart from helicopters, and give the rebels a good chance of victory. Without a no-fly zone Gaddafi still has the capability to launch air-strikes against the rebels.

Although there may be a case to be made for a specific kind of intervention, an ideal no-fly zone, as there was in the Balkans in the 90s or in Iraq when Saddam gassed the Kurds. It must be conceded that the rebels do not want foreign interference and that there is a convergence of self-interest behind the calls for intervention. To support the attempt by the SAS to meet with rebels or the deployment of warships by the US on these grounds would be idiotic. We should have no illusions about the intentions behind American and British policy-makers looking to topple Gaddafi. The fall of Gaddafi is only preferable to them because he has outlived his usefulness and a freed up political system will be less of an embarrassment. But it could only be a softer, and more insidiously pro-American, version of Gaddafi and harder to drive out. But that does not justify Gaddafi's rule, the Colonel has to go, it should be for the Libyan people that he go and not Western economic interests.

No Exit for Gaddafi?

 Mad Dog in Free-Fall.

At an alarming pace - alarming for Western leaders, ultra-nationalists in Tel Aviv and neocons everywhere - the revolutionary contagion has spread across North Africa and the Middle East. First taking down Ben Ali and then Mubarak, as demonstrations popped up in Jordan, Iran, Algeria, Yemen and Syria among other places. To compare this to the breakdown of the Eastern Bloc in 1989 would not be outlandish, though there is no Gorbachev and the West has only an old principle to cling to. The principle which holds that democracy is only favourable when it conforms to objectives of the socio-economic and strategic kind. Thus, the "fear" that the Muslim Brothers might rush to power if Mubarak was to be removed and free elections held in Egypt immediately. Really there is no chance of an Islamist state emerging in Egypt from the democratic process as the base of the Brotherhood accounts for 20% of the population at most. The real fear is that the Egyptian people will pursue independence, as Nasser had in the 1950s and 60s. It looks like the revolution has hit Libya and the regime led by the Colonel has been significantly weakened by it.

Oh the irony as it was the shamelessly extravagant Colonel who was so eager to condemn the uprising in Tunisia. It is even more ironic considering that Colonel Gaddafi had once dreamed of a pan-Arab state consisting of Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. The state could not rely on the police and the military to crush protesters, instead opting to deploy the most vicious forms of counter-revolution. The internet, landlines were cut-off and foreign journalists banned to try and keep the slaughter a secret. The death squads have led hundreds slaughtered, including women and children. Nevertheless Benghazi was lost to demonstrators who quickly began flying the flag of pre-Gaddafi Libya, the country's second city had fallen as government officials defected. Pilots sent to carry out air-strikes to suppress the revolt have refused and some have landed in Malta. At a protest outside the Libyan embassy in London, the staff of the embassy joined the protesters. It would appear that the regime is in free-fall and the "Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution" will be the first to hit the ground.

Soon police stations in Tripoli were burning and the Colonel had fled to a military base in the South of Libya. The dictator's son Saif al-Islam, a friend of Prince Andrew and Lord Mandelson, issued threats through the media and warned of a "civil war" if the protesters did not hault. There were rumours that Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela or even France, so in an appearance lasting less than 30 seconds the "Mad Dog of the Middle East" assured everyone that he was still in Tripoli. The move was as impotent as all the anti-imperialist rhetoric he has pumped out in recent years. Just as the use of death squads, referred to as "militias" in the press, is in part a sign of desperation. These squads are made up of armed killers contracted from places like Niger, Chad and even Serbia. As the military is not totally reliable anymore, Gaddafi has had to hire "foreign help" whilst still calling on the cops and the soldiers to crush the revolt. It is notable that Mubarak spent 3.12% of GDP on the Egyptian army and in Libya the military receives just 1.2% of GDP. Most of the weapons being used against the people of Libya have been gained through arms deals with the US and Britain.

 A Reformed Revolutionary.

The rise to power of Gaddafi is reminiscent of the Egyptian revolution in 1952 in which a group of Free Officers seized the state from King Farouk. Similarly Gaddafi was a member of a similar coterie of military officials who removed a pro-American monarchy in a bloodless coup in 1969. Muammar al-Gaddafi quickly began to rail against the European colonial powers, the United States and Israel. The young Colonel, at the time he was only 27, acted to craft his regime on the Egyptian model of pan-Arabism and secular nationalism. With the slogan "socialism, freedom and unity" one chapter ended and another began for the people of Libya. Before his death in 1970 Nasser said "I rather like Gaddafi. He reminds me of myself when I was that age." Gaddafi had admired General Nasser since childhood, he would try to fill Nasser's shoes and converted Tripoli's Cathedral into the Gamel Abdel Nasser Mosque. In 1975 Anwar al-Sadat, the man who succeeded Nasser, would later describe Muammar al-Gaddafi as "100 percent sick and possessed by the devil." Thanks to Sadat and Gaddafi, Egypt and Libya are both corrupt autocracies.

In 1970 the new regime had expelled somewhere between 15,000 and 25,000 Italians who had settled there during the colonial decades from 1911-1941. Military bases for the US and Britain were closed and sent home. Gaddafi led the country into an abortive invasion with Chad in 1972, which he would later "re-attempt" in 1980 only to abort once more. During the oil crisis of 1973, as OPEC cut production and raised prices Gaddafi supported the oil embargo on the US. Throughout the 1970s Gaddafi would propel himself forward with anti-imperialism and welfarism which he claimed was part of a system of Islamic socialism. With the use of Libyan oil reserves to construct a welfare state to provide free education, health-care and affordable housing as part of a "cultural revolution". All the while the Gaddafi regime supported radical Palestinian groups, the IRA and Muslim secessionists in the Philippines. Libya soon became a pariah state as the US led the way in implementing economic sanctions against the state, which would be intensified over the years.

Not long after Ronald Reagan came to power in 1981 the "War on Terror" was declared and Libya became a "punching bag" for the US. In that same year, Libyan fighter-jets were shot down in disputed waters by the US military. Before the year was out the Reaganites led the American people to believe that the Colonel's killers were in Washington looking to whack the President as well as George HW Bush. Not that the regime was not responsible for real crimes, the 1984 shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher by a gunman in the Libyan embassy immediately comes to mind but Gaddafi has also had Libyan dissidents murdered. A climate of jingoism was mobilised by the US government to justify an aggressive foreign policy. For Libya it culminated in 1986, when the bombing of a West Berlin disco packed with American servicemen was "linked" to Gaddafi. The chickenhawks at the Pentagon leapt on the opportunity to bomb Libya and the poodles of Whitehall quickly gave Washington permission to launch the attack from British military bases.

Since then it looks like it was Iran or Syria that was behind the regime, not that it would have justified an air-strike on either of those countries. In the case of the Lockerbie Bombing of 1988 it also looks as though the bombing was retaliation by Iran for the "accident" earlier that year, in which the USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air Flight 665 over the Persian Gulf and killed 290 passengers. It would be an "accident" which President Bush rewarded the ship's captain for in 1990. It has been theorised that the real culprits were not al-Megrahi but a free-lance Palestinian group contracted by Tehran. If the Colonel falls and the regime caves in we could see the Libyan side of this story and compare it to the accepted version prevalent in the Western media. A collapse of the Libyan regime is not a "welcome" result of the Tunisia Effect in the West. For as Gaddafi has become a "reformed" figure in recent years and increasingly friendly to the powers, which he still lambasts from time to time as imperialists. Thus, the black and white picture of Omar Mukhtar with the Fascists who caught him appeared on Gaddafi's military garb in Italy not too long ago.

 Escape to Hell.

Around the same time that Bush was rewarding murderers, with the Medal of Legion, the Eastern bloc fell apart and soon the Soviet Union also fell. A major source of support that Gaddafi had fallen back on in the 80s was gone as Egypt became a client state for the US. In the 1990s Gaddafi's Libya became isolated and an easy target for economic sanctions. Eventually relations with the West began to "thaw" as Gaddafi jumped to condemn al-Qaeda after 9/11 and urged Libyans to give blood for the victims of the atrocity. Gaddafi was soon on board with the redeclared "War on Terrorism", which he used to crush the threat of Islamism to his regime. The Colonel was soon rehabilitated in the Western media as al-Megrahi was put on trial and billions in compensation was paid out to the families of the victims of the Lockerbie Bombing, large-scale arms contracts and oil deals worth billions would follow. Tripoli was soon flooded with European capital as the state imposed neoliberal structural reforms whilst hanging "radical Islamists" in public.

Over the years the Colonel has become increasingly excessively ostentatious to the point of farcical displays of anti-imperialist rhetoric and impotent spectacles, let alone the ridiculous costumes and titles. This narcissist is not only the "Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution" but also the King of Kings in Africa and Imam to all Muslims apparently. The oppression and brutality on which Gaddafi has sustained his megalomania over the years has gone on long enough for the Libyan people. The erratic behaviour of the "Mad Dog" does not have many allies left in the world, he won't be joining Ben Ali in Saudi Arabia any time soon. The Libyan elite has been split over the recent massacres, which is the reason that some military personnel, government officials and even important tribes have abandoned Gaddafi. As the isolation of the Colonel increases and his options continue to dwindle, one cannot help but feel this man is most deserving. After all he has killed around 700 people in recent days to stop the movement from seizing the East and liberating Benghazi.

Libya has a per capita income of $12,000 which is the highest in Africa, though the regime favours the West of the country where the majority of capital is concentrated. The revenue from the 1.7 million barrels of oil exported every day accumulate in Western Libya, while a third of Libyans live in poverty. Tripoli has yet to fall to the movement for a free Libya, but a nearby city has reportedly fallen. Days ago at the Presidential Palace, Muammar al-Gaddafi blurted out "I am the one who created Libya, and I will be the one to destroy it." In his most recent speech he has talked of martyrdom. Hopefully this means he is up for being fired out of a cannon aimed at Silvio Berlusconi, especially as he evoked the resistance of the Libyan martyrs to the Italians. From where Gaddafi stands, with nowhere to flee, would it be better to burn out than fade away? A nihilistic stand-off by the Colonel would look more like a parody of the last days Hitler spent in the Führerbunker determined to take Germany with him. As Libyans are being killed in the streets of Tripoli and elsewhere.

Long Live the Egyptian Revolution!

Perfection, of a kind, was what he was after,
And the poetry he invented was easy to understand;
He knew human folly like the back of his hand,
And was greatly interested in armies and fleets;
When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter,
And when he cried the little children died in the streets.
- Epitaph on a Tyrant, WH Auden

The original "day of departure" came in Egypt 11 days into the revolution and a massive demonstration gathered in Tahrir Square. Alas, Mubarak managed hung onto power much to the chagrin of the Egyptian people for another week. A 30 year dictatorship and the prospects of a family dynasty have been derailed for Hosni Mubarak after less than 20 days of protest. It looks as though Mubarak has been biding his time to see to it the loot can be secured - estimates of which range from $25 billion to $70 billion - and a successor can be found. Of course the Obama administration favoured an "orderly transition" from Mubarak to a "temporary" government headed by Omar Suleiman, a transition which would be purely symbolic and leave the neoliberal project unscathed. Suleiman is another military hard man and has served as the Chief of Military Intelligence. A closer reading of such a credential reveals Suleiman helped run the kidnapping and torturing ring, casually referred to as "rendition" in the West and sanctioned by the US in the name of the "War on Terror".

In the end, Hosni Mubarak was forced to leave without his dignity after attempting to bribe the people with pay raises and risible concessions to sustain his rule. Power has effectively been handed over to the military. The streets were soon filled with chants like "Egypt is free!" The endemic torture of civilians by the state is intolerable and has gone on long enough, without a peep of opposition or criticism in the West. This is a criminal regime which had children electrocuted in front of parents. But for Melanie Phillips at least Mubarak is "our nasty piece of work" and Glenn Beck has compared it to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, insinuating that Mubarak's fall will lead to World War III. Everyone from Islamists to gays has been persecuted by the ruling party, some held for decades in prisons like al-Gihaz. But for the Right the uprising is really about destroying Israel and undermining the greatness of the white man. This attitude is racist for it assumes the Arabs are incapable of a spontaneous mass-movement to pursue positive change in the Middle East.

The demands of the January 25th Leadership are as follows:

1. Repeal of the state of emergency, which suspends constitutional protections for human rights, immediately.

2. The immediate release of all political prisoners.

3. The setting aside of the present constitution and its amendments.

4. Dissolution of the federal parliament, as well as of provincial councils.

5. Creation of a transitional, collective governing council.

6. The formation of an interim government comprising independent nationalist trends, which would oversee free and fair elections.

7. The formation of a working group to draft a new and democratic constitution that resembles the older of the democratic constitutions, on which the Egyptian people would vote in a referendum.

8. Removal of any restriction on the free formation of political parties, on civil, democratic and peaceful bases.

9. Freedom of the press.

10. Freedom to form unions and non-governmental organizations without government permission.

11. Abolition of all military courts and abrogation of their rulings with regard to civilian accused.

Where are the neocons now? There is a dead silence from these people, no word of human rights or the promotion of democracy abroad. Instead these chickenhawks, who were so eager for us to invade Iraq for the sake of "freedom" and "democracy", are running with the line that a democratic Egypt will enable the Muslim Brotherhood to rule. Neoconservatives like Tony Blair described Mubarak as a "force for good" and Douglas Murray basically called for a "revolution without a revolution". Independence not Islamism is the real worry of these people. For these people a democracy ought to exist in Egypt, but only if American-Israeli interests in the region are not opposed by the elected government. Even though the Brotherhood has the support of less than 150,000 people in Egypt. The revolution is not just secular and democratic, it is calling for social justice. The "virus" has already spread, to paraphrase Kissinger, are protests in Yemen, Jordan, Algeria and Syria. The Obama administration and the Cameron cabinet are currently pretending they were always on the side of the Egyptian people against a vile dictator, it's enough to make you sick.

There are still pro-democracy demonstrations being held in Egypt calling for free elections, the military regime should hold elections soon and prepare to hand over power. A democratic Egypt would not necessarily give birth to a new Islamic Republic, a broad coalition of opposition parties was formed in 2006 which is commonly ignored by the press. From the liberal Ghad Party and Nasserist Karama Party to the Revolutionary Socialists and Kefaya, not to mention the National Alliance for Change recently formed and the Tagammu Party. The worries about the Muslim Brotherhood are a disguised form of the fear of an independent state in the Middle East, which could set a positive example to neighbours as well as an organised opposition to Israel and maybe even a bulwark against neoliberalism. The main priority of the US is to secure the flow of 2 million barrels of oil a day through the canal, but also to ensure the tacit alliance between Egypt and Israel remains intact. As the revolution spreads across North Africa and throughout the Middle East, the likelihood of a violent counter-revolution is raised.

Rise like lions after slumber
In unvanquisable number!
Shake your chains to earth, like dew
Which in sleep had fall'n on you:
Ye are many - they are few
- Mask of Anarchy, Percy Shelley

With Shelley's great poem in mind we can note that the lions have risen in unvanquisible number and have shaken their chains to earth like dew but still the West wonders "What are we to do?" It took a full on revolutionary convulsion to vomit Mubarak all over Uncle Sam's carpet in Egypt, but it is not over yet as Egypt is still waiting for it's first free elections. The transitional government has relaxed the curfew and has banned government officials from fleeing the country. The neoliberal project is under threat and the Israelis are still worried about "stability". Since the fall of Mubarak - who ought to be tried on Egyptian soil by Egyptians - the army has dissolved Parliament and the Constitution, which were both compromised to the interests of the NDP, but we can't overlook the fact that the military is dependent on the US for equipment and training not to forget $1.5 billion in funding. The presence of Suleiman in the shadows is a source of comfort for Washington and Tel Aviv, whereas the public presence of General Tantawi reassures the Egyptian people with his nationalist credentials.

It is possible that the counter-revolution is underway and that the Egyptian army are a willing participant in it, though it is hard to say at this point. What is definite is that the struggle is not over yet. Substantial political change can only come out of democratic change which can only be produced by revolutionary means at this point. Reform will not necessarily produce democracy and even if it does it will only be a shallow kind of democracy seen in the Philippines and Chile after the fall of Marcos and Pinochet. The fact that half of Egyptians live on less than $2 a day will not be changed by the "orderly transition" yearned for by the chickenhawks in the US and Britain. Democracy in the Middle East is only favoured in the press when it is beneficial to American-Israeli interests. People have not fought for centuries across the world for the right to vote only to see it rendered impotent. This is the reason that the way Egyptian elections were rigged in 2010 was such a travesty. All the while Western newspapers were more concerned with shark attacks off of the Egyptian coast.

It is still hard to believe that this grass-roots movement began in Egypt on Facebook in 2008, originally to support industrial action and the right to strike, following the arrest of Israa’ Abd el-Fattah. Both Facebook and Twitter were vital in the early days of the revolution, until the internet was blocked by the state. The revolution will not be televised, but it will be tweeted apparently. Though Juan Cole agrees that the base of the revolution is indeed the labour movement, Cole adds that the alliance between blue and white-collar workers (which has been vital to the pro-democracy movement) emerged in 2006. This solidarity eventually brought together not only textile workers and lawyers, but united the most militant sections of Egyptian society together with the most moderate against the ruling elite. The billionaires, a lot of whom have taken refuge in Dubai, will return and see no other alternative for capital accumulation than a close relationship with Western interests. The battle for political change may have been won, it's not clear yet, but the class war has yet to be.

Without pissing on the "strawberries" of this revolution let's look at the three possibilities of the consequences of the collapse of the Mubarak regime as seen up by Juan Cole. First of all, the Egyptian bourgeoisie and military nomenklatura around Mubarak survives him to retain more or less in power, and further protests over time are repressed. Secondly, new elections which are set upon by the Establishment and capital dominates these elections whilst the military remain a power behind the scenes. Thirdly, a genuine social and political revolution wherein substantial amounts of wealth and power are redistributed from the elites to the masses. In the time being, let's stand in solidarity with the people struggling for democracy in the Middle East and salute the victories thus far. May the revolution which began in Tunisia spread, as it has to Egypt, sweep away all the dictators of the Maghreb and the Middle East. It has been long enough and the region is in dire need of real change, economically as well as politically speaking.

Chaos under Heaven.

  "There is great chaos under heaven – the situation is excellent." - Mao Zedong

Hosni Mubarak sent the baltigi (ex-prisoner cop drug addicts) in to suppress the demonstrations after announcing that he will step down at the next election, or more accurately, he will not seek re-election in September (in theory). So from the initial "concession" of throwing out the administration and keeping the dictator, Mubarak appeared to have accepted the end of his rule albeit on his own self-pitying terms for the sake of pride. The announcement was rightfully met with rage from the Egyptian people and there were soon reports of clashes in Alexandria. Then came reports of cops and hired thugs riding camels into Tahrir Square to attack the demonstrators, the appearance of acceptance was just an illusion. Condemnation of this in the West has been shamefully timid, it is a clear attempt at suppression by the NDP. David Cameron was cautious in his words "If it turns out that the regime in any way has been sponsoring or tolerating this violence, that would be completely and utterly unacceptable."


In defence of the Mubarak regime Tony Blair has crawled out of his hole to describe Mubarak as an "immensely courageous and a force for good" and warned against revolutionary change on the grounds that the Muslim Brotherhood could seize the country. Not surprising really as the British government has supported the Nationalist regime for years. Blair was so keen to invade Iraq for the sake of disarming a brutal dictatorship, which is coincidentally the second largest producer of oil in the world run by a disobedient tyrant. The fall of Saddam was a "liberation" for the Iraqi people because it allowed the US to implement economic reforms favourable to multinational corporations in Iraq. The fall of the NDP in Egypt could threaten the neoliberal project that the invasion of Iraq was a part of, as the demonstrations are not just for freedom and democracy but social justice as well. As the protesters demand jobs and a safety-net they are a threat to the project, all currents of independence are a threat and any bulwark against such threats will do.

The media are still running with the line that this could be the Egyptian "Islamic Revolution", even though the April 6th movement is secular and democratic, we're told to expect the emergence of an Islamic state. The revolutionary contagion which began in Tunisia seems to have rushed through Egypt and into Jordan, as well as Yemen, with most governments making concessions to avoid retirement in Saudi Arabia. Incidentally a revolution of this kind in Saudi Arabia would be a pleasant sight. Meanwhile, King Abdullah of Jordan has dismissed his government after 3 weeks of protests. Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has ruled Yemen for over 30 years, has also vowed not to seek re-election in 2013 though it looks unlikely if he will keep his promise. So the grievances in the country go back to the 70s when Sadat began to "open up" the economy, out of the economic reforms sprouted endemic corruption and a need to control the masses. In death Sadat provided Mubarak with the excuse - namely fighting terrorism - to control the population through martial law.

Under Nasser, Egypt was a non-alligned country and economic policy was progressive. There was substantial real development and standards of living improved for most Egyptians. The average wage doubled from 1960 to 1970 and the middle-class was formed which would become the backbone of the regime. The "open door" policy of Anwar Sadat essentially institutionalised corruption and led to a sharp decline in economic growth and real development. Class power in Egypt shifted from the middle-class to the ultra-rich and a gulf exploded between the ostentatious business elite and an impoverished populace. For nearly 40 years of neoliberalism the Egyptian people have been left to rot, unemployment is rife and inflation is relatively high. Mubarak claimed "I have exhausted my life in serving Egypt and my people. I will die on the soil of Egypt and be judged by history." Actually Mubarak has exhausted himself serving the business class, history has judged him and now the sky is black with chickens coming home to roost.

"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it drop." - Che Guevara

The abject thuggery of the NDP is a defence of neoliberalism and the state which sustains it. But as Juan Cole has pointed out the Egyptian government has lost the authority to exercise power through force. Curfews have been ignored by hundreds of thousands of people and the police soon became overwhelmed even though thousands have been injured.  The military have refused to shoot civilians and the state has resorted to using drug addicts to suppress the protesters. It looks as though the point of no return has been passed and Mubarak's "concessions" will not save him. The military have intervened to stop the pro-Mubarak muscle from attacking the demonstrators in Tahrir Square and that the legitimacy of the entire regime is on a tightrope. In a democratic society, theoretically, a government's legitimacy is rooted in the ballot box whereas in authoritarian states like Egypt the military is the source of such legitimacy. A schism within the regime between the NDP and the Egyptian military could bring down Mubarak.


There is a kind of secular nationalist tendency widespread among the pro-democracy movement whereas the Islamist strain, in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood, is marginal and if there were elections tomorrow the Brotherhood might win over 20% of the electorate - less than 150,000 people. The argument that democracy will lead to an Islamic state is pure orientalism. The chants and singing at some of the demonstrations were nationalistic in character, not religious. It was only during the "Battle of Tahrir Square" that the cry of "Allahu Akbar!" was heard. The demonstrations actually began on National Police Day - to honour the police who died fighting the British in Ishmaelia. The regime accused the protests of being disrespectful to the martyrs, but the democrats in the streets don't see the men in uniform today as the embodiment of the police officers who fought and died as heroes in Ishmaelia. The point of no return has been passed and the people are no longer afraid.


The end of martial law in Egypt and the rise of democracy has the potential to shift power from the elites to the urban poor. However, there are numerous potential reactionaries with invested interests in the outcomes of this revolt. The Egyptian military are dependent on the US for equipment, let alone the British investments in Egypt and the "concerns" of neighbours, this is as true for Israel as it is for Libya and Jordan. Then there is the flow of oil through the Suez canal and all the interests tied up in fossil fuel. A reformed Nationalist government is preferable, which would explain the ambivalent calls for "reform" and lukewarm condemnation of the Mubarak regime coming from the West, at worst a less overt authoritarian model and at best a limited democracy where voting is meaningless. History tells us that the West, particularly the United States, has consistently blocked democracy in the Middle East in order to pilfer the region's resources.


It seems that the odds are against the Egyptian people, but the military are disobeying Mubarak out of frustration with the "sclerotic survival strategy" to tire out the people before affirming the state's authority. Mubarak current line coming out is that if he goes now there will be chaos. This is an appeal to the imagery built up around the President as a "force of stability", this is deeply ignorant of the chaos on the streets for which Mubarak holds responsibility. As Žižek has pointed out the argument that chaos will take over, if Mubarak is allowed to fall, because there are no alternatives is a fallacious defence of the status quo. The "chaos" of a democracy with newly formed parties is preferable to the "order" which Mubarak offers. As Mubarak is responsible for the lack of political organisation in Egypt, it was he who suppressed all possible rivals. We ought to be rejoicing that a tyrant is being challenged by a grass-roots movement. There is word that Mubarak might slither out of Egypt on Friday, if so good riddance but don't hold your breath.

The Revolutionary Contagion.

Run Mubarak Run! 

The people of Egypt have been in revolt for about a week now. Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt under a perpetual state of emergency since 1981, has made a "concession" of forming a new government in the face of civil disobedience on an unprecedented scale. Of course the "new government" would still include himself but would be made up of entirely new officials to do his bidding. In other words the Egyptian bourgeoisie are doing the exact opposite of their Tunisian equivalents. Don't throw out the dictator and keep the administration, throw out the administration and keep the dictator. The situation in Egypt has people like Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia coming out in support of Mubarak out of nothing but fear. The King of Jordan is emulating Mubarak in his "concession" to appease the people. To the layman it would seem that just weeks, or even days ago, Tunisia and Egypt were peaceful spots for Western tourists to holiday. This is the line of the Western media who are so "shocked" by the events in Tunisia and Egypt. An undercurrent of racism can also be seen here "Why is this happening? Who are these people to ruin our holidays?"

Some of the holiday adverts for Egypt in Britain claim "it all begins in Egypt", in reference to the notion of Egypt as the 'Mother of the World', but in this case Tunisia is the 'Mother of the Revolution'. For it all began in Tunisia just as 2010 was coming to a close when Mohamed Bouazizi self-immolated in protest of the rampant corruption of the state and police brutality, which led to the revolt that forced President Ben Ali into exile. A government consisting mostly of the old faces below Ben Ali with some new blood favourable to the Jasmine movement. It should not be forgotten that the Tunisian kleptocracy was propped up by France, Britain and the US as part of the "War on Terrorism". Israel and the US soon became concerned for the region's "stability" as the demonstrations led to Ben Ali fleeing to Saudi Arabia - along with $35 million worth of gold. And so the contagion soon began to spread as others self-immolated in Algeria and Egypt. The inevitable spread of the revolution was predictable, so predictable that Colonel Gaddafi quickly condemned the Jasmine Revolution.


In Tunisia the military and armed members of the secret police fought it out until Ben Ali was driven from power. In Egypt the military has refused to open fire on civilians and there are calls for the military to remove Mubarak. Under Ben Ali the Tunisian military received 1.4% of GDP, whereas Gaddafi spends 1.2% on the military in Libya. A strong military is imperative for maintaining a dictatorship and keeping the population under control. Now that the revolution has spread to Egypt, where 3.12% of GDP is poured into the military, it looks as though Algeria and Morocco may also be vulnerable. The US being the primary "donor" of military aid to Egypt and Tunisia, along with a lot of other countries in the region. Of course there is concern for the "stability" of the region as the tacit alliance between Israel and Arab leaders across the Middle East may be shaken to the core. The revolutionary convulsion threatening to puke the Mubarak regime out and all over Uncle Sam's carpet has the potential to undermine American-Israeli interests, thus the concern for "stability".

After a week of massive demonstrations in Egypt the price of oil has risen to $100 and the stock market has also been affected negatively. Faced with this the American Right are running with the line that the instability has been orchestrated by Communists and Islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood, whilst calling for the Obama administration to give Mubarak total support to violently suppress the demonstrations. Glenn Beck has compared Mubarak to the Archduke Ferdinand with the implication that the end of the Mubarak regime will bring about World War III. Egypt has been one of the "cops on the beat" in the Middle East for over 30 years and the Right is arguing that Mubarak is a bulwark against the creation of an Islamist state. Even though the Muslim Brotherhood has only recently come out in support of the mass-demonstrations as the movement against Mubarak is a threat to the authoritarian model which the Brotherhood advocates. According to the cynical likes of Glenn Beck "This is the story of everyone who has ever plotted to, or wanted to, fundamentally change or destroy the Western way of life. This isn't about Egypt."

Meanwhile American and British officials have essentially been calling for a "revolution without a revolution", asking for restraint for both sides and calling for "reform" to recognise the grievances of the masses. No one wants to own up to supporting the North African regimes that have been condemned for a widely documented record of torture, abuse of power and corruption. The French government has supported the police state in Tunisia for years, as has the UK and the US. Similarly Egypt has received a great deal of Western support since the 1970s when Sadat brokered a peace deal with the Israelis. Since 1975 the US has poured $30 billion in aid into Egypt as a way of maintaining the tacit alliance with Israel. Just as the UK has maintained "close relations" with the former colony, British investments in Egypt add up to £10 billion in a wide range of sectors including fossil fuels, financial services and tourism.

As this gives Israel a military advantage over its neighbours, in case the tacit alliances break down, whilst improvements in military hardware can easily be made in the US and Israel because of the "tests" that can be carried out against the Palestinians. The Palestinians have no human rights partly because they serve no use to the US in economic or strategic terms, two areas of which Israel is a most valuable ally. Egypt is also important in strategic and economic terms as well, over 2 million barrels of oil pass through the Suez canal every day and the alliance with Israel has enabled the Israeli government to pursue greater expansion - for greater strategic and economic benefits, at the expense of its own security - since the 1970s. The noises made in the West about "stability" are really concerns that the "virus" could spread across the Middle East if Mubarak falls. If the pacified elites are overthrown the likelihood of serious political opposition to Israel are increased exponentially.

The importance of political relations between Israel and Egypt should not be underestimated. As it was the informal alliance, brokered in the form of a peace deal, between Egypt and Israel that led to the assassination of Sadat in 1981, which in turn created the emergency state that enabled Mubarak to rule for 30 years. The inspiration came from the work of an Islamist thinker Sayyid Qutb, who became radicalised after being tortured by the Nasser regime and argued that the likes of Sadat were not true Muslims and should be killed for the sake of creating an Islamic state. It was only after being covered in animal fat and locked in a room full of rabid mutts that Qutb began to advocate violence against the Nationalist regime, itself established in 1952 through revolution. The writing of Sayyid Qutb would go on to inspire Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden, who were not only behind 9/11 but were involved in the assassination of Sadat which elevated Hosni Mubarak to President.

The rise of Islamism in the Middle East has in part been a product of the failures and abuses of Arab nationalism. The threat of terrorism functioned to increase the power of the state over civilian life, in Algeria the state covertly encouraged terrorists to increase it's own power. In the case of Egypt it gave the Nationalist regime a justification for the emergency state. For anyone who knows anything about politics in the Maghreb and the Middle East, the events of recent weeks are not a random expression of rage. Revolutionary change has been bubbling just below the surface of these societies for decades. The recent debacle of rigged elections, torture, endemic corruption and complicity in the slaughter of Palestinians. These are the reasons that 1 million people have gathered in Tahrir Square - Liberation Square in English - to demand the end of the emergency state along with a Presidency that has gone on for three decades and has been sustained through violence.

An old friend of Hosni Mubarak, as well as a fellow murderer and unscrupulous politician Tony Blair has come out claiming that Egypt might take a backward step "into a very reactionary form of religious autocracy". The Blairite defence of secular authoritarianism, as opposed to a hypothetical religious autocracy, might be more believable if he had not taken vacations to Egypt and Mubarak covered the expenses. Despite the line common in the press that if Mubarak falls the state will be seized by the Muslim Brotherhood. The movement is not only grass-roots and democratic, it is secular and calling for social justice as well as freedom. The Muslim Brotherhood have vowed to respect the wishes of the majority of Egyptians in the event that the regime collapses. The argument for Mubarak and some "reform", which we might as well think of as cosmetic surgery for the old regime, that free elections will lead to an Islamist state is not only false but obscene and insulting.