Here, we reprint the late Mansoor Hekmat's 'The World After September
11'. His brilliant analysis raised the banner of civilised humanity.
* The World After September 11
By Mansoor Hekmat
Part One: The War of Terrorists
Two Reactionary Camps
The appalling September 11, 2001 terrorist crimes against humanity and
the slaughter of thousands of innocent people in America has pushed the world
to the brink of one of the darkest and bloodiest eras of contemporary
history. What the American
administration calls an international war on terrorists is in fact the world’s
entry into a new and destructive phase in the international war of
terrorists.
At opposing poles of this bloody conflict stand the two main
international camps of terrorism, which have left their bloody mark on the
lives of two generations. At one pole,
there stands the most enormous machinery of state terrorism and international
intimidation and blackmail. This camp includes the American government and
ruling elite, the only force, which has used nuclear bombs against people,
reducing hundreds of thousands of innocent and unsuspecting people of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki into ashes within seconds. A state that slaughtered millions in
Vietnam and razed and ruined their country for many years by chemical
bombardments. It includes NATO and
coalitions of Western governments who from Iraq to Yugoslavia, have destroyed
people’s homes, schools and hospitals and have taken ransom the bread and
medicine of millions of children. It
includes the Israeli bourgeoisie and state.
They occupy, seize, slaughter and deprive. They bomb and shell refugee camps and shoot
scared ten-year-old children taking shelter in their fathers’ arms and at
school gates. From Hiroshima and Vietnam
to Grenada and Iraq, from the killing fields in Indonesia and Chile to the
slaughterhouses of Palestine, the track record of this international pole of
state terrorism and imperialist intimidation is obvious and irrefutable for all
the world to see.
At the opposing pole, there stands Islamic terrorism and the
reactionary and vile political Islam.
These forces that were once created and nurtured by America and the West
themselves during the Cold War as a means of organising indigenous reaction
against the Left in Middle Eastern societies, have now become an active pole of
international terrorism and one contender in the bourgeois power struggle in
the Middle East. The murderous history of political Islam, from Iran,
Afghanistan and Pakistan to Algeria and Palestine includes a long list of
genocide and appalling crimes. From state and state sponsored killings in Iran
and Afghanistan to the daily crimes of Islamic terror squads in Israel, Algeria
and the heart of Europe and America, from the bloody suppression of political
and intellectual opponents to imposing reactionary and anti-human Islamic laws
on people, particularly women, from Islamic beheadings and mutilations, to
planting bombs and mass murder in buses, cafés and discothèques – these are the
highlights in the track record of these reactionaries
Now, this conflict is going to take hundreds of thousands and probably
millions of other victims in Afghanistan tomorrow and in any other corner of the
world the day after. This must be
resisted.
War Propaganda
Along with this military alignment, we are witnessing the ideological
and propaganda alignment of the two camps.
Piercing and tearing down this propaganda wall and pulling the truth out
from beneath the massive wave of hypocrisy and deceit, which will engulf the
world is the first condition of organising an independent rank of
freedom-loving humanity against the terrorists’ world war.
The ideological banner of
extremists in both camps is clearly visible and recognisable from afar. Today’s complex world no longer has time for
these coarse views. Western and American
flag waving and jingoism, racism, the ‘clash of civilisations’ garbage and such
like may only have an effect on the margins of Western society. Western governments and media know that these
crude and primitive views and opinions cannot form the ideological and
propaganda framework for the conflict they have entered into. In the opposing camp,
too, the idea of Islamic Crusade (Jihad), indiscriminate bloodletting, whether
for the grace of god and religion, for the 'liberation of Qods (Jerusalem) and
the land of Islam from the claws of bloodsucking international Zionism and
imperialism,' only succeeds within the ranks of political Islam’s extremists
and activists. It does not mobilise the
masses of people in contemporary Middle Eastern society. The propaganda war and ideological battle
dominating the impending bloody military conflict cannot be based on these
openly extremist, sectarian and crude outlines.
What can eventually draw the vast masses of people in the West and in
the Middle East to this war and align them with the two sides of this
reactionary hostility are not these primitive ideas but much more sophisticated
rationalisations and justifications that are already gaining popularity.
In the Westerners’ formula, despite Bush’s cowboy gunslinger gestures,
‘civilised humanity’ is faced with the plague of terrorism. USA is portrayed as the leader of this
civilised rank. The objective is to
neutralise terrorism and bring terrorists to justice. The issue seems much simpler than the attack
on Iraq and the bombing of Belgrade. Who
can blame the US government in its military policy when 6,000 of ‘its people’
have been killed with such brutality?
What is more obvious than the American government’s military action to
smash this terrorism and protect ‘its citizens,’ and even the people of the
world, against subsequent imminent crimes?
This time, to be a member of ‘civilised’ humanity’s club, applicants
need not have any ethnic, racial or religious qualifications. Applicants - of whatever colour, appearance,
religion or background - need only to declare their support for America. This time, the war propaganda is not going to
be racial, ethnic, religious or even political.
The issue is not maintaining the flow of oil, defending the burgeoning
democracy in Saudi Arabia and returning Kuwait to its sheikhs. If American military, once again dons its
armour to repeat what it has done innumerable times, it is seemingly for the
right to life, the right to travel, the right of people not to be blown up in
their homes or on their streets. The crimes of September 11 have given the most
powerful ideological and propaganda framework to date for USA and NATO’s
military intervention in the furthest corners of the globe. At this moment, separating the masses of
people in the West from the military policy of the ruling elite of these
countries requires Herculean enlightening efforts. This ideological equilibrium could, indeed,
change rapidly with new developments, but at this moment, the idea of the ‘war
of civilised world against terrorism’ has put western politicians and media in
full control of western public opinion.
In the opposing pole too, a sophisticated and relatively effective
ideological framework in defence of political Islam and Islamic terrorism is
taking shape. Not many dare to openly
defend the slaughter of thousands of people in America. Even the beasts ruling over Iran and
Afghanistan have had to restrain their words.
Openly defending political Islam and Islamic terrorism will not be the
propaganda banner of this pole. The
Islamic side in the war of terrorists will rely on an effective but old formula
for justification of Islamic terrorism, a formula which has been one of the
foundations of petit-bourgeois ‘anti-imperialism’ in the Third World,
particularly in the Middle East. Seven
years ago, in the wake of a wave of Islamic murders in Israel, Egypt and
Algeria, we clearly exposed and condemned this reactionary defence of terrorism
in an editorial column of the journal ‘The International.’ It is not inappropriate to quote that short
article here:
‘A wave of Islamic murders has engulfed the Middle East and North Africa.
The victims of this wave are the most ordinary of ordinary people. In Egypt and Algeria, they shoot at and
behead foreign nationals - be they workers, tourists or pensioners. They bomb and kill school children at school
gates. They kill young girls who do not
submit to forced marriages. In Tel Aviv,
they murder unaware pedestrians - children, old and young - on streets and on
buses. And heroically, from Israel to
Algeria, they reassure a stunned humanity that this ‘armed struggle’ will
continue.
‘There was a time when the traditional and ‘anti-imperialist’ Left
would look upon the blind violence and unrestrained terrorism of Third World
and anti-western currents if not with admiration then at least with toleration. In their opinion, the injustice suffered by
deprived nations and oppressed people justified this terrorism as a legitimate
reaction. The terrorism of Palestinian
groups, Islamic organisations and the Irish Republican Army - whose victims
were increasingly unprotected and unaware civilians – were prime examples of
this ‘permissible’ terrorism in recent past. A terrorism, which seemingly
responded to past and present injustices; a terrorism, which seemingly appeared
as a reaction to the inhuman and brutal policies of oppressive powers and
governments. Interestingly, throughout the years, the Israeli government has
also used this exact abuse-excuse rationalization; that is by alluding to the
indescribable genocide carried out by Nazis and anti-Semitic groups in various
countries against the Jewish people, they have justified the brutal suppression
of the deprived people of Palestine and the daily killings of Palestinian
youth.
‘From a communist standpoint, this type of rationalisation and the
blind terrorism erected on it in the Middle East - whether by Arab and
Palestinian organisations or the state of Israel – is regarded as bankrupt and
is condemned. There is not the slightest
real and legitimate relationship between the appalling calamities that have
befallen the Jewish people in this century and the suppression and crimes
committed by the extremist right wing government in Israel against the
Palestinians. There is not the slightest
real and justified relationship between the sufferings of the deprived people
of Palestine and the terrorism of Islamic or non-Islamic organisations
attributed to these people. Bourgeois state and factions are exploiting and
capitalising on the suffering of the deprived people. Condemning and eradicating this terrorism by
the working class, particularly in countries of the region, is an essential
condition for placing the workers in the leadership of the social struggle to
end the age-old miseries of the people of the Middle East.
‘It seems the new wave of Islamic murders, particularly in North Africa
does no longer even require such political justifications. A turban and a gun are sufficient to begin
this despicable Jihad against humanity. This is Islamic gangsterism and its
source is the ruling regime in Iran. And
it will be in Iran where it will be smashed. (Mansoor Hekmat, The
International, in Farsi, November 1994, http://www.wpiran.org)'
With the intensification of this conflict and particularly with the
imminent US and NATO attack on Afghanistan, the ‘anti-imperialist’ defence of
Islamic groups and rationalisation of their terrorist actions by reference to
Israel and America’s crimes and oppressive acts, can once again gain foothold
among the people and political parties of the Middle East and also among
sections of the traditional radical and intellectual Left of western
societies. The main ideological refuge
of Islamic gangsterism and Islamic reaction in this power struggle will not be
the worn-out and openly anti-human religious and Islamic slogans, but rather
the so-called ‘anti-imperialism’ of the religious-nationalist and petit
bourgeois apologists.
No popular movement can succeed against the war of terrorists without
exposing and breaking the ideological framework of this hypocritical war
propaganda on both sides of this reactionary conflict.
What is the Conflict Over?
For both sides, this is a power struggle. Terrorism is one reality of this conflict,
but this conflict and the imminent war are not about terrorism. Everyone knows that US entry into Afghanistan
and even Ben Laden’s arrest will not dampen the terrorist campaign by Islamic
groups against the West, and will not bring more security to those who live in
Europe and America. On the contrary, it will increase the danger. The Palestinian question is where America and
the Islamic movement come directly face to face. But this conflict is also not really about
the resolution of the Palestinian question.
The declared policy of USA, that is a ‘massive, sustained and
comprehensive’ military war will clearly exacerbate both issues - the Palestinian
question and Islamic terrorism. Not only
this, but also a possible civil war in Pakistan with serious regional and
global consequences, and deep governmental crises in seemingly stable Middle
Eastern countries could be the initial result of this military policy. They are well aware of this. Nonetheless, for USA, the main issue is the
consolidation and expansion of its political and military hegemony and
dominance over the world as the only superpower. The resolution of the Palestinian question or
fighting Islamic terrorism is not the objective of this policy. Consolidation and expansion of America’s
global position, within the context of pressures and opportunities created by
the September 11 crimes is the main aim of this policy.
For the Islamists also, this is a power struggle. Neither the suffering of the people of
Palestine nor the historical injustices of the West to the East are the source
of this terrorism. The Islamic movement
is striving to reverse its falling fortunes and ultimately to expand its
position in the bourgeois power structure of the Middle East. Terrorism and blind enmity with anything that
is Western or Westernised is their main political capital in a society and
among a people who rightly see America and Israel as the main causes of their
deprivation and rightlessness. Peace in
the Middle East, the formation of an independent Palestine, the end of
discrimination against the Palestinian people, will herald the demise of the
Islamic movement in the Middle East.
Terrorism is the Islamic movement’s main tool in further deepening the
national, ethnic and religious splits in the Middle East and keeping alive this
conflict as political capital and a source for its power. Despite the military pressure brought about
by America, the Islamists will welcome this confrontation.
To form an independent popular movement against this unprecedented and
deadly confrontation of international terrorist and military poles, the truth
of these trends and events must be taken to the people. The war propaganda and
rationalisations dished out by belligerent camps must be exposed. Events of September 11 and the policy being
pursued by USA have important regional and global consequences. They will profoundly change the political and
ideological complexion of the world.
Politics in Iran will also be acutely influenced by these events. It is necessary to address the main issues in
these developments and the fundamentals of a principled communist policy.
Part Two: Where is the ‘Civilised World?’
Barbarity is not Inevitable
The war of terrorists can be the beginning of one of the bloodiest eras
of contemporary history. Already,
hundreds of millions of people are bracing themselves. But
this prospect is not inevitable. The
scene is not restricted to the two sides of this conflict. There is a third force, a sleeping giant who
can turn the situation around. If this
giant awakes, this era can be the beginning of positive changes and the
realisation of ideals in the world which humanity had given up on during the
final decades of the last century. Bush,
Blair, Khamenei, USA, NATO and political Islam do not know that there really is
a civilised humanity, a civilised world, which could rise up and defend itself
against the war of terrorists. Despite
the darkness and terror that they have placed before us people, the 21st
century does not have to be the century of capitalist barbarity. These are decisive days.
The media does not reflect the real intellectual and ideological makeup
of the world. They give their own
version, the dominant version, the version of the ruling class. A version that suits them. Militarism, terrorism, racism, ethnicism,
religious fanaticism and profit worship are headline news but do not have a
firm place deep down in the minds of the majority of the people of our
times. Even a cursory look at the world
shows that the vast masses of the people
are more to the left, more altruistic, more peace loving, more egalitarian,
more free and more freedom-loving than governments and the media. The people on both sides of this appalling
conflict have no desire to dance to the tune of the leaders of the
bourgeoisie. The gunslinging American
administration immediately realises that despite one of the most horrendous
terrorist crimes, despite the live broadcast of the perishing of thousands of
people in an instant, despite the sorrow and rage which takes hold of anyone
who has not sold their conscience to some material interest, still this same
horrified western society, these very people who are daily brainwashed, these
very people who are from dawn to dusk ‘educated’ by the ruling ideology of
racism and xenophobia , call for 'caution, fairness, justice and a measured
response'. The people of the Middle East
who are conceived as zealous Moslems and members of the ‘Islamic civilization’
- be it in the sick minds of clerical rulers in Iran and Afghanistan and the
assorted sheikhs of the Islamic movement or in the deluxe studios of the CNN
and BBC - are mourning with the people of
America and rising in the condemnation of the genocide of September 11. It does
not take a genius to realise that the majority of the people of the Middle East
despise political Islam, that huge
segments of the people of Western Europe and America are fed up with Israel’s
injustices and sympathise with the deprived people of Palestine, that the majority of western people want an
end to the economic sanctions against Iraq and can put themselves in the shoes
of heartbroken Iraqi parents who are losing their children to shortage of
medicine, that the vast masses of the world's decent and honourable people are
on neither side of the war between Bush and Bin Laden - old friends and
present-day rivals. This civilised humanity
has been silenced under the barrage of propaganda, brainwashing and
intimidation in the West and East, but it has clearly not accepted the
garbage. This is a massive force. It can come to the fore. For the future of humanity, it must
come to the fore.
And here lies all the difficulty - to bring to the fore this massive
force. In the war of terrorists the
battle lines are drawn, camps are defined, resources and forces are mobilised;
this is a vast military, political and diplomatic confrontation. Despite all the ambiguities, the intellectual
and political framework of this war, for leaders of both camps, are clear. In our camp, however, in the camp of
humanity, which must confront this terrifying prospect, all is ambiguous.
Undoubtedly, resistance against the war of terrorists is now growing in
various countries. But as much as the
Islamists and USA need a clear strategy and theory and a unitary and workable
outlook, this popular movement also needs an intellectual and political banner
and a series of practical strategic principals.
Various political movements, particularly those on the Left will strive
to guide and lead this resistance. The
question is what outlook will lead this ‘Left’ itself.
In Part I of this article, I wrote that alongside the hawks in both
poles - American militarism and Islamic fascists - there are indeed two more
sophisticated, refined and ‘respectable’ set of arguments defending the two
sides of the conflict. Alongside US
militarism, and supporting it, there are those who promote the formula of the war
of ‘the civilised world against terrorism’.
Alongside the murderers in the Islamic movement, there are those who
justify Islamic terrorism with the familiar 1970's religious-nationalist and
Third World-ist ‘anti-imperialism.’ But
none of these rationalisations will have any serious influence in the people's
resistance movement. Centre-right
parties and groups in the West on the one hand and the remains of the
traditional left student-intellectuals of the previous decades in East and West
on the other will be the main customers of these crafty formulations in the
propaganda war on both sides. What could
politically and conceptually derail the potentially powerful movement of the
world's progressive people is, in my opinion, the pacifist and futile liberalist
outlook and efforts to maintain the status quo (merely trying to prevent
a US attack on Afghanistan) or status quo ante (returning to
pre-September 11).
The September 11 incident was not an isolated act of psychotic
individuals cut off from society; neither is the USA's impending military
action. The world prior to September 11
was not in equilibrium, but rather was proceeding on a deteriorating path. There are important economic, social and
political problem behind these events.
These problems have pushed the world in this direction. These problems and issues must be
addressed. September 11 is how political
Islam is addressing these issues. The same way that bringing the Taliban to
power, destroying Baghdad, starving the people of Iraq, suppressing the people
of Palestine, bombing Belgrade and now the ‘long war with terrorism’ are how
the leader of capitalism in the USA and Europe have dealt with these underlying
contradictions. Today’s events are moments in an on-going and dynamic
situation. The people’s movement against this developing reality cannot be a
movement calling for calm and demanding ‘Hands off Afghanistan!’ Calling for peace and keeping the status quo
is not only unrealistic, not only utopian, but also not just, not progressive
and not useful. The popular resistance
movement against the war of terrorists can only be organised around positive
solutions to the critical political and economic problems of our times and
around an active position - not for maintaining the status quo but rather for
changing it. We have had our own
independent agenda and solutions for all the problems that have been pushed to
the fore, such as the North–South question, the Palestinian question, the
question of Iraq, the question of political Islam, the question of Afghanistan
and Iran, the question of militarism and USA and NATO’s hegemonism in the new
world order, the question of racism and fortress Europe, etc. These must form the agenda and the banner of
the popular resistance movement against the war of terrorists. This is the difference between us and the
peace campaigners and pacifists, who do not see or are indifferent to the
divisions, contradictions and instability of the world prior to September 11. If we had an agenda to change the world prior
to this incident, then a principled position in the current situation means
following the same agenda in the new situation.
We do not intend to leave Afghanistan under the yoke of the murderous
gang of Taliban, we do not intend to live under the rule of a trigger-happy
USA, we do not intend to tolerate political Islam or Islamic governments in the
Middle East, we do not intend to accept the statelessness of Palestinians and
their everyday suppression. We did not
want terrorism, be it Islamic and suicidal or military and uniformed and
high-tech; we do not accept the poverty of half the world; we do not want
fortresses and barracks around Europe, we will not succumb to racism and
ethnicism. Neither the September 11 crime
nor the imminent heroics of NATO in the Hindu Kush, should turn an active
movement for changing the world into uncritical and aimless retiring lot
calling for peace and quiet and a return to the day before.
The ‘humanitarian’ and ‘peace’ movement is not the right response to
today’s situation. But the influence of
this movement, particularly among ordinary people in western society - because
of people’s belief in non-violence, humanism and their spontaneous sense of
caution - is extremely widespread. This
position condemns USA's intervention in Afghanistan, but shirks its
responsibility to fight Taliban's rule.
It condemns racism and incitement against Moslems but does not see any
reason to put pressure on the USA and Israel in defence of the people of
Palestine. This position wishes Jack
Straw success in his trip to Iran so that hopefully this pole of Islamic
terrorism can be tamed and pacified, despite the fact that this policy
strengthens the rule of these wolves over the people in Iran. This position defends the civil rights of Moslems
in European countries, but in order to prevent 'tension' rejects and opposes
criticism of the Islamic veil and lack of rights of women in Islam and Islamic
communities. This position appeals to
all to back off and to leave the situation as it was before. If this movement goes to dominate the minds
and actions of discontented people, then civilised humanity will leave the
stage to Western and Eastern terrorists.
If there is to be a future, it is in the formation of an active,
progressive and freedom-loving policy at the forefront of the people's
ranks. This is the duty of
communists. New communists. Marx’s communists. This is our task.
In part III, I will deal with the fundamentals of an active policy
against the war of terrorists. But it is
necessary to briefly address the most pressing issue of the day, which is the
USA's imminent attack on Afghanistan. 99
percent of the people of the world know and can clearly explain why USA's
military attack on Afghanistan and even the arrest and or killing of Bin Laden
which is the declared aim of this operation and seems technically very
improbable, not only doesn't diminish the danger of Islamic terrorism against
America and Britain but rather greatly increases it. It is very clear that the US and British
governments are themselves aware of this fact.
But they seem to regard a Hollywood or James Bond adventure easier to
feed to the people. A mad lone
millionaire or gangster in a remote part of the world - Saddam, Milosevic, Bin
Laden etc. - intends to destroy the civilization and American heroes are sent
off to save the world. But their own
analyses shows that political Islam and Islamic terrorism does not have a
central headquarters, unified command and an hierarchical organisation; it is
an international movement made up of government agencies and circles, various
organisations, networks and circles, which are weaved together in a series of
official and unofficial relations, as an underground movement, with extensive
degree of initiative at the local level.
For the West, entering Afghanistan is the start of a wider military and
political campaign. Capturing or killing
Bin Laden and the accomplishment of some kind of US revenge would naturally
reduce the urgency of further military operations for the US administration and
calm the American domestic scene until and only until the next Islamic
terrorist attack. But this is a small
step in a wider, military and political move in the Middle East, whose eventual
extent is not yet revealed. In the final analysis, this is a show down with
political Islam, that is the reactionary movement that the West itself found in
the peripherals of Middle Eastern society and brought to the fore to confront
the emerging Left in the developing capitalisms of these countries as well as
to pressurise the Eastern bloc. This
power struggle could remain limited, but due to the un-centralised and
extremist nature of political Islam and Islamic terrorism, it is more likely
that it will lead to a more fundamental and total confrontation. However, political Islam cannot survive in
the Middle East without Western support, let alone in a confrontation
with the West. So far, the
intensification of the battle between secularists and Islamists in Pakistan and
the revival of Khatamites and the resumption and escalation of factional
infighting within the Iran’s Islamic rulers is an indication that the battle
between the West and political Islam could act as a detonator for serious
changes in the balance of power within the bourgeois factions in Middle East to
the disadvantage of Islamists.
What could be said about the America’s attack on Afghanistan? Is ‘Hands off Afghanistan!’ a progressive and
principled position? The people of
Afghanistan and its opposition will tell you otherwise. The prospect of Taliban's downfall, a gang of
murderers and drug dealers, has spurred political forces in Afghanistan. The demand for the overthrow of the Taliban
is a humane and progressive demand. We
must not allow the legitimate and just opposition to American militarism to be
interpreted as leaving Afghanistan in the hands of Taliban. This is one living
example of the incorrectness and insufficiency of the call for calm and the
defence of the status quo. The people of
Afghanistan have been waiting for a lifetime for Taliban's downfall. No doubt, the US will not enter Afghanistan
for the liberation of that country. They
brought the Taliban to power. This time
they may weaken it but de facto accept its existence. They have promised (the Pakistan ruler) Gen.
Musharraf that the next
government of Afghanistan will be to Pakistan's liking. They are to remove these beasts and replace
them with others from the same breed. The principled position is the
participate in overthrowing the Taliban shoulder to shoulder with the people of
Afghanistan and the progressive opposition, and fighting for the establishment
of a government elected by the people of that country. This must be imposed on the West, USA and the
United Nations. Any attack by the US
forces and its allies against civilians in Afghanistan and the destruction of
cities, villages, infrastructures and people's livelihood must be
condemned. Any attempt to impose another
gang on the people of Afghanistan through wheeling and dealings between USA, Pakistan,
Iran and any other state is condemned.
But the overthrow of Taliban by foreign armies is not in itself
condemnable. Taliban is not a legitimate
government in Afghanistan. It must be
overthrown. The question is the
government that is to replace it and the guarantee that the people of
Afghanistan must have regarding their right and opportunity to decide the
political system in their country.
Part Three: The Demise of Political Islam
Outside today’s two opposing reactionary poles - the militarism of US
and Western governments on the one hand and the camp of political Islam and
Islamic terrorist groups on the other - the prevailing climate for the majority
of the world’s humanitarians and peace-lovers is one of apprehension and
trepidation. It is a climate of
despair. Everyone is anxious about the
deteriorating situation – the escalation of an insane, terrorist race, the
killing and flight of hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghan people, chemical
and biological attacks in the west, a political eruption in Pakistan, ‘laptop’
atomic bombs falling into the hands of political adventurers, religious
fanatics and international criminals, ‘the USA’s new war’ and a new phase in
global bloodletting on a scale that only the USA has been and is capable of. The slogans and protests of the world’s
decent people has been mainly focused on maintaining the status quo
(stopping the US attack on Afghanistan or returning to the pre-September 11
situation). This is a humanity, which
has no hope for a better future. At
best, it calls for calm. It wishes to
avoid bombs, war and violence. A humanity that despite its naïve, duped and
docile daily image knows the brutal and heinous nature of the monsters that
have entered this war - political Islam and US militarism. A humanity that
simply wants to avoid the next catastrophe at any cost. The dominant policy within the wide spectrum
of forces that oppose the war (and this includes relics of marginal Left groups
in Europe, which prior to September 11, would not agree to anything less than a
‘world revolution’) is to call for calm, to attempt to halt the current trends
and to return to before September 11.
Pacifism is the dominant tendency in the resistance movement. And this is an extremely harmful policy that
not only does not prevent the next disasters and its consequences, but actually
guarantees their taking place.
The pacifist policy and concentrating on the military and armed aspects
of the confrontation and the ensuing physical violence actually does harm since
it causes political paralysis in people.
The condition for preventing this terrorist race and this wave of
explosions, destruction and mass murder that they have in store for us is
people's intervention in Europe, America, the Middle East and the so-called
Third World in the real political processes behind these events - a
participation based on an active and positive agenda. If this happens, the future does not have to
be bleak.
It is necessary to unearth these political trends and facts from beneath
the war propaganda.
Behind the Official
Propaganda: Terrorism and Political Islam
I do not think that anyone, even in the US army, believes the story
that the September 11 atrocity was the work of a fanatical group taking orders
from someone called Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan who has a personal and blind
enmity with the USA, ‘democracy’ and the American ‘way of life’. The western media are insistent that this
incident was not ‘the work of Moslems’ and has not emerged from ‘the teachings
of the Koran’. Seasoned journalists are
careful not to make any reference to Israel and the Palestinian question. They say linking the Palestinian question to
this terrorist attack would mean conceding that this action has been
instrumental in making the West pay attention to the Palestinian question. Consequently, instead of political Islam and
Israel, they point us to Bin Laden and Afghanistan. The USA's war with Taliban in Afghanistan is
an important event with long lasting consequences for the region and the world. This war will definitely affect the future of
political Islam and even the Palestinian question. It has nothing to do, however, with capturing
and punishing the perpetrators of September 11 and will even increase the
possibility of terrorist actions against the West (I will return to this
issue).
Islamic terrorism is a fact of our times. This terrorism is one of the main pillars of
political Islam's strategy. Political
Islam is a reactionary regional, and now global, movement that is nourished by the
West and Israel's historical injustice toward Arabs and specifically the people
of Palestine. The statelessness of
Palestinians and the oppression of the Palestinian people by Israel and its
Western allies are a main source of hatred for the West and the USA in the
Middle East. More importantly, the
Palestinian question and the USA and West's continued unwavering support for
Israel against the Arabs both during and after the Cold War have created a huge
economic, cultural and psychological rift between the people of the Middle East
and the West. But the ability of
political Islam to shift from the margins of Middle Eastern societies into the
mainstream and to capitalise on this discontent in its endeavour for political
power is all directly owed to the West and USA.
Political Islam as a criminal movement with a widespread power base is
the creation of the West and USA. They
have created this monster and unleashed it on the people of the Middle East and
now the world. Political Islam was the
West's tool during the Cold War against Russia and against the emerging labour
and Left movements and revolutions in many countries of the region. It was a means of preventing the Left from
taking power in the region after nationalist governments reached an impasse
during the ‘70s and ‘80s. The
Palestinian question and the existence of Islamic governments in the Middle
East are the pillars and foundations of Islamic terrorism. Any popular progressive and active policy
must begin from this very point:
1) Resolving the Palestinian question. This historical problem must be
resolved. The Palestinian people must
have their own independent state. We
must force Western governments and the USA to end their one-sided support for
Israel. Israel must be compelled to accept
peace and Palestinian independence. The
resolution of the Palestinian question is the most important element in
confronting political Islam and Islamic terrorism and is one of the main
aspects of a progressive and active agenda in the current situation.
2) The West must end its reactionary support for Islamic and backward
governments and various parties in the Islamic movement in the Middle
East. Without Western backing, the
Islamic regime of Iran would not have come to power or remained in power. Without the West's support, the assorted
sheikhs in Saudi Arabia and large and small emirates would not maintain their
brutal and reactionary rule and their system of slavery. Without the West's
support, not only Taliban but also the preceding groups of Moslem Mujahedin
could not have turned Afghanistan into an immense human tragedy. If the West's military, diplomatic and
political support for Islamic movements were to end, the people of the region
would quickly overthrow these governments. The demand to overthrow Islamic
governments and to prevent dealing and wheeling between Western governments and
USA with these reactionary governments must be another important aspect of the
anti-terrorist platform of any progressive and popular movement.
3) The economic sanctions against the people of Iraq must end. The suffering of the people of Iraq has
turned this into the 2nd Palestinian question in the minds of the
people of the region. It is a living
proof of Western and US terrorism in the Middle East. The economic sanctions have helped perpetuate
the reactionary Iraqi government and pushed back the people of Iraq away from
politics to a daily battle for physical survival. The struggle for an end to economic sanctions
against Iraq is another vital element in a progressive platform against Islamic
terrorism.
4) We must actively defend secularism in Moslem-inhabited countries and
in Islamic and Islam-ridden communities in Western countries themselves. The shameful idea of cultural relativism
(leaving people at the mercy of 'their own culture') and the systematic and
theorised failure to defend people’s, particularly women's, civil and human
rights in these countries and communities, have given a free hand to political
Islam to intimidate people and incite the youth. Universal human and civil rights must be the
standard and any compromise with religion and reactionary religious rule to the
detriment of human rights must be condemned.
Islamic terrorism is a reality. Terrorism is not the work of Moslems,
but it is the official policy of the Islamic movement. This is a phoney movement created by the West
in the context of the Cold War and amidst an anti-communist confrontation with
workers and freedom-lovers in the Middle East.
It is a weak and frail movement. It
does not enjoy serious moral and political support in the region's major
countries. It is out of step with the
region's social realities. Without the
West's support, political Islam would be defeated by socialism and secularism
in the region. In Iran, which like
Palestine is one of the main scenes where the fate of political Islam shall be
sealed, the demise and downfall of political Islam has already began.
In the Next Part
The US war in the region, which has started in Afghanistan is not a war
against terrorism, since it not only does not address any of the conditions
necessary to fight terrorism (which I referred to earlier), but it even relies
on sections of that very Islamic movement.
Nonetheless, in my opinion, the USA has entered into a confrontation
with political Islam. This is a power struggle.
This conflict will logically lead to the weakening of political Islam.
But the objective of the West is not the elimination of political Islam. It
rather seeks to weaken it, tame it and remould its ranks in order to create a
new equilibrium. The war in Afghanistan is about redefining the West's
relationship with political Islam. We
must break this framework and thwart this new reactionary alliance. We must pursue
our own independent policy for ridding the region of this reactionary force
much more rigorously under the new conditions.
* The pacifist position does not see this new conflict between the West
and political Islam, does not recognise its importance for the people of Middle
East who have been victims of this reactionary movement and for future
political developments. The pacifist rank shirks its responsibility towards
these realities. We must take our
criticism of this pacifist and cautious position into the popular movement
against terrorism and militarism.
* Because of the global and historical dimensions of this
confrontation, the ideological and psychological characteristics of the people
of world today, particularly in the West, are very different from the period of
the attack on Iraq and even Yugoslavia.
With people’s mass participation in politics and civil struggles, US
militarism will come out of this conflict politically weakened. With the active intervention of progressive
forces, the current conflict which is itself about aspects of the new world
order after the fall of the Soviet Union, can turn into a mass critique of this
entire notion, re-examining the USA superpower status and its continued
military intimidation of the world. From
the point of view of freedom and equality, this is a much more important debate
than the future of political Islam.
Part Four: After Afghanistan
Afghanistan: War or Aerial
Terrorism?
There is no war in Afghanistan.
War logically requires at least two sides. What is currently taking place is the USA's
bombing of Afghanistan. In this newfound
tactic of the world's sole superpower and self-appointed international sheriff,
terror and intimidation on a mass scale have formally replaced war. After
Vietnam, it has been decided that American society is not to witness any more
soldiers returning in body bags from far away battlefields. The price for this
will now have to be paid by the unlucky civilians of that wretched country
which, in the half-baked theories of Dr. Strangeloves at the National Security
Council and the US State Department, is now deemed to be the bastion of the
USA's latest arch enemy and the newest leader of the ‘Evil Empire’. The casualties that the US military avoids
will instead be taken a hundred times over from innocent civilians who are
barely scraping a living in a typically poor and marginal country of the
world. One day, it is the Iraqi people
who hit the jackpot; another day it is Yugoslavia, Libya or Afghanistan. In the
cover of darkness, from high-flying out-of-reach planes and from warships and
submarines tucked away in far away oceans, they hurl tens of thousands of tons
of bombs and missiles at people and their cities. They boast that they will
send the pounded country 'back to the stone age,' and yet they insist that the
morally 'smart’ American bombs are programmed to only hit the guilty. The aim is to intimidate; to intimidate the
whole society; to rule by fear - fear of death and displacement, fear of total
destruction of a whole economy and civil society; to the point where society is
paralysed and resistance becomes impossible.
Today, the US ground troops are only the hounds that are to bring the
lifeless prey back after the shooting ends and the dust settles.
No one can condemn a declaration of war on the Taliban – even if it is
by the USA and West. The Taliban must go and can only be removed by force and
by military action. The enmity between
the West and the Taliban is much preferable to their hitherto friendship. No one will stand in the way of the removal
of murderers who were first installed by the West itself. But there is a difference between war and
terror. The US and UK actions in
Afghanistan are terrorism. The bombing
of cities and residential areas must be condemned and stopped. Worthless myths
about the Taliban’s military prowess and Afghanistan’s history of bringing
superpowers to their knees only reinforce and feed into US and UK terrorist
methods. The Afghan Mujahedin was merely a facade for the West and the USA in
their war against the Soviet Union. The Taliban is a criminal drug gang that
was created by the West with the assistance of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They
can turn their switch off and remove them within weeks. But aerial terrorism is safer, more
spectacular, more fitting for a superpower, and more likely to teach the
discontented people of the world a lesson in the virtues of obedience. We must
oppose these inhumane methods.
From Taliban to Political Islam
The US and UK action in Afghanistan, even if it leads to the downfall
of the Taliban and Bin Laden's death, will not diminish the threats of Islamic
terrorism against the West; it will escalate it. Western leaders are fully
aware of this and even publicly warn citizens. However, the choice of
Afghanistan as the first theatre for the US 'revenge' for the September 11
atrocity has two fundamental reasons.
Firstly, even if the USA concedes that Islamic terrorism and the
anti-Western hatred it nurtures on is a political problem with a political
solution, it does not see a solely political response to such a huge physical
and military attack inside the US on September 11 as a sufficient and
satisfactory response. Militarism is part and parcel of the official ideology
in the USA and a foundation of its identity as a superpower. Thus, to the US government, an attack on the
USA can only be appropriately answered with an attack on someone else,
somewhere else. For the USA, only a military
response can ‘avenge’ September 11, irrespective of the roots and causes of
political Islam and Islamic terrorism. This military action must be huge and
must represent the ‘wrath and power’ of the USA; it must display its
ruthlessness. A huge military action, however, requires a large theatre. War needs a battlefield. Afghanistan has not been chosen because Bin
Laden is there, on the contrary, Bin Laden has been chosen because he is in
Afghanistan. There are many like Bin Laden, heads of Islamic terrorism who live
openly or clandestinely in Iran, Britain, France, Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon,
Palestine, Chechnya and Bosnia. The idea that Islamic terrorism has a pyramid
structure and a defined hierarchy with Bin Laden at the top is ridiculous. Who
believes that [Iranian Ayatollah] Khamanei has been working under Bin Laden in
this terrorist hierarchy? The key is Afghanistan,
a land that can be the scene of a huge military action. Afghanistan is the only
possible theatre for 'US revenge' on the massive and frightening scale promised
by the US administration. Today, there
is no such military target area outside Afghanistan. And even here, Western leaders complain of
the lack of tall buildings and large bridges to destroy.
Secondly, as we said in part III, what is being settled behind the
conflict with the Taliban and Bin Laden is the relationship and balance of
power between the USA and the West with political Islam. 'The long war against terrorism' is the code
name for a show down with political Islam.
From the USA's point of view, it is a power struggle, which must sooner
or later define the more lasting characteristics of a new world order after the
fall of the Soviet Union. Political Islam, a by-product of the Cold War, has
emerged as a bourgeois contender for political power in Middle Eastern
countries as well as in 'Islamic' communities within Western societies. This
force is either in power or has significant political leverage in parts of the
world, e.g. in significant countries like Iran and Pakistan. It is a player in
the fight over the future of Palestine and Israel. In the former Soviet Republics,
it is making mischief close to sensitive nuclear arsenals. In the West, thanks to Saudi Arabia’s money,
local state subsidies and the corrupt ideology of cultural relativism, it is
recruiting the youth in Islam-ridden areas in droves. For the West, this
political Islam is no longer the tool and the puppet that served them well in
the containment of the Soviet Union, in preventing the Left from taking power
in the anti-monarchy revolution of Iran, and in creating problems for Arafat
and Arab nationalism. Now, this creature is more ambitious. It has its own
agenda. It has come out from under the West's patronage. And on September 11, from the US point of
view, political Islam went one step too far.
A terrorist attack of this scale in the heart of the USA set off this
inevitable power struggle. These events are essentially moments and stages of a
power struggle between the USA (& the West) and political Islam. From the
USA's point of view, this is a struggle with Islamic states, Islamic parties
and the entire political Islamic movement. The Taliban is the weakest, most
vulnerable and most hollow symbol of political Islam's power in the Middle East
and consequently the most suitable point of entry to a comprehensive power
struggle. The USA's victory in Afghanistan does not affect, militarily and
practically, the foundations of political Islam's power. They know this. The main centres of power are primarily in
Iran, Saudi Arabia and in Islamic organisations in Egypt, Lebanon and
Palestine. This is, however, a power struggle, and not a life and death
battle. Afghanistan is the only arena,
at least in the current framework of the world, where there could in fact be a
military conflict between the USA and political Islam. It is the only arena
where 'the long war against terrorism' can begin with a dramatic and
spectacular military action without causing total havoc.
This is a Political Conflict
'The long war with terrorism' is actually a power struggle between the
USA and political Islam. After
Afghanistan, the confrontation will be essentially political, even if both
sides occasionally turn to specific military and terrorist actions. The USA's objective in this war is not to
eliminate political Islam. Contrary to
the self-congratulatory propaganda of the so-called Reformist faction in Iran,
it is not the political skills of Mr. Khatami that has 'saved Iran from
bombardment'. An attack on Iran and such
a bombing campaign against that country is not part of the West’s agenda at
all. The notion that the USA will enter into military conflicts with country
after country according to the list of those it has once labelled terrorist is
extraordinarily superficial. The USA’s
objective in this show down is neither to eliminate political Islam nor even to
overthrow Islamic governments, but rather to impose its own political hegemony
and define the rules of the game. From
the USA's point of view, the Islamic movement must know its boundaries. It must limit its field of operation to the
region, understand its own place and recognise the USA's special position. Not
only can Islamic governments remain in power, but also even terrorism is still
permissible on the condition that its victims are the communists and the Left
in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey.
But an attack on American soil is going too far. The USA wants to take
this lesson and this equilibrium to the Middle East.
This is a power struggle and not a confrontation over Islam,
liberalism, Western democracy, freedom, civilisation, security or terrorism.
This is a battle between the US superpower and a regional political movement
with a global reach, which is contending for power in the Middle East. It is a struggle for defining spheres of
influence and political hegemony. The
West does not intend to establish Western democracies in the Middle East. The
USA, Pakistan, Iran and a whole bunch of other reactionaries in the region are
already busy plotting to impose another despotic and backward regime on the
people of Afghanistan. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Gulf Emirates, the
most reactionary regimes in the world today, are openly or tacitly on the side
of the West in this conflict. Even if Islamic governments fall, the preferred
alternative of the West will be the local and regional Right wing and
reactionary parties, military juntas and police states.
The USA Does Not Make History
But the West does not determine the future. The current US policy and actions will
inevitably shatter the present political framework in the Middle East, but
other forces will determine the alternative relations that will take
shape. Undoubtedly, the confrontation
between the West and political Islam will weaken the Islamic movement, Islamic
parties and Islamic governments. But
this confrontation does not take place on an empty stage. The Middle East, like
the West, is the scene of a confrontation between social movements that have
existed prior to the conflict between Western bourgeoisies and political Islam
and which have shaped political developments in all societies. The West's conflict with political Islam,
despite its importance, is not the engine and the moving force of history. On the contrary, it is itself placed within
this history and is defined by it. The
conflict over the new world order has more important players. Social classes
and their political movements, whether in the West or the Middle East, are
facing each other over the political, economic and cultural future of the
world. It is these movements that will
determine the final course of these events, irrespective of the current designs
and demands of Western statesmen and the leaders of political Islam.
As far as the Middle East is concerned, even if the West aims at a mere
marginal retreat of political Islam and definition of a new framework for
coexistence, the secular, Socialist and progressive movements in the region
will nevertheless come to the fore in these new conditions. For example, in my
view, political Islam will be overthrown in Iran, not because the West pursues
such an objective, but rather because the people of Iran and the
worker-communist movement at their head will overthrow the Islamic Republic.
The defeat of the Islamic Republic will be the biggest blow to political Islam.
If the resolution of the Palestinian question is the precondition for removing
the political, intellectual and cultural sources of the growth of political
Islam, the defeat of the Islamic Republic in Iran is a precondition for
smashing political Islam as a movement aspiring for political power in the Middle
East. Without the Islamic Republic of Iran, political Islam will become a
marginal and sterile opposition in the Middle East.
The above is a several part article first published in International
Weekly 12 October - 26 November 2001 in Persian. The English version is a
reprint from WPI Briefing (www.wpibriefing.com).