العلاقات العربية الاوروبية .. من منظور نقدي

Arab African Research Center

Rosa Luxemburg Foundation

Arab European Relations

From a Critical Perspective

Coordinator: Mamdouh Habashy

Editor: Elhamy Al-Merghany

Table of Contents

Introduction

Part One Report on the Workshop on Arab European Relations, Cairo,28-30 April 2001 Working Paper on Colloquium on Arab European Relations (from a Critical Perspective), Cairo, 23-25 February 2007.

Part Two Towards a New European Leftist Vision of Cooperation Defending Humanity Implies Radical Popular Struggles Globaliztion, Europe and the Arabs Today The Arab Region: To Join Globalization, Be Globalized or Marginalized? Common Stability: Building a New Relationship between Europe and its Neighbors in North Africa, the Middle and Near East Europe and the Mediterranean: A Problem for the European Left Diplomats for Peace with the Islamic World The Palestinian- Israeli Conflict: The Openings and Challenges for the Peace Conference in the Middle East. The Role of International Law and the UN Resolutions The Position from Political Islam The Role and Responsibility of the Left in Europe and the Arab Countries The Role of the Left The Arab and European Left: Problems and Impasses Atlantism: Algeria faces the Trap

Part Three Discussions Europe and the Arab Countries in Today’s World, The Arab World and Globalization The Military Factor: The Triangle of the EU, the US and the Arab World The Palestinian- Israeli Conflict: The Openings and Challenges for the Peace Conference in the Middle East Development and the EU Policies and Relations with the South of the Mediterranean The Role and Responsibility of the Left

A Round Table

Part Four Report on the Colloquium: “Arab European Relations from a Critical Perspective”, Cairo 23- 25 February 2007.

Introduction

For some time there was an urge to conduct a dialogue between the European and Arab Lefts . Indeed, the Arab African Research Center (AARC) conducted an Arab colloquium on Arab European Relations, which produced an important Volume edited by M. M. Al-Gammal, that was published in Arabic and English, and partly in French (contribution of Samir Amin and Ali Al-Kinz). The Friends in the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation showed their interest to continue this effort, and such interest culminated in this common debate that was conducted in fraternity and openness. This Colloquium between Arab and European Left was notable on the ideological and cultural levels, as well as an activity of political and civil organizations. It brought together some prominent and responsible figures from Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Holland. This distinguished group included a number of knowledgeable responsible persons who exposed with keenness the pros and cons of the topics under discussion. On the Arab side, it was a rare occasion to gather together such a group of distinguished scholars from the Far West of the Arab Word to its Eastern limits. The participants came from Morocco, Tunisia, The Sudan, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, besides the Egyptian hosts. Unfortunately, the troubled conditions in Iraq prevented the participation of that Country which suffers the direct aggression of the NATO military might, but this was partly compensated by the Palestinian and Sudanese presence as these two peoples suffer under similar aggression. The Colloquium looks into Arab European relations, and tries to find an alternative to their present state, and the conditions of such an alternative. We must also consider the relations of each party with other parties in the world arena as they affect Arab European relations. For example US European relations play a decisive role in this respect. We noted that Globalization is the present stage of the global development of the capitalist system that spread its domination over its colonies for 4 or 5 centuries in all parts of the world. Hence we have to study the challenges of such globalization to the Peoples of Europe and the political, social and ideological response of the various forces to such challenges. We believe the US European relations have a strong bearing on European relations with the South in general, and the Arab World in particular. In general, the South was divided over the past three or four decades into two distinct groups. The first group includes those countries that have a national project of their own – irrespective of the nature of such a project – and those that have no such projects. The first group plays the role of an independent actor in the world system, while the second group plays no such role but simply adjusts to what policies are imposed upon them. At present, we in the Arab World belong to this second group of negative actors. This marginal role in the World System gave the Palestinian issue its central position in the present stage of Capitalist Imperialist expansion. At all stages of our discussion, we tried to define the conditions for an alternative to the present situation. There was a general agreement of views that such an alternative was unthinkable without a radical change in the balance of social forces in Europe, and in the Arab World, and hence in the political and ideological standpoint of both parties, and the relations between them. Numerous Papers by European and Arab Intellectuals were presented to the Colloquium, and were followed by a constructive and lively discussion in which more than 25 persons participated. The debate went on over 6 axes: First, Europe and the Arab World today; second, the Arab World and globalization; third, the military factor and the triangle of the relations between the EU, the US and the Arab World; fourth, the Palestinian –Israeli conflict; fifth, economic development and its position in the policies and relations of the EU with the Arab World; sixth, the role and responsibilities of the Left. In order to gather the findings of the Colloquium and make them available to all interested parties that would like to participate and enrich the debate further, it was decided to publish the papers presented and the discussions in a volume in Arabic, as well as in English (and French). It was also agreed to continue the debate through a web site in several languages, and conduct Workshops on a limited number of topics, in order to develop the debate in specific directions. The published Volume includes four Parts:

Part One: Report on the Workshop on Arab European Relations, Cairo,28-30 April 2001, The Working Paper of the present Colloquium;

Part Two: Papers presented to the Colloquium; Part Three: A comprehensive account of the discussions; Part Four: The reports issued by the Colloquium and a list of Participants. Finally we note that the Colloquium achieved its goal of enhancing mutual comprehension between both the European and Arab Lefts. The agenda of such relations are full of vital issues that need more common efforts, as both parties have to construct their common perspective of the future. This means containment of the present phase of neo liberal imperialist globalization, and laying the foundation of world socialism whose embryos are under inception all over the world. By continuous debate and cooperation, we build our common future.

Mamdouh Habashy

Coordinator

Part One

Part Two

About Globalization Europe and the Arabs, Today

Dr. Maher Al-Sharif [?]

As I see it, the World today shows four main characteristics. These are: First: Globalization. This is an objective phenomenon that cannot be ignored. It has its promise for humanity as well as its dangers. The promise lies in the limitless progress achieved in science and technology during the last decades of last century, and that may produce immense benefits for all nations and peoples if properly oriented. It may help solve all the major problems facing humanity. However, globalization, from the 1980’s on has taken the form of neo liberal “market colonialism”, and as such widened the gap, including the digital one, between the countries of North and South. It led to a significant increase of poverty all over the world, to precariousness of the water and food supplies, and a deterioration of the problem of indebtedness for upwards of 80 countries. All such problems developed in a context of increasing threats to the world environment. Second: The United States, due to its leading position in military might, financial supremacy, production and information technologies, managed to impose its global hegemony since the early 1990’s. After the 11th September 2001, the US strategy was directed to prevent the emergence of any serious competitor to its hegemony, such that it now aims at restructuring the world by the means of the so called global war on “terrorism”. It also maintains its “right” to declare “preemptive” or ‘preventive” wars at its own choice. Third: However, the last three years showed the limits to American military might, such that the US administration may have to relinquish its aspiration to restructuring the World by force, and limit itself to its present hegemony. This does not exclude the possibility that the present administration led by the new conservatives in the circles of politics, research and the media, may resort to new military ventures. Such adventures seem likely in the context of the “confrontation of civilizations” becoming a reality and not just a hypothesis. Nevertheless, US hegemony seems to remain in control of our world for some time to come despite the efforts of certain Powers such as China or Russia to put an end to this single supremacy, and creating a multi polar system. Fourth: This neo liberal globalization provoked a new social movement across the world aimed at humanizing it. However, this alternative global movement still lacks effectiveness, and is more symbolic rather than an actual reality. There are several reasons for such a situation, foremost among which, its inability to suggest a viable alternative to the neo liberal capitalist system. It concentrated on criticism of the system, but could not propose an alternative construction. Another shortcoming is the fact that the movement remains mainly in the countries of the North. There also appears to be some divergence between its major constituents about the position towards politics and political parties, where some such constituents refuse any collaboration with political parties. As for the European Union, we note the following features: First: The EU is the most important regional block, and in particular after attracting the countries of Central and Eastern Europe into its membership. It is an economic giant as it contains a quarter of the world’s wealth, 20% of the world trade (imports and exports) and is the biggest contributor to “development” projects all over the world. Second: A wide gap still remains between its economic might and its role in international politics, despite some progress since the 1990’s, when it took some steps towards building a common foreign policy, and taking part in some security ventures in certain parts of the world. It still has much to achieve before becoming a unified political and military bloc. Third: The EU faces some social problems, foremost among which unemployment that, according to some estimates, affects 20 million persons. Another problem is that of the demographic composition where low natality rates and high longevity led to a high percentage of elderly people among the population. This leaves the Union with the option of accepting wide immigration, or remaining a closed citadel of elderly people. Indeed, the EU suffers from fits of xenophobia and “Islamophobia” that was caused by legal and illegal immigration that is seen as a threat to its European identity. Hence, we note rising racial trends within European societies that are veering to the right. Fourth: More important is the wide difference of views over the budget of the Union for the years 2007/2012, and the stalemate over the proposed constitution. Such differences cast doubts about the future of the EU, in particular with the adhesion of the East European members that try to benefit economically from the Union while looking to the US for political guidance. Other problems stem from the disparity of views between Britain that wants it to remain an economic bloc, but also part of an Atlantic space as well, and France that wants a continent unified politically and militarily, and socially to some extent, and Germany that aspires for a federal Union with a common constitution. However, there seems little prospect, in the foreseeable future for an EU acting as a pole opposed to the US or competing with it, despite some occasional trade rivalries, or political skirmishes. The reason for this is the strong alignment of Britain with US policies on one hand, and the strong ties between the European and US economies on the other hand. The mutual investments of the American and European corporations in each other have surpassed the value of the trade between the two blocs. As for the Arab World, I note the following main features: First: Despite the homogeneity of its constituent countries from the cultural and historic point of view, it faces disintegration and disunity because of the increase of foreign intervention in its internal affairs. While we heard by the end of the last century claims of its demise as a political entity, and its disintegration into small ethnic and religious minorities incapable of any common existence, we now hear that it is the ill man of the 21st century like the Ottoman Empire a hundred years ago. Second: This weakness and disintegration is the outcome of a general crisis suffered by its ruling regimes and societies alike. This crisis has many manifestations among which we note: • Lack of security on the military and internal fronts; • Failure to construct modern States due to the persistence of the traditional loyalties on religious, community and regional bases, and their precedence over national loyalties; • Failure of the development projects to cope with the rising population and increased poverty and unemployment. This is aggravated by the high rates of analphabetism (between 13 and 56%), and the marginal position in the world of information technology. • A crisis of cultural identity between a tendency to pull Arab societies back to the past under the pretense of saving the identity, and another that calls for complete alienation with all national loyalties. Both trends strengthen each other, and prevent any serious aspiration to modernity; • Failure to solve the Arab Israeli conflict on an equitable basis due to the expansionist policies of the Israeli Rulers, and the unlimited support of the US for such policies. This conflict has taken its great toll of Arab resources – and still does – and had very adverse effects on their efforts to strive for democracy and development.

Paradoxically, the Arab World has great material and human resources that could help overcome all these problems, yet it lacks the political will to agree on a common policy.

The Position Towards Political Islam

Mamdouh Habashi

The Arab Left takes three distinct stands towards the issue of laicism and enlightenment. These are: 1. One group considers that enlightenment was an achievement of the bourgeoisies of Europe, and as such it was the task of the bourgeoisie to accomplish it in our countries. Since we are opposed to the bourgeoisie, or at least, we do not belong to it, then it is not our concern; 2. Another group believes that phases of history must follow their normal sequence, and therefore the Leftists in our backward Arab countries must rally around their bourgeoisies in order to accomplish their task of enlightenment; 3. A third group believe the struggle for laicism and enlightenment is such a colossal task in our Arab countries where obscurantism has deep roots such that it is safer not to meddle in a battle beyond our means.

The great majority of the leftists in the Arab World, and in Egypt in particular belong to one of the above groups and this explains the many setbacks that the Left faces. I believe the failure of all attempts by the Arab Bourgeoisies to accomplish their historical tasks lays such tasks squarely on the shoulders of the Left. Intellectuals of the left should give first priority to the achievement of enlightenment and laicism in order to fill the gap left by the bourgeoisies and which left the way open to Political Islam. The issue of Political Islam is highly complicated and ambiguous, such that it causes many of the differences between the various wings of the Left in any society, let alone among different societies. Hence, the issue merits full discussion, and I begin by exposing my point of view which is shared by some Marxist trends in Egypt: 1. All factions of Political Islam are political organizations that use Islam in an opportunist means to seize power; 2. Political Islam is just a tool used by the dependent capitalist class and as such only serves the interests of this class; 3. The differences in the means pursued by so called reformist groups such as the Moslem Brotherhood (the parent organization) and militarized groups such as the Jihad or Jamaa Islamieh etc. is simply a division of roles between members of one group, even if not declared openly; 4. The confrontation between groups of Political Islam and the Authorities is just a phenomenon of competition and confrontation between different sectors of the ruling class. This is true in the case of military confrontation as in Algeria, as well as in the case of political confrontation as in Egypt; 5. There is no contradiction at all between Political Islam and neo liberal capitalist globalization as they share the same economic and political concepts; 6. Thus Political Islam is not inimical to Imperialism but rather furthers its interests. However, there are a few exceptions. The exception here is a function of the qualitative relation with the struggle against Imperialism. By this I refer to whether a given Islamic force is indeed struggling against imperialism. Of course the position taken by Islamic parties is different when they are in power as in the Sudan, or in the opposition as in Egypt or Algeria, let alone in countries like Lebanon, Pakistan or Indonesia. Thus in analyzing Political Islam, we have to note the following: 1. We must treat Political Islam case by case; 2. Our standard in judging each case should be the relation with imperialism and its projects in the region; 3. Noting the differences between the different factions and taking advantage of such differences. In the case of the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt – the strongest and best organized apart from the political Authority – we find: 1. An ambiguous discourse that contradicts itself in most national or external issues, and tries to attract all groups aspiring to shed the yoke of the present regime. Yet it tries to attract all factions including, and in particular, the Authority. A discourse that comprises the rightist policies of the middle ages and the left together; 2. Practical acts that always favor the classes that support the neo liberal agenda. In all workers and peasants’ actions in recent years, the Moslem Brotherhood took the side of the authorities or the capitalists, despite any pretense to the contrary. The same applies to the positions taken by their MP’s; 3. An organization built on absolute discipline and obedience to the self imposed leadership. A membership made up mainly of marginalized persons that the Brotherhood alienates from the struggle against their real oppressors. As for the Islamic organizations that are in direct conflict with imperialism as Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon, the life and death battle in which they are involved has gradually led them to more radical stands against imperialism, and away from their original sectarian and religious positions. However, they have not linked their hostility to imperialism with enmity to capitalism as their evolution is at the starting point, and they are still in the national liberation stage of the conflict, i.e. it has not attained class dimensions. Why do we start the debate at this stage> It is important to agree on a common stand towards Political Islam as such agreement has a decisive bearing on our policy of social alliances. In Egypt, the differences about the position from Political Islam has led to the inability to conduct common action between the various Marxist organizations, or even come to approaching points of view. Hence, the already weak position of the Left in Egyptian society is further weakened by such disparity of points of view. Further, such differences in evaluating Political Islam in Palestine and Lebanon serves as an excuse for the opportunist attitudes of the West in the Middle East. World Imperialism, and the policies of the West in general have no scruples about cooperating with the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt as they are true neo liberals despite their demagogic populist discourse against the West. Yet these same policies dismiss Hizbullah and Hamas as “terrorist” organizations despite the fact that they got the support of sizable masses of their peoples in democratic elections. We are called upon to come to agreement on the fundamentals on which we base our position towards Political Islam in the Arab World. Our disagreement on such basics may have very grave consequences. We have to expose the neo liberal political Islam on all fronts, and demonstrate the falseness of its demagogic discourse against the West. But we must support the wing of political Islam that resists imperialism, and help it develop its nationalist project further, and relinquish its sectarian standpoint.

The Role of the Left

Salama Keilah [?]

The role of the left suffered severely during the last decade of the 20th century as a result of the downfall of the socialist system. Such regression even affected those factions that were critical of that system from a Marxist standpoint. This collapse, accompanied with the loss of faith in the Marxism it proclaimed, led to two problems, the first is the tendency to accept liberalism in its new brutal form, along with a belief that Socialism is a utopia not to be expected within the near future. As capitalism proved its capability to renew itself, and triumphed in the cold war due to its democracy, its strong economy and its great achievements in the field of technology, its ideology of neo liberalism gained general acceptance. Similarly, the globalization it imposes was accepted as the means to develop backward nations as capitalism is intent on such development and democratization. Thus this trend of the Left joined hands with the most aggressive capitalism, and defended the “values of modernism” advocated by the present form of globalization. The second problem is the disarray of the other trends of the Left that were not engulfed in the capitalist globalization, and their loss of direction. It seemed that the Marxism it had cherished for so long was no more capable of conceiving the realities of life, or act as a guide for the actions of class struggle. These trends were at a loss whether to call for socialism after the “failure” of its first experience, or be content with calls for struggle within the existing system for better social conditions, and for humanizing international relations, and defending human rights. Even a call for going beyond capitalism seemed void of meaning. Indeed how can we go beyond capitalism, or safeguard peace and security? How can the UN play a role in defending the Peoples’ interests? How can we face imperialist globalization and its wars of aggression, or what alternative to it can we present? What role can we play in the World, or in any given region? Such disarray is to be found with the European Left, and is more flagrant with the Arab Left. How does the European Left face liberalism, and what alternative does it present? What position does it take from backward Peoples? I am not aware of any alternative presented. Indeed, socialism is still proclaimed as an aim, but how can it be achieved in Europe of today with its present class composition? The Arab Left is in disarray as well. Its old projects are disintegrating and are subject to serious criticism. It vacillates between facing the imperialist project and the Zionist State, and striving for democracy. It is separated from the workers and peasants that it is supposed to represent. In other words, it no longer has a societal project for such classes. No wonder then, if it is disunited, frustrated and mutually conflicting. Yes we must go beyond capitalism, but how? What alternative project have we got? This is the problem we have to study, and find the proper solutions for. The conditions in which European and Arab Lefts work are different despite the global nature of capitalism, and indeed because of it. The polarizing nature of capitalism has produced two distinct situations: one which has not yet moved into “modernity”, despite some formal aspects of modernism, a situation that still has to master its destiny, and overcome its backwardness. The other owns mature capitalism, achieved modernity and looks forward to post modernity. Thus, although facing capitalism, and hence its globalization and wars of aggression is a common task for both European and Arab Lefts, yet each has its own specific tasks. Here, I must of necessity, refer to the Arab Left, and may be to the European Left as well. First of all, we must go beyond capitalism if we are intent on achieving development, modernity and equality in the Arab World, since our bourgeoisie never had an independent project for development and modernity, nor does it have such a project now. Its project was, and still is, one of dependence and adjustment, hence it vacillates between the old structures (feudal past) on one hand and the exigencies of imperialist capital on the other hand. This means it is the task of the Marxist Left as a political force, and the working class in alliance with the poor peasants, as an effective social force, to accomplish these aims. Thus, an alternative project with a different class vision is presented. A project that differs radically with the capitalist project, although it does not aim at building socialism, but simply to accomplish the tasks of economic and social development, justice and democracy, and also independence (for Iraq and Palestine), and Arab unity by creating the Nation/State. Thus we may build an alternative world based on mutual respect, parity and equal opportunity. Our development is confronted by the nature of the relations based on capitalism, and the imperialist powers try to impose their occupation and domination, and obstruct our development. Thus we have to develop our struggle against capitalism in order to achieve development and build an alternative world. For this we must oppose the Zionist occupation of Palestine, and the American occupation of Iraq. We consider the Zionist State to be an organic part of the imperialist project. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the European Left in confronting capitalism, and opposing its wars of aggression. We also stand together in our efforts to build an alternative world based on liberation, humanist values and equal opportunity. Hence we support the struggle of the Left to move beyond the imperialist project, and reject the imperialist mentality, and build the post capitalist world. Yet we call on the European Left to reconsider deeply some issues that we believe are basic in its conception of matters. First, to reject the imperialist project imposed by the allied European Capital on the Arab World. This project includes four issues that are: partition of the Arab World and suppressing all attempts at achieving its unity; planting the Zionist State in the midst of this World to play an imperialist role against the aspiration for independence and development; preventing the rise of industry, and destroying any attempts at building it, starting from the days of Mohamed Ali Pasha as the treaty imposed on him specifically mentions such a condition; supporting all traditional and fundamental forces against any attempts at progress. Hence, second, to accept the fact that building socialism in Europe is closely associated with supporting the just aspirations of the workers and poor peasants in the backward nations to achieve their independence and development. Hence It should include in its programs such issues as the cancellation of the debts of backward nations, the transfer of technology and investing in agriculture and industry in these nations, and the cessation of all imperialist domination, whether military or economic, on such nations, and solving the impending problems to their benefit.

The Arab and European Left

Problems and Impasses

Dr. Kamal Abdel-Latif

I wish first of all to commend the initiative of AARC in organizing this Workshop on the Left and Arab European Relations, and in particular on the insistence on “a critical perspective”. This stems from the importance of criticism in the ideological project that lays the framework for the leftist theory and practice. Criticism is even more important in the present phase of the process of development of the leftist theory and practice on both the Arab and global levels, where the struggles reach an unprecedented degree of violence. This makes it imperative for the Left everywhere to accomplish some immediate tasks, and others on a longer term. Such tasks include the conception of the effective means for confrontation and struggle imposed upon the leftists all over the world, and meeting the immediate impasse. When comrade Helmi Sharawy asked me to take part in the discussions of the axis of the “Military Factor, and the Triangle of the US, the EU and the Arab World”, I told him that the topic was not one of my immediate theoretical concerns despite my interest in the outcome of the military intervention in the points of struggle across the world, especially in our region as demonstrated in Iraq and Palestine, by the US and its European allies and Zionist protégée, this apart from the difficulty of the subject. Because I value the efforts of those who combine their theoretical research with their militant action, I decided to contribute some introductory remarks for the debate on the assumption that such remarks may be combined with the contributions of other participants in our Workshop. Before presenting some conceptions and questions of a general nature, I would like to insist on the prominence of the critical approach. I maintain here that the ideological project of the Left is essentially a critical one: a project of philosophical, political and historical criticism. In accordance with this critical spirit, I consider the tasks facing the Left whether in Europe or the Arab World. to be situated on two fronts, the theoretical issue and the political issue. On the first front I dare say without undue risk, that the Left lacks today a project commensurate with the questions raised by the current world events. On the second front, I would merely remark that the Left has contented itself, during the last decades of last century and the beginning of the new one, with a series of reactions to the current events. It no longer holds the initiative, apart from the diversity of its dialogue, and opposition of its aims.

Before exposing my conception of the socialist project, I would like briefly to note that the Left has not yet produced an adequate criticism for the political failures that took place at the end of last century. Such a task remains to be accomplished as a necessary prelude to redressing the confused situation, and the setbacks suffered by the Left both in the Arab World, and the World at large. Such confusion reigns both on the theoretical and epistemological levels, as well as on the level of action and practice.

In this connection, I would point out that the point of reference for socialist thought today must be open on new epistemological mechanisms and historic data. Such mechanisms and data may seem to be similar in some respects to some issues and theoretical and factual data that emerged a century ago, yet such similarity is only true in our own conceptions that are still captive to certain dogmas, and a certain blocked conception of society and history. Our proposition is that the most effective way to visualize the socialist project with realism and a sense of history, is by reference in an open manner on the knowledge of our times, and its wealth of scientific and technological achievements. We must also rely on the new moral values that are concomitant upon the modern scientific revolution that opened up new vistas for the future of humanity. Such open attitudes are essential for our belonging in earnest to modern times. In this context, and in view of the situation in the Arab World and the variety of contingents of the Left, we believe that enhancing the modernistic project in its political, economic, social and institutional aspects, modernizing the ways of thinking such as to reject dogmas whether true or illusory, and widening the scope of culture and education, are essential prerequisites for a clear visualizing of the socialist perspective. Otherwise we roam in a dreamland, without any prospect of a rational and historic realization. Appropriating the modernity project and modernizing politics does not preclude the socialist project. It may even ripen the historic data to make possible rethinking it in a manner more commensurate with our present conditions, and the present advances in contemporary history and thought. I would like also to comment in this contribution of mine, on the nature of the dialogue in the first two sessions that covered two important axes of our workshop. It seemed to me that the debate is uneven theoretically. I followed very attentively all interventions and discussions, and scrutinized closely the discourses used. I noted that we do not always pay close attention to the concepts and issues we use, we sometimes even jump from one to the other. The topic of the Left in Europe and the Arab World today raises by itself many issues, such that many participants resort to generalizations to circumvent such complexity. Generalizations may be useful in introducing topics, but I gather from the introduction of our friend Helmi Sharawy that this is a third session of a continuing series As regards Europe, and we here refer to the EU, I believe we cannot yet see a unified foreign policy on most important issues that confront the Union, nor can we discern a unified policy with regard to the Arab World. As for the Arab Left, we face variations and paradoxes that defy any generalization. Any scrutiny of the reactions to events in Iraq and the Arab East, show a dismal image of plurality that defies any consistent vision that permits a common approach. I said the debate was uneven as it resorts to different languages, and I do not refer to the three languages used in this Workshop, but rather the language of political statements, that of military and economic expertise, and finally the language of the logic of conflict and balance of interests. It seems to me that if we continue in this strain, the quality of our debate will not attain the required standard. I therefore entreat the participants to avoid simplicity and concentrate on the critical approach that may help characterize the concepts that fit the issues and axes we are intent upon. The European Left today, with its numerous contingents, and new issues it faces, still clings to some concepts that contradict the current changes in society. We have relinquished the facts of relativity, and precedence of historic realities. Our concepts tend to stagnate at levels that no longer correspond to the contemporary contradictions in society and in modern history. Now to some remarks concerning the triangle the US, the EU and the Iraq war. I would draw the attention to some developments in this situation since the second administration of G. W. Bush. After this point, the developments of the War on Iraq led to certain changes in the Anglo American attitude. The slogans of making Iraq an oasis of democracy in the region, and an example to be followed disappeared and new attitudes preparing the way for a pull back appeared in their place. The advances of the Democrats in Congress gave this process a new impetus, such that Tony Blair announced on 21/2/07, the beginning of the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, a step that encouraged Denmark to make a similar announcement. After the Baker/Hamilton report that recommended that the Administration start a dialogue with Syria and Iran, and put up the plans for US troop withdrawal from Iraq, we noted new transformations among the US elites, and their European allies. These latter began to realize they had their own interests in the Arab World. With rising national resistance in Iraq, the US position suffered more tension inside Iraq, and in the whole region. Apart from the facts of the situation enumerated above, we come to the theoretical question that is worthy of our discussion here, viz. the issue of War as an issue in itself. I put in the form of the question: Can we agree that the US war on Iraq demonstrated the limits of the military treatment of the problems of politics and history? As I see it, the US did not win its war, although it devastated Baghdad and Basrah and many other regions of Iraq, and fomented a civil war whose outcome no one can predict. Such a question raises in my opinion, political and moral issues that stigmatize the issue of aggressive wars in a World that suffered, and still does, from the woes of war all through its recent history. We find the topic of just wars that is used nowadays by the supporters of American hegemony to legitimize their aggression. We must consider this concept from a critical viewpoint, together with its variations of preventive or preemptive wars. How can a war be considered just? I put forward this question for our deep consideration. When we note how the US assumes full control of Iraq’s oil resources, and destroy its historic image in the Arab and Islamic memory, we assess the amount of destruction inflicted upon it. We also realize our role in this catastrophe, as I believe most of our relations with the others lack the ability for dialogue and self comprehension that helps us get over our political and historic disarray. In conclusion, I would refer to the contradictions of the European position towards Iraq. Indeed, I believe the US and European positions to be similar but with some variations, and I do not give great significance to the withdrawal of Spanish and Italian troops from Iraq after the socialists gained power there. We know that France under Mitterand was nearer to Israel than under some Gaullists. What matters here is the material interests rather than the differences between Left and Right, although such political stands have their bearing on the attitudes of different parties in situations of struggle. Such material interests explain the similarity between the European and US positions in general. It also explains our shortcoming in building Arab European relations that may become the basis for alliances that would restrain American arrogance.

Arab European Relations II

Part Three

Discussions

Editor: Elhami Al-Merghani

Transcription: Fatma Ramadan

Mr. Helmi Sharawy

This Colloquium between Arab and European Left was notable on the ideological and cultural levels, as well as an activity of political and civil organizations. It brought together some prominent and responsible figures from different parts of Europe. This group included a number of knowledgeable responsible persons who exposed with keenness the pros and cons of the topics under discussion. On the Arab side, it was a rare occasion to gather together such a group of distinguished scholars from the Far West of the Arab Word to its Eastern limits. The participants came from Morocco, Tunisia, The Sudan, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. We look forward to an open discussion from all friends. I give the word now to Mr. Michael Brie from the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, to be followed by Dr. Samir Amin to introduce the topics of our Workshop.

Dr. Michael Brie

Since the beginning of the 20th century we faced many wars, and with the end of the cold war, a war on Iraq began. Thus we meet many wars that cause much trouble, and we must be ready to face more troubles in the future. Unfortunately no Iraqis could come to this Workshop and tell us about Iraq that lost 650000 civilians because of this war, and 4 millions displaced outside and inside Iraq. The Barcelone Process that started in 1995, virtually failed because we could not help solve the burning issues of Palestine, Lebanon or Iraq. I shall briefly mention 4 points that have an important bearing on our discussions here. The European Left confronts problems on four axes: 1. The problem of development inside the EU, and the deterioration of the system of social security, and of internal democracy, and the militarization of Europe; 2. The Political crisis in Italy, due to the presence of US military bases in Italy, as well as the problem of Italy’s participation in the Afghan war; 3. Problems concerning the troubled situations in Central Asia and the Caucuses. Such problems also concern the Arab World together with Europe, as we strive to make these regions ones of peace and development; 4. As the EU looks south, we must raise hope among the Arabs about the role of the EU in the region. It is the duty of the European Left to militate for such a vision. We must determine some guiding lines for the agenda of the European Left: 1. We must practice our sovereignty in the EU, and play an effective role in the creation of an independent Palestine. We cannot leave all matters in the hands of the US, but must help bring peace that is a prerequisite for such independence. If we put up the slogan of democracy, we cannot reject the representatives of a democratically elected government as that of Hamas; 2. The European policy of double standards in treating the different Arab Countries must be stopped; 3. We must give priority to direct contacts between Arab and European Countries, through common seminars and other venues for laying the foundations of cooperation between the given societies. As we look forward to the future of the World, we must realize that it is one World and hence a common future. We must move step by step in this direction.

Prof. Samir Amin

I welcome all the participants, and wish them a comfortable stay in Cairo, and at AARC. I also extend my thanks to the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, not only for helping gather this Colloquium, but also for taking part in planning its political agenda. I do not intend to take much time in this introduction, but it seems logical that someone should outline the framework of the discussions to be conducted in this Colloquium. Briefly, such a framework is determined by the following points: 1. For the last 20 or 30 years, the Peoples of the World had to face a common onslaught by capitalism and imperialism. Indeed I maintain that capitalism and imperialism are inseparable phenomena, i.e. capitalism that is not imperialist is a hypothetical entity that never existed during the last four or five centuries; 2. In the economic sphere, this onslaught takes the form of imposing the “free market”, meaning complete deregulation of the markets, and full freedom for capital; 3. In the social sphere, it means dismantling all public services – and the health service in particular – all social security systems, and labor protection laws; 4. In the political sphere, this attack tends to empty democracy of any real content that may lead to any substantive social content for the popular classes. Hence it consolidates all coercive regimes, especially in our Arab region 5. In the military sphere, the imperialist capitalist system tries to impose its military domination on the whole Planet, and has launched wars of aggression on the countries the system considers as possible adversaries in one way or another. In confrontation with this onslaught, there emerged popular movements of resistance, which were constantly on the rise for the last thirty years, such as to partly obstruct the imperialist capitalist plans. The challenge the Peoples have to face is how to accomplish the qualitative change from a stage of passive resistance, to one of aggressive movement capable of presenting an alternative project. Such a qualitative move has started in Latin America for reasons that I need not go into here. There, they went on the offensive to the extent of new models of government emerging that offer a positive alternative to capitalism. Such a positive change, still to be followed elsewhere in the world, opens the road for a second wave of socialism that may need a whole century to develop fully. Unfortunately such a qualitative change did not take place in Europe, nor in the Arab World. The fundamental question for this Colloquium is to study the reasons for this inert situation in both the European and Arab regions. We criticize the present European project that remains prisoner to capitalism on one hand, and Atlantism on the other. This means giving priority to the alliance between the members of the triad of imperialism, the US, EU and Japan. As for the Arab World my criticism is no less severe than my criticism of Europe. All the Arab Peoples are in an impasse today after the breakdown of the wave of national liberation, and national populist regimes. At present, the apparent alternative for the Arab Peoples is either to support these regimes with all their shortcomings and corruption, or accept Political Islam. In my opinion, these alternatives are the two faces of the same coin. What brought the Arab Peoples to this impasse? The Arab Left took a tailist attitude to these national populist regimes, and failed to have its own project, such that when the regimes collapsed and lost their legitimacy, the Left found itself in the same predicament, and could not fill the gap left by the failing regimes. Political Islam sprang forward to fill this gap with the support of the US imperialism. We were critical of the various forms of European Arab relations such as the Barcelona convention, and the dialogue of civilizations. We also noted with the same spirit of criticism, the projects of economic relations (or participation) between the EU and the Arab Countries separately. We found no real difference between such relations and the traditional colonial capitalist expansion, even if with some variations in appearance. We cannot go beyond the colonialist practices without opposing the logic of capitalist accumulation whether in its liberal form or otherwise. Thus I believe our debate must look forward to what many of us call the socialism of the 21st century.

Axis I

Europe and the Arab Countries in the World Today

Dr. Hissam Issa

All schools of political thought in Egypt lived the illusion that Europe could to some extent, play the role of the defunct Soviet Union, i. e. some sort of balancing role with that of the US. Such a balancing role could presumably give the Countries of the region some leeway for independent action in facing US hegemony. The Barcelona project for participation with Europe gave some substance to this illusion. The Barcelona or the Middle East projects are both meant to negate the traditions of the liberation movements, and even reject Arabism. They simply reject any allusion to a common heritage of culture or civilization between the Arab Peoples, and aim at integrating them into a new entity that also holds the Zionist State. The project in question is one of disunity and not one of reconstruction. The disintegration is undertaken by the US armed forces with tacit agreement of Europe. What Samir Amin calls the militarization of globalization by the US takes place with European participation, at least by consent. In Iraq, Europe seemed at first to refuse the US military intervention, but later rallied under the banner of the military strategy and gave its belated consent. The same was repeated in the case of the Israeli aggression against Lebanon last year. It was the G8 that gave the green light for destroying Lebanon in an attempt to destroy Hizbullah, i.e. “Islamic Terrorism”. Europe today boycotts the freely elected government of Hamas in Palestine, and supports Egypt and the Gulf States for their moderate position towards Israel. Thus moderation towards Israel is preferred to democracy, and the real content of European Arab participation was exposed as just a ploy to normalize Arab Israeli relations, in the context of the continued war on Arab independence and unity. The issue is not to help reconstruct the region, but is how to limit emigration from the region that threatens European consistency. Another important issue that does not appear on the agenda of this Colloquium, but was exposed clearly by Prof. Samir, is that of Political Islam. This phenomenon was looked upon with disrespect as an outcome of the crisis in the Arab World. In my opinion Political Islam is a deeply rooted trend in Arab life, it is a fundamental school of thought in real existence. The Left cannot consider Political Islam as the enemy No. 1, as this enemy, in my point of view, is Israel. Whoever stands in the same trench against Israel, plays an important role that we cannot ignore. This does not mean, however, that we accept the project of Political Islam, as it will never get us out of the impasse.

Mr. Eric Rouleau

The effect of Europe and the Arab World in the world arena is rather slight, because both have to face the US hegemony over the World backed by the military might of the strongest dominant power. The USA can rely on the support of many members of the EU, while the minority including France, tries to redress the European position, but does not attain that in many cases. When I speak of the EU, I refer to a huge construction, where many different positions exist. There are differences between the positions of some European powers and the US on some issues such as Palestine, but this does not affect their acts, and this is what I call the hegemony of the US over Europe. Another paradox stems from the great activity of the European public opinion. The anti Iraq war demonstrations in Europe were attended by all sections of society, and were very widespread. Indeed the European reaction to the Iraqi war was much stronger than the Arab reaction, the reason being the greater freedom enjoyed by European citizens. Arab public opinion is paralyzed because of two major events that affected the region: the 1967 defeat, and the downfall of the Soviet Union. There are also smaller seats of trouble such as the confrontations between Sunnites and Shiites, or between Moslems and Christians. Another cause for trouble is the rising wave of extremist movements that may have grave consequences on the political level, as terrorism tries to take the lead in the Arab world. Another cause for concern, is the threat of the US to bombard Iran. It takes the nuclear issue as a pretext for attacking Iran and destroying it. Thus it will weaken Syria and Hizbullah and any force inimical to Israel. Last but not least, the Palestinian problem that gets worse every day. The Americans and the Israelis do not heed any Palestinian rights as their position gets weaker. The Palestinians are not supported by the Arab States, nor by the EU, and this leaves them in a very vulnerable position. All these phenomena drive me to the conclusion that the situation is fraught with great dangers.

Ms. Gisela Krimberg

It is important to note the situation in Europe and the EU. There are certain differences in policies between the EU and the US, despite the alliance between them in NATO. Europe faces the problem of the emergence of a new Left. If we take the issue of the threat of war against Iran, we note a change from the policies of the Schroeder government. Officially, Germany and France refused to participate in the war on Iraq, and Germany, France and the UK were agreed not to support the military threat to Iran. That was the diplomatic situation four years ago, but now it is different. We must remember that there are very strong relations between the EU and the USA. Nearly 3250 German corporation whose total production amounts to 40 billion dollars, have branches in the USA and 1250 US corporations have branches in Germany whose sales there amount to 2 billion dollars a month. If we consider world trade, we note that trade between the EU and the US amounts to one third of this trade. This means the economic relations within the Atlantic alliance is great, such that the German Chancellor proposed the creation of a free trade zone for the North Atlantic. Mr. Rouleau spoke about the end of the cold war. During that war, the Arab Countries could rely on the Soviet Union, but now we wonder what future awaits the Arab Region? Can it remain as a stable peaceful region, and can it continue its development? Will the Arab Countries have a role in the new world system? Europe should safeguard its independence, and use its power and authority to support Peace.

Dr. Maher Al-Sharif [?]

First four remarks about the World Today: 1. Today under globalization, it is possible to dream of a world free from all problems due to the great scientific and technological progress achieved by man during the few last decades. But the neo liberal globalisation deepened the gap between North and South in development, increased poverty, and created a world environmental catastrophe. 2. From the 1990’s the World was subjected to the uni polar hegemony of the US. After the 11th September, this changed as the US administration is no longer content with imposing its policies on the other powers, but tries militarily to restructure the world, beginning with the Middle East; 3. New emerging forces try to put an end to this hegemony, but this is not to be expected in the near future. China has no immediate project for world hegemony, and Russia is not trying to regain its strong influence in its strategic sphere in the near future; 4. The alternative, or anti globalization movement seems to have lost its breath for the simple reason that it failed to present a convincing alternative project to the dominant neo liberalism, or present an alternative to capitalism. The main social weight of this movement is still in the North, and whole continents are isolated from it. The EU despite its great possibilities suffers from grave problems, foremost among which the demographic problem caused by the low natality rates, and high longevity. The EU must choose between opening its doors to vast immigration with the resulting cultural and identity problems, or become a stronghold of elderly people. Another allied problem is that of the maintenance of its so called Judeo Christian heritage, which encourages the rightist and fascist trends in European Societies. A third problem is that of the deep relations across the Atlantic. We cannot expect any really independent European stand from the US in the near future. The Arab World faces a general crisis demonstrated by the following: 1. Failure to safeguard the national security, that is not just a military question; 2. Failure to build modern states, and tendency for weaker national loyalties in opposition to sector and religious or ethnic loyalties; 3. Failure of the national development projects, with high rates of demographic growth, high rates of analphabetism (from 16% to 56%), and high unemployment (around 15 millions), a marginal position in IT spheres, as well as a crisis of identity between those who want to cling to the past in search of their fundamentals, and those who reject all traditions in pursuit of modernism. This crisis is exacerbated by the continuation of the Arab Israeli conflict, that consumes much of the resources of the Arab World, and is used as an excuse for the autocratic regimes that seek their own perpetuation under the slogan: All efforts for the national battle!

Dr. Fawzy Mansour

Our debate may be richer if we go beyond European Arab relations to the wider world arena. A new concept is becoming familiar these days and that is the concept of preemptive wars, wars against whom? Against the emerging powers especially in the Far East, wars to be waged against China, India and maybe Russia. These Powers are to stand against the Western imperialism led by the US, and the US with its European allies prepares to face this new threat from now on. The war against Iraq is not far from this conception that prepares for a future of may be, 50 years. Iraq was attacked to secure US supremacy over oil resources, and as a means of pressure to ensure the continuity of the alliance, or indeed the dominance of the US over its own “allies” and their policies. I believe the European Left must be aware of this fact. The main targets for all such projects of military hegemony are China and India, or Asia in general. I believe our debate over Arab European relations should take this concept in account.

Dr. Erhard Crome

I would like to make some remarks about the relations between the EU and the Arab World. We must realize that the EU is becoming another imperialist power. Some participants wondered if the EU could play a different role in conflicts such as that between the Arabs and Israelis. The answer is that the EU had several chances to play a role in this conflict different from that of the US, but it did not do so, and it will never do so.

Mr. Mamdouh Habashi

I believe the anti globalization movement has lost much of its breath recently. The reason is not that it failed to present an alternative, but that its degree of organization was much weaker than that of its enemies. It refused to coordinate with political parties that have the capability to transform its slogans into political forces in society, for that reason it remained as a negative force of resistance, and could not transform itself into a positive force of attack. About the US hegemony over Europe, I gathered from what Erhard Cromeh said, that the integration of the US and EU economies is so great as to exclude any chance of difference in policies between them. This cannot be true, as it means that no real change can take place unless Europe becomes socialist. Indeed, US hegemony does not further the interests of the European capitalist economy.

Dr. Abdel Khalek Abdullah

I would ask our European friends to help us understand Europe better. Do we face an alternative to the American project, or is the European project just a continuation of it? Are the Europeans strategic friends, or are they strategic enemies? To what extent is the political European decision independent from that of the US? When Iraq was invaded, there was some European opposition, but against Iran, we find now a unified Western stand. The Iranian project for the Middle East proposed itself as an alternative to the Western and American project, and the Western bloc stands behind the US rejecting this alternative. The European position has caused much confusion, and I hope this Colloquium will help us understand it better. Another point is the configuration of the World of the 21st century. We may assume that The US and Europe will create a free trade zone around the Atlantic. There also seems to emerge an American project of a Pacific free trade zone in the near future. Chia and Eastern Asia seem to be intent on a Pacific Project to compete with the Atlantic. Then what will happen to the rest of the world: Western Asia, the Arab Region and Africa? The US takes part in both the above projects, then what about Europe? We want to study such topics here.

Mr. Mostafa Al-Gammal [?]

We are not here to study Arab European relations in general, but rather the relations between Arab and European Lefts as they see the Arab European relations on the official level. In this connection I would note three points: 1. We cannot overlook the fact that the Arab World lived under European colonialism, and this still has a deep effect on Arab consciousness; 2. Europe stood all along history against Arab attempts at modernity. It blocked the projects of Mohamed Ali and Nasser, and others, as being a threat to European imperialist interests; 3. Many Europeans, including some leftists regard the Palestinian problem as just a conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The issue is much deeper, as Israel was planted in the region as an imperialist base in the midst of the Arab World, to replace the withdrawing colonial troops. The European Left is called upon to take a stand with regard to such issues as this affects our position. For example I cannot understand why the European Left has never apologized for the ravages caused by European colonialism, or at least called for such an apology. Another point, is the fact that globalization is partly an attempt to impose the Anglo Saxon culture on the whole world, and as such it provokes real cultural resistance to this trend. Thus we should not regard Political Islam as just a regressive movement going back against historic advance. It may be regarded as a national cultural reaction – that could be distorted – to the failure of the nationalist and leftist projects. The masses found no better way to express their rejection of colonialism, imperialism and globalization. This does not mean an endorsement of Political Islam, but just that we have to consider this phenomenon from the angle of opposition to imperialism.

Mr. Salama Keila

Our debate now gives prominence to US European relations. Mr Cromeh talked about the integration of capital, and came to the conclusion that the US, the EU and Japan dominate the world, and that the US preemptive wars are aimed at emerging countries like China and India. However, I believe there exists a degree of competition within the triad itself. Thus, the US policies after the demise of the Soviet system, that evolved around military occupation and domination was indeed, a sort of competition between the different components of the triad. It was aimed at securing the dominance of US capital for decades to come. I believe the preemptive struggle against a new axis including China, India, Russia and possibly some countries from Latin America, will have to take place within an attempt to perpetuate capitalism under US domination and hegemony. Regarding Political Islam, the Left will not oppose religious feelings or beliefs. Political Islam comprises the traditional fundamentalist movement of the Moslem Brotherhood which was pro capitalist since its inception, and obstructed all attempts at Arab advancement, but it tries now to pretend to be against the US project. The other branch is the Jihad prominent in Al-Qaida and similar movements. These play a destructive role, as they foment internal strife, and never confront the US as we see in Iraq today. Even Hamas that seems to resist Israel, started by confronting the Palestinian Left in collaboration with Israel. It will eventually come to terms with Israel, as its project is Islamization and not national liberation. With such a force, we may come to terms at certain points without forgetting the overall position.

Prof. Samir Amin

Concerning the economic interests of the dominant globalized capital and the trans national corporations, there exists a real integration between European and North American capital. There also exists a conflict of interests which is inherent to capitalism, and such conflict is sometimes weak and sometimes strong. Thus their consciousness of the necessity of their solidarity in managing the global system is more important than the conflict of economic interests. This does not exclude the conflict of interests, but I shall come to this elsewhere. As for political culture, we note that for a century, or half a century, such culture crystallized such as to present a gap between Right and Left. It started with the renaissance, the French Revolution, and the emergence of the socialist workers movement and the Russian Revolution, and all through this history, there existed the Right and Left. All these events had very limited impact on the USA, and we must study this conflict deeply.

Mr. Saadullah Mazraani

The Arab relations with the US, Europe or any other power will not be effective unless Arab/Arab relations are rationalized. We need to make some serious efforts to visualize the Arab framework that will secure our equality with the others. I therefore propose that an effort be undertaken to determine the conditions for being equal partners in any relation. We cannot rest content with boasting our correct position just because we are Leftists. Some so called Leftists moved from their position to the worst pro American positions. Hence I reiterate my proposal for a dialogue and debate around the tasks incumbent on the Arab Left at this stage, so as to be ready to confront any future events.

Mr. Abdel-Qader Yassin [?]

First, I note that Political Islam is not a solid bloc, we cannot put Al-Qaeda, Hamas or Hizbullah in one basket. Second, when taking a political position, we must put aside our ideological prejudices and neither reject them all together, nor condone Al-Qaeda. We reject all acts of this latter, and expose them one by one. With Hamas, we coordinate on certain points of common action, and this retards its adjustment with the negative Arab Situation. With Hizbullah, I believe the correct position is to consider alliance with them on political issues, and confrontation on economic and social issues. As for the European position, our friend Mamdouh said it was to the interest of European capital to disengage from US capital. This did not happen, and Europe never supported our just interests. I believe the popular movements in Italy, Spain, and in Britain and the USA, took their toll from their leaders who started the war on Iraq. We saw Blair and many of the new conservatives removed from office. In Italy and Spain, new leftist governments were elected. The only absent player is the Arab World that sits back at the receiving end. Unfortunately our regimes march under the US banner, which does not help the left oppositions in Europe to stand against their governments’ wrong positions. Since our regimes are incapable of preventing the Western aggression, they should at least, wrangle with the Western Governments over their interests in our Countries. They could thus strengthen the position of the European oppositions. It is unfair for us to align ourselves with US policies, and call for Europe to take independent positions to suit our own interests.

Dr. Peter Gowan

I would like to make a few remarks: 1. The great deception in world politics took place in 1991 with the expansion of the Atlantic Alliance; 2. The US suffers from a deep strategic crisis in Iraq, and we must understand that crisis; 3. Britain passes through a deep crisis, such that it will never take part in similar American adventures for the next twenty years. The Arab Countries curtailed the development of their economies to the benefit of imperialism in the 1980’s and 1990’s, and their structural adjustment still has much to accomplish under the guiding hand of the EU. The main force behind such adjustment is the Participation agreements between Europe and the Arab World. However, the experience of the last twenty years in other parts of the World, went against development, and it is clear the medium income countries need more industrializing and not the opposite. I believe the EU is on its way for more economic integration, but not on the political or strategic levels, where political differences will persist. It would be interesting if a German/French leadership for the Union materialized, as the Europeans are keen on shedding the hegemony of the US, while the latter tries its best to prevent the Union from becoming one homogenous bloc, and this is what took place in the Balkan’s crisis.

Mr. Nabil Marzouk

We are not talking about conflicts within capitalism, rather within a given model that is guided by one leader. Thus we may see an attempt to marginalize India, while integrating China into the current globalization movement. Thus Europe tends to be integrated with the USA across the Atlantic, on the basis of the common democratic and cultural values. As for the situation of the Arab and World Left, we note a real decline. The anti globalization movement has likewise declined despite the promising beginnings. The reason for this decline is the decline of the Left and the communist movement in particular. Now the Left lacks a clear vision of the future since the demise of a leading center. I sincerely endorse the call of comrade Mazraani for rehabilitation of the Arab Left as a vital priority.

Mr. Tobias Pflueger

I agree in general with Prof. Samir Amin, but I disagree with certain other speakers. I refuse the contention that US and European policies are identical, but I was surprised that we talked so much about Europe, and much less about the Arab World. Indeed, if Europe faces some pressure, the Arab World submits to US pressure without any resistance. Such submission has a negative effect on Europe, as how can Europe be expected to defend the Arabs and Palestinians, if the Arabs do not resist the aggression upon them? Our position could have been much different if the Arab World took a stronger stand. I agree with Prof. Amin about the integration between US and European capital, and the trans national corporations, but we cannot overlook the differences between the national bourgeoisies. Almost all French Parties, for example, stood against the invasion of Iraq, which means there are some contradictions between the French and US bourgeoisies. Indeed there are contradictions between French and German capital over Iran, for example, where the French try to replace us there, also in contradiction with US interests there, and we cannot ignore this fact. An end should be put to the Arab Israeli conflict that still goes on despite the many voices that called for the creation of an independent Palestinian State. Many speakers here reiterated the contention that US and European interests are the same, but this is not true. There are differences on all levels including the ideological level, where the Europeans refuse the concept of military invasion. This means there are contradictions on the economic, social and political levels between the US and Europe. Two factors may change the situation: first, a serious setback for the US invasion in the Middle East, and Prof. Amin thinks this may be worse than Vietnam, second, the continuous drop of the value of the US dollar. We cannot ignore the competition between the Euro and the Dollar, and the economic developments inside the USA. If the situation inside the US changes drastically, and similar changes take place in the Arab World, then we can hope for a different European policy.

Axis II

The Arab World and Globalization

Dr. Ingrid Elmasry

This is a complex subject, but I would like first to note some points concerning the independence of the Arab World. Britain and France as colonial powers militarily occupied most of the Arab World so as to secure their interests in the region and elsewhere in their empires. However, due to the concurrence of certain economic, cultural and geo strategic factors, the Arab World gained the battle for its liberation, under the leadership of Nasser, and after the Suez crisis. Also the Arab oil exporting Countries gained control over their natural resources, and played a role in the Arab Israeli conflict. Thus the Arab Countries gained their independence but did not put enough effort in building strong economies. They also provided some essential services for their peoples, but without granting them participation in political rule. Thus they gave their peoples what we call “bread democracy”. The structural adjustment programs tried to limit the economic role of the state, and in particular the services it provided, so it privatized many services, but more important was privatizing public sector companies. This opened the door for market forces to replace the state run services, and slowed down economic growth without increasing competitiveness in export markets. Indeed a few benefited from such programs, but the majority was marginalized and has to fight for the daily existence. Very few of these masses have the time to fight for their political liberties, hence there is little hope for securing their welfare, especially in confrontation with the authoritarian regimes and the rising tide of Islamic trends. About the freedoms in the Arab World, there were several scenarios, but all tried to maintain the status quo, while making some cosmetic reforms. This meant perpetuation of the autocratic regimes and lack of social justice, but this provoked popular resistance, and also rise of radical Islam. Another scenario preferred by Bush was to maintain the autocratic regimes after wringing from them control of their resources, and petrol in particular, without any attention to democratic freedoms. What can the Left do to resist the attempts of the Western Powers to impose “democracy” in the Arab World? The Left – and I point to the German Left – criticized the war on Iraq, and it defends human rights. We also criticized marginalizing Hamas, and believe we must conduct a dialogue with the Islamists. What will happen to democracy if the Islamists come to power?

Dr. Mahmoud Abdel-Fadeel

The Arab World is an easy prey for globalization, because it is by all economic standards a vulnerable economy when compared with Asia or Latin America. The reasons for such vulnerability include the weakness of the local bourgeoisie, the rent nature of the economic activity due to the oil production and the speculative nature of such activity, and the lack of productive accumulation. The most active mechanism is financial globalization that has flourished without control during the last decade where foreign capital gradually dominated banks and financial services. The productive sector was also dominated and its accumulation pattern annexed to globalization, which is very serious. In the early 1990’s most Arab Countries adopted the structural adjustment policies imposed by the World Bank and the IMF, based on the Washington consensus. The other aspect of globalization was the rampant privatization and integration in the world market, thus laying the basis for domination of global mechanisms. Further, we note an aggressive offensive on the part of the trans national corporations, and monopoly capital, that aim at grabbing, through privatization, certain sectors of the Arab economy and in particular pharmaceuticals and cement. Deindustrialization is also practiced to achieve economic domination on the Region. The domination on this oil rich region is seen by the US as a necessity to counter the challenges coming from Asia, and possibly from Europe. What contradictions exist in such a context? The role of the national state has deteriorated, and the collapse of the stock exchanges in the Gulf States is an indication of such decay – these markets lost 50% of their value in a few days.

Dr. Peter Gowan

The well known American economist Galbraith, in an interview with me, said that globalization was the ideological basis for the US global economic strategy. I shall enumerate three essential points in this connection: 1. We need to know the facts about the trans national corporations and their inside manipulations. In other words we must examine the mechanisms the Triad applies to the emergent economies. Such economies are regarded as possible markets for our products and must remain open to them. Then these Countries must remain open to our TNC’s, indeed, the governments privatize their companies so as to allow the TNC’s to acquire them. Then, we need the cheap labor force of these countries to work for us in the North. Finally, we want to dominate the banking system of these Countries that is the central nervous system of these economies. We know that all advanced economies became so because they protect their local production and subsidize exports. It is said that foreign direct investments will develop these economies, but the truth is we come and buy your existing enterprises. 2. Such policies were practiced for the last twenty years, and the studies of the UN Congress for trade and development (UNCTAD) are instructive n this respect. For example Chile suffers from a severe crisis of its industries. The same took place in Ghana where industrialization was completely destroyed. In Brazil the situation is different, because some of its industries have matured such that they can face liberalization. Yet Brazil also suffered in general because the added value it supplies is small. The Left can help oppose such projects and expose that their aim is not to modernize the recipient economies. Their true aim is to reduce the exports of the emergent economies to the benefit of the advanced countries.

Dr. Abdel-Khalek Abdullah

We must know that the Arab World suffered three main failures during the last fifty years. First, it failed to accomplish economic and social development. Second, it failed to accomplish its Unity. Third, it failed to accomplish its main liberation project that is the liberation of Palestine. This region faces globalization with these three main failures. Neither the Arab Revolution nor Arab Wealth managed to achieve any of these main targets during the last fifty years. Hence we are in front of a frustrated region that suffers extreme tension. The second point is the US and European incursion in the Arab World since the last twenty years and in particular after 2001. This incursion is aggressive and direct, and aims at disintegrating the region politically and ideologically, and reforming it. The result is more frustration, and failure of the Arab development project, and continued disunity, and submission to foreign domination. The third point is the duality of relations between the US and Europe on one hand and the Arab World on the other hand. While we find unprecedented openness in economic relations and investment, we face entrenchment on the cultural and religious fronts that implies the existence of two different agendas for globalization, one for the economic sphere, and another for cultural and human relations.

Mr. Ahmed El-Mazoughy [?]

Two points about the social effects of globalization did not get enough attention: first, its negative effects on the national level. The reduced role of the State has led to a weaker national sense especially with the younger generation. Second, we note the disintegration of many of the social and cultural values. It seems that globalization, whether by the force of arms as in Iraq, or by submission to the IMF leads to weaker national loyalties.

Dr. Sherif Hetata [?]

The main driving force for the anti globalization movement is the fact that the traditional political parties, whether right, left or middle of the road, failed to present real solutions to the problems of the masses in most countries. There was also an important sector of the people who are not related to such parties, but are organized in different forms of what we term civil society. When we face an organized economic and military bloc such as the US and the EU, that dominates the whole World, we must have a democratic mass movement organized all over the world. Thus the role of the anti globalization movement has become primordial. Can we also create some sort of alternative media, or press on a participatory basis between Europeans and Arabs?

Dr. Maher Al-Sharif [?]

I believe the cultural question would have merited a separate axis in our colloquium as I agree with Dr. Abdel Fadeel’s assessment of what he called the doubts between the two sides of the Mediterranean, and I think the Left has a role to play in dispelling such doubts, or at least reducing their negative effects. The main issue now is not confrontation between the West and Islam but rather, the cultural integration of the 10 or more million Moslem immigrants in Europe who may become 15 or 20 million in the near future. In this connection, I believe the European Left should militate for admitting Turkey in the EU as this will thwart the confrontation between Islam and the West that the extremists on both sides are trying to perpetuate. We have to convince our Peoples that social modernity does not mean westernization as it is a human advance.

Mr. Elhami Merghani

The Arab World already suffers from the depletion of its natural resources such as oil and minerals, as well as dismantling the structures of agricultural and industrial production for the benefit of the TNC’s. Such policies led to serious economic and social grievances such as mass unemployment and poverty. In Egypt for example, 450 thousand workers in the public sector joined the unemployed (estimated at 10 to 20% of the work force) through the early retirement schemes, and 17 million Egyptians live in shanty towns. This goes hand in hand with legislation that intensifies capitalist exploitation such as the new housing rent laws, and the repeal of land reform by returning much of the agricultural land to its former landlords, as well as privatizing many public utilities and services, and undermining social security by the government laying hands on the capital of this service (the savings of the members). Such policies take place in the absence of an effective trade union movement, while professional syndicates are either usurped by the Moslem Brotherhood, or paralyzed by blocking their elections for mare than a decade. In the meantime forces of the Left lag behind the social action of the masses of workers and peasants that proliferated in the past few years, and were joined by mass movements of hitherto politically inert masses such as air flight controllers and the medical profession and teachers. Under such conditions, the meeting between Arab and European Left will help the former gain some experience in confronting the capitalist globalization policies for which it has not formulated any coherent answers as yet.

Ms. Leila Ghanem

I would like to raise three points concerning the European role in implementing globalization. The first is insistence in Arab European partnership agreements on opening the Arab markets to subsidized European agricultural products. Agriculture supports some 40% of the Arab population apart from related activities. The second point is about European pressure to privatize public utilities such as potable water and electricity supplies to the benefit of certain European corporations. The US on the other hand, insists on privatizing national oil companies (e.g. in Saudi Arabia). The last point concerns the military pressure to impose globalization such as practiced in Iraq, where the US occupation was soon followed by the ingress of Monsanto to dominate agriculture, and Becktel that were chased away from South America where they doubled the price of potable water several times.

Mr. Mostafa Al-Gammal

As we resist capitalist globalization, we also resist regional projects stemming from it. The dominant world capital tries to impose two regional projects, viz. the Euro Mediterranean, and the Middle East Projects. Each has its protagonists, but both aim at aborting any attempt to create a viable Arab regional project. It is true the Arab League as it stands today failed miserably to confront the imperialist globalization, but this does not preclude the Arab Unity as a strategic choice. I ask the European comrades who contemplate seriously the unity between the Peoples of Europe who have different languages and cultures, why show such sensitivity towards the unity of peoples who share the same tongue and culture, and have economies and history that have much in common? I would use here the term penetration by some NGO’s of the anti globalization movement to perpetuate disunity among the Arabs, and to promote the concepts of the World Bank that insist in depoliticizing civil society in our countries, and subject it to the agenda of the West at each given phase. Such penetration of our anti globalization movement must be resisted.

Mr. Salah Adly

I would stress a few points: The project of the Greater Middle East, and the Partnership of Barcelona stress the insertion into the capitalist globalization, and its cultural model. Much money is handed down to some NGO’s that include some leftists. It is claimed that such NGO’s are in contradiction with political parties, which is a dangerous concept, and Communist Parties are wary of these NGO’s that deny their role, and this leads to weakening the movement. Second, I expect great deterioration of the conditions of the working class and poor peasants, and toilers in general. I believe there is need for solidarity from the European Left with these toiling masses and their growing protest movement. Third, The cultural situation has deteriorated during the three last decades, due to the effects of the millions spent by Saudi Arabia that are attracting all Societies to their brand of Islam. Thus the nationalist issue becomes a confrontation with the values of the Christian West. Such concepts have invaded all walks of life, and serious efforts should be deployed to counter this pervading trend, and reassert the cultural values of laicism and enlightenment.

Mr. Helmi Sharawy

I would comment on the last point of this axis: do the Arabs have any real integration project around which to conduct a dialogue? I noted from my limited acquaintance with European Arab cooperation, that the Europeans always insist on acting as a unified bloc, but with each Arab Country separately. I must admit that much of this deplorable situation lies with the Arab Regimes that have no unity project.

Mr. Wolfgang Ghercke

We admit the Europeans should participate in such dialogues. I would comment on three of the questions raised. First, we cannot consider the European Left to be one bloc, as indeed it contains many trends that converge on some issues and differ on other issues. Many leftist opposition parties have no representation in Parliament, and especially in Italy. Thus the Leftist Parties have different positions towards the Palestine Israeli conflict. Second, when we talk about Europe we think of the EU, but Europe is not simply the EU, and there are different leftist trends in Europe. Third, the Quartet has met several times and stated that Abu Mazen and Hamas must make some concessions before proceeding with the peace process, but such concessions may not be acceptable. However, such meetings of the Quartet do not seem to be effective in securing real peace.

Dr. Fawzy Mansour

Our discussion is about the effects of globalization on the Arab World. We should not forget that the Marxist Left was the first to raise the slogan of globalization in the form of “Workers of the World Unite”. However, globalization is neither natural nor is it inevitable, it is the result of political decisions. The Arab World is negatively affected by imperialist globalization, and suffers greatly from its consequences. How? When a number of societies have little capital and abundant labor, while another number have a small labor force and abundant capital, then unity between such groups makes for a better use of the combined resources. This did not take place in the case of the Arab World for a number of reasons. One of the fundamental problems of the Arab Countries is the weakness of the Left. Can you imagine that forming a political organization of the working class in Egypt will get you a sentence of forced labor for perpetuity! Such a harsh stance is not new, but was there from 1924, and is still in force. A good deal of our debate here is punishable by 5 or 7 years in jail! And the situation in other Arab countries is even worse!

Mr. Salama Keila

I believe the crisis of the Left in the Arab World is the root of the problem, and we have to solve it before we ask the European Left to come and help us, and this is a serious problem. Indeed, an important sector of the Arab Left has rallied with globalization and defends its values, which resulted in a void that the fundamentalists try to fill. This led to marginalizing the Left that could not crystallize its independent vision, or play an effective role in transforming our societies. We have, as Arab Left, to develop our project for cultural and social development, in order to build effective productive forces. The European Left can help us in this connection, especially in view of the repeated interventions of European colonialism to abort all Arab efforts for achieving modernity and industrialization as mentioned by some of the previous speakers. With regard to the Zionist State, I agree with what Dr. Fawzy said about its not being a solution for the Jewish problem such that we may discuss its acceptance or refusal. It is a part of an imperialist project, and plays a prominent role in implementing US imperialist globalization. The last aggression against Lebanon is an obvious manifestation of such a role. Since its inception, the Zionist State has reduced Palestine into a group of isolated communities economically unviable. Thus I believe we have to develop the unified project of the Arab Left, then call on the European Left to support our essential cause in confrontation with imperialist hegemony, and in advancing beyond the capitalist mode of production.

Mr. Ahmed Ibrahim

I agree with Mr. Helmi’s remark that Europe refuses to cooperate with the Arabs as a bloc. The essential question is our role as Arabs, and Arab Left, and what exactly this Arab Left is. Our struggle is for nationalist and democratic modernity in dialectical unity. Hence, our leftist project is in full contradiction with the Islamist project. This may urge the Left to give priority for the social issues over the nationalist issues. The Left must occupy its legitimate place in society, but we cannot speak of a socialist identity but rather of a democratic identity that links it with all democratic forces in Society. I do not accept the contention of a socialist perspective for the 21st century, nor do I accept that the recent developments in Latin America open the way for building socialism there. Rather, these are Countries that aspire to develop an independent role for Latin America in confrontation with the American North.

Prof. Samir Amin

All through the history of capitalism, there were differences between Countries, but during the two or three last decades, the Countries of the South were divided into two main groups. The so called emergent countries have their own project that we may call a national one. Such countries accept globalization, but on their own terms. The other group has no project of its own. We cannot speak of an Arab, or Egyptian, or Jordanian project, but there are US or European projects for the Arabs, who have to adjust to the exigencies of the imperialist capitalist globalization. Today, there is no independent Arab Project, but there is a Chinese project, as well as projects of other countries. The social content, and the social alliances and regimes of such Countries differ, but they have a certain impact on the dominant forces in the imperialist capitalist system.

Mr. Nabil Marzouk

The European Left has its say with regard to globalization and the WTO, as it gained a position in the institutions of the EU. However we do not find its stand with regard to the Partnership and the relations with the Arab Countries. The reason for this is the absence of freedom and popular participation in the Arab Countries, hence the dialogue around the partnership takes place with the Arab regimes without any popular participation.

Dr. Peter Gowan

China is not just another country. We are speaking of a huge country, and the biggest exporter in the world, and we have to study how they control the flow of capital. As for the European Left, most of its parties were politically corrupt with some exceptions like the Swedes. The Left Party in Germany plays an important role, but for obvious reasons, the German Left cannot take the correct direction with respect to Zionism and the issues of the Middle East. We must discuss how to help the German Left take the correct line towards these issues. Europe has changed after the end of the cold war. Before there was the Socialist Europe, but now Europe is the bloc that militates for Human Rights, and this sometimes foments trouble. How about the Iraqis, and what will happen after the end of this war, and what the Europeans told them? The USA stands behind 4 million Iraqi refugees, who have no place to go. What about the war crimes committed in Iraq? Tony Blair must be sentenced as a war criminal. Another point, Hizbullah won the last war in Lebanon, and this cannot be tolerated. Another war must be waged, and we have to anticipate this and take the appropriate steps. Then there is the Palestinian issue and what Europe can do. It is shameful that the aid to a democratically elected government were suspended. We must take a position towards all these issues.

Axis III

The Military Factor,

And the Triangle of the EU, the US and the Arab World

Mr. Ibrahim Kashboor

I am a Libyan Journalist, but I am here to represent two Italian associations, the first is called the Red Point in Milan, and the second is the Euro Mediterranean Left Organization whose aim is to work for common action between Arab and European Left. Of course the military factor leads us directly into the focus of Arab European relations. All through our history starting from Napoleon till the Israeli Aggression on Lebanon last summer, and including the occupation of Palestine in 48, the tripartite aggression in 56, the gulf war in 91, and the aggression on Iraq in 2003, the military question was the central point of Arab European relations. After the direct colonization by Britain and France came a system of imperialist domination by indirect means, making use of vassal or dominated regimes. The main feature of this phase is the aggressive attitude against all Arab nationalist projects aiming at building an independent national state, even it started from a friendly position with regard to Europe and the US. All Arab military industries were marginal, a paradox in a region that imports 40% of all arms traded across the world, and this share of arms trade is rising.

Mr. Tobias Pflueger

I would speak first about the alliance between the dominant classes in the US and the EU, and their counterparts in the Arab World, whose aim is to safe guard the capitalist system, and this is the essence of the relation between the Center and the Periphery. During our discussions in the European Parliament, my colleagues usually say: “We have to ask them to do …”, or: “They must do this …”. I tell them: “Do you believe you know what is good for the whole world”? I call this an imperialist attitude. The second point is the adoption of double standards. We usually discuss, in the European Parliament, the situation of human rights, and there are certain countries that are always criticized for the situation of human rights. However, when someone asks about the situation of human rights in any European Country, many of my colleagues do not want to discuss it. They pretend that human rights are respected in all member states of the EU, but this is not true. Here again we find double standards, and the Left should not accept such attitudes. We must all implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Another point is that the EU has become an imperialist power, and I shall explain how. In 1998 the EU decided to have its own military policy, and this meant adopting a common strategy of European Security. The main threat to the EU (unlike the US) was the weapons of mass destruction, and the so called International Terrorism, which is a concept that I cannot accept. There are different types of Terrorism, and Terrorist organizations, and these cannot be grouped together as international terrorism. This surely is a wrong analysis. Again, if we compare the strategies of security of the EU and US, we find that the latter speaks of the use of military force and preemptive wars, while the former speaks of military and civil cooperation. Thus we have “The Working Group for European Security” which combines military and police forces. This force may mobilize up to 60000 troops, who need another 120000 more troops for support purposes. There is also the division mobilized in Germany and Holland, and other Countries. There was formed also the European Defense Agency that supervises the level of defense in the member countries. We also note that the EU is the first exporter of military weapons, and most of these exports go to Arab Countries. The position of the EU is not much different from that of the US in this respect. The EU calls for more sanctions against Iran, and this brings the threat of aggression against Iran nearer, and we should give more importance to this issue. Finally, the Arab World, and in particular the Arab Left, should realize that the EU plays an imperialist military role, and tries to intervene n the internal affairs of the Arab Countries, especially those in the Mediterranean Basin. The European Left should put greater efforts in opposing such policies.

Mr. Bernard Cassen

Speaking on this axis, I shall also mention Latin America, which gives me more optimism. Indeed Latin America is the only region of the World where we find strong popular movements that practice democracy. The Left gained power in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and even Nicaragua, and to some extent in Peru. This leftist tendency exists in other Latin American Countries like Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay, but in different forms and degrees. Some people say there are two forms of Left in Latin America: the rational and the irrational Left, but this is not true. I shall give you an example: we have Michele Bachelet in Chile, and Chavez in Venezuela, both have their limits, but both are against the US. This opposition takes more democratic forms in Chile, while Chavez uses more vociferous language, like comparing George Bush with Satan!

Dr. Mohamed Al-Sayed Said

Some European Countries opposed the American aggression on Iraq, and this opposition sent a message of optimism to the progressive forces in the Arab region and the whole world. Some thought Europe may try to affirm its relative independence with respect to the US, a move awaited by many to put some brakes on the US led globalization. But Europe joined the war on Afghanistan, and supported the Israeli aggression on Lebanon, and moves towards consolidating its military alliance with the USA. The question is whether this consolidation of the military alliance is a permanent trend, or just a passing moment reaction. In this connection, we wonder if we can rely on the official or popular European positions to oppose the aggressive American wars, or if we can expect a common European position from the issues of this region. How can we find the answer to this question? Some believe that the export of military hardware is an important incentive for wars. This however is not convincing because the exports of military equipment in 2005 amounted to 80 billion dollars. Even 100 billion is insignificant in comparison with the total exports of Europe and the USA. Another theory explains the question by referring to the role of finance capital that dominates the present structure of capitalism. This again is not convincing, as most wars in the region were waged against rich countries that have important transactions with finance capital. Another theory says that the US wages wars of aggression as a means to threaten its allies, and primarily Europe, against any deviation from the US policies. In other words these are wars to blackmail Europe into submission to US policies. This theory seems plausible if we note that two thirds of all US growth stems from investing the colossal surpluses of the big exporters like Europe, Japan and China in the US. The US domination over Europe is an important factor to secure its growth. However, the weak point here, is why should Europe acquiesce to such blackmail. We need not look for solely economic explanations, when there is another explanation on cultural grounds. Indeed, the most prominent difference between the US and Europe lies in this field. The paradox is that the USA at its moment of victory over the Soviet Union, adopted an ideology borrowed from the middle ages, the reactionary ideology of Christian Fundamentalism. This ideology is based on legends such as the doomsday end of human civilization. And such catastrophic theories that lead to the common suicide of humanity. Such ideologies are the essence of the difference between the US and Europe, and it pushes the US away from all democratic traditions. The question is again why should Europe participate in this suicidal American project? Europe participates in the US military project because this is part of the macro conditions of reproduction of the capitalist system in its globalized phase, and again we may have to study the cultural factors. The couple of Israel and Oil may give part of the explanation of how the US involved the Europeans in the quagmire of its suicidal project. Again the question, why should Europe participate in a project that threatens its traditional relations with the Countries of the South of the Mediterranean? I believe there are many factors among which the role of Israel not only in US culture, but also the culture of the conservative circles in Europe. We must also consider the reaction of the Arab World, that has its important effect. When studying the contemporary trends of capitalism we cannot overlook the role of the Arab World that gave a negative incentive to Europe when it sided with the US during the debate with the former over the invasion of Iraq. Indeed, the dependent Arab Regimes became even more subservient to the US after the occupation of Iraq. Now, the struggle evolves around an Islamic project led by Iran based on the ideology of the middle ages. The Arab Left must navigate its course very carefully between these two imperialist and Islamist projects. I believe we can develop here a common project between Arab and European democratic and progressive forces. Such a project should oppose any military designs in the region, whether the aggressive wars of the US imperialism, or any Iranian projects of aggression. I believe the “litmus test” for any such alliance is the position towards the Palestinian issue. In other words, how far can the democratic and progressive forces in Europe pressure their governments to enable the Palestinian People regain the minimum of its historic rights.

Dr. Kamal Abdel-Latif

We often cross the boundaries between different topics, Can we speak of a common foreign policy of the EU at this moment? In the case of the Arab World, we also face a variety of positions that exclude any common policy. As a reaction to the events in Iraq and elsewhere, we meet a miserable plurality with no common vision, yet we speak of an Arab World. Such diversity may be an impediment to reaching consistent conclusions. Theoretical conformity is not always a good thing, but it is desirable in meetings like this one. The European Left today presents a problem as it includes different constituents and faces new questions. The Left, more than other trends, took Marxist concepts as representing lasting phenomena, while the essence of Marxism looks at phenomena in the light of the changing conditions, rather than clinging to concepts that belong to times that are gone by. When talking about Iraq, we know that the Italian and Spanish Right took part in the war against Afghanistan, but I do not think it is a question of right and left, but rather a question of political or economic interests. At the present moment, we may agree that the US war on Iraq has shown the limits of military action. The US has not won the war despite the destruction of Baghdad and Bassra, and the civil war it fomented there. After all this havoc and destruction, based on a huge array of lies and false pretexts, the question still is: has the USA achieved its aims? History will give the answer to this question. Another point, what is the project of the Arab Left today? May we agree that our project today is to join the front defending modernity and political renaissance? In 1973, Abdullah Al-Araoui wrote a book in which he asked whether the Arabs could reach socialism without fully assimilating the liberal phase. He considered the liberal phase to be an essential part of our leftist movement. Today, conditions have even gone back on that, as the Islamist project today is more backward than Mohamed Abdou’s project of reform a hundred years ago.

Prof. Samir Amin

I have some remarks about democracy. Some consider democracy to be just political plurality and general elections and no more. I believe democratization and social progress (let alone socialism) are indissociable, and cannot be separated. The American form of democracy presented to us separates democracy from any social aspect. In other words it confines democracy to governing politically through a multi party system and elections, while the economic field, and hence the social field, are governed by the market laws. It claims that democracy is associated with the market and presupposes its supremacy. Such claims have nothing to do with science or the real history of capitalism. This American model is rejected by the masses even if accepted by some middle class sectors, and intellectuals. This model drives some masses to adopt some non democratic, or even antidemocratic trends such as Political Islam, or tribal identities. The opposite is also rejected by the people i.e. some social progress was achieved without democracy under the name of socialism, or national liberation, such as Nasseism in Egypt, or Boumedienism in Algeria. However history has shown that such social advances not associated with democracy, and hence not authenticated socially can at any time be revoked unilaterally. Indeed, they were very easily reversed and with virtually little resistance. Yesterday, Dr. Kamal Abdel-Latif quoted Abdullah Al-Araoui about the necessity of a liberal phase before visualizing a socialist phase. I do not accept this thesis as it copies the phases of evolution in the West and in particular Europe, and claims that we in the periphery of the global capitalist system must pass through the same phases. This thesis denies that the capitalist expansion itself changed the situation in the periphery such that the conditions are totally different from what they were in the West in previous phases of its history. Thus, history cannot be repeated, and indeed our bourgeoisies are not democratic. Sherif Hetata said yesterday something very pertinent, and I agree that the new generations in general refuse the old non democratic practices. They helped democratize society to some extent in the social sphere, by criticizing the non democratic practices not only by the Authorities but also by the leaderships of the political parties, the trade unions and professional syndicates and other popular organizations. My conclusion is that the road to the socialism of the 21st century is a long one that includes several stages. However these stages are not purely liberal capitalist stages, that precede the socialist revolution. Each of these consecutive stages must include more democratization and more social progress. This progress does not mean a complete or sudden break with the logic of capitalism, but each stage will go into contradiction with the logic of capitalist accumulation, and hence with liberalism.

Mr. Sadek Hagrass

The European military domination over the Arab Word during the last two centuries explain two important facts: 1. Militarisation is an important pillar of imperialism, the other two pillars are financial and cultural domination; 2. The military mechanism is closely associated with the other mechanisms. One thing is certain: the peoples of Europe and the Arab World, pay the bill of this military intervention. In 1956 we saw a modern case f military intervention that was stopped by the Soviet and American threats. Again in 1995, we meet another form of military intervention, in Kosovo this time, in accordance with the new military concepts, maybe of confrontation of civilizations. We asked then where the next invasion would go, Central Asia or Iraq where the oil reserves lie. Then it was the turn of Afghanistan. After September 2001, we were wondering if the next war should target Algeria replete with oil resources, and whose strategic position give it the possibility of becoming a new target.

Dr. Peter Gowan

Regarding the military factor, I note that the USA came out at the end of the cold war, with absolute supremacy in all fields of combat, whether in the air, the see or on land. It believed it could rely on this supremacy to secure the perpetuity of the capitalist system that was threatened by the political and economic challenges in certain parts of the world. Such challenges could take the form of revolts of the poor in urban areas, and here the US military plans seemed to be lacking. They are supposed to have 80 divisions of infantry for such urban battles, but they found out that in order to invade one single quarter in a city, their casualties might rise to 30% of their troops. If they want to liberate a whole city, the removing of their casualties will become a tremendous problem. We have seen an example of such problems in Iraq, and the Israelis met with similar problems in Lebanon. True the US can rely on their allies in Britain and France to supply some 40 divisions, but this does not solve the problem. A more serious problem is that these societies are not ready any more to tolerate high rates of casualties. Thus we meet a paradoxical situation, where the US is capable, for example to annihilate a country like Germany by air and naval strikes, but it cannot win an intensive war in urban areas against anti capitalist movements. This is what prevents the US from exercising its military supremacy to enforce its domination over the capitalist world.

Dr. Maher Al-Sharif

I believe there is a certain misunderstanding of Abdullah El-Araoui’s concepts. He did not say we had to go back to the liberal stage, but simply that there are certain advances belonging to that stage that were not accomplished, and that the Arab Peoples cannot advance without accomplishing such tasks. He contends that the advances of the Renaissance such as transforming the concept of a subject to that of a citizen, modernizing the Arabic Language, the emancipation of women, the state governed by Law, personal freedom, etc. All such tasks remain suspended in our societies and have to be accomplished. The Arab Left neglected these tasks for many decades, it adopted the idea that as the whole world was moving from capitalism to socialism, we as part of the world should follow suit. The Left must comprehend that in order to open the prospects for socialism, it must accomplish such essential tasks. We cannot advance towards modernity unless we achieve religious reform. We cannot emancipate women if we do not become citizens and not subjects. As the bourgeoisies have abandoned such tasks, the Left has to accomplish them in order to open the road to socialism, and not to a liberal stage.

Dr. Arne Seifert

One trend in the EU is to use NATO to create a new world order, and the Middle East is part of this Order. German News bulletins always speak of Iran, of deploying troops in the Mediterranean area, etc. We call ourselves the International Community and forget the rest of the world. We (the left) have the right to expound our point of view, we must have our own free will as in Latin America. Another trend is the EU’s will to intervene, not only in the Middle East, but also in the Caucasus and South of the Sahara and elsewhere. This policy of intervention exacerbates the conflicts. It also means that Europe relies more on Israel as the lance in the Middle East. A third trend in Europe is the use of force, and this is cause for concern not for the Arabs only, but for the European Left as well. Another trend is the enmity to political Islam. Wherever you look you find enmity to Islam, not only in defense of the Jews or of Israel. We must learn how to work with Islam. The last trend is the question of domination. Europe cannot tolerate peaceful coexistence, but must dominate. We must ask what the Left can do to reverse such trends. Where are the Arabs in all this? We must find meeting points with the Arab Regimes, as these have to find the points of convergence. Is it only petrol, the financial factors, or others?

Mr. Salama Keila

The intervention of Dr. Mohamed Said tried to answer a primordial question: why the continuous wars by the USA? Capitalism is expansionist by definition, and started with wars for securing raw materials, but was this the motive for the continuous US wars since the collapse of the Soviet Union? The military industrial complex plays an important role, despite the denial of Dr. Said. However, the essential motive in my opinion, is the situation of the USA in the world economy even before the demise of the Soviet Union. The American economy, the largest in the world, began to falter, and people started to speculate who would be the next leader. Some suggested Japan would take the lead, others suggested the EU if it consolidated its unity. Thus the US decided that to retain its supremacy over the world economy it must resort to its military might. Henry Kissinger once called it “the financial dictatorship”. He stressed that any crisis hitting the world economy would lead to the collapse of the US economy. The US concentrates on international security to suit its own interests, and its means to achieve that is war. It took advantage of its being the only super power after the demise of the Soviet Union, to achieve economic supremacy as well. Thus it dominates or monopolizes the raw materials (oil in particular), and markets, not only to curb the aspirations of emergent economies like China, but also against its capitalist allies in the center. It tries to make these allies subcontractors for its economy, i.e. the American trans nationals would monopolize the markets and projects while the European companies work for them. To achieve this end, the US must resort to endless wars to terrorize the whole world including its allies. I believe we shall witness such continuous wars for the next decade or two. I would like to comment on the debate over Abdullah Al-Araoui. It seems to me that each of us reads him from just one angle. He did not say we had to pass through the liberal stage, but simply that Arab thought must assimilate liberalism (and modern European thought) before it can assimilate Marxism

Mr. Tobias Pflueger

When we study the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, and the preparations to invade Iran, we note that such wars were launched from military bases in Arab or neighboring countries. The large US military bases in Kuweit were used fir the invasion of Iraq. My important question to the Left, is the following: what is your position towards such military bases? I believe the Left in Europe and the Arab Countries must militate against rearmament plans, and maintenance of foreign military bases, as well as torture of prisoners. I would ask our Arab colleagues what they think of the EU.

Mr. Mostafa Al-Gammal

I hate to give just one explanation for any given phenomenon, like explaining wars by the economic factor alone. Other factors do have their impact as well. For instance we note great flourishing of the ideology of the new conservatives in the US. This ideology favors wars as a means to achieve its ends. Anther point is that each time Israel attacks the Palestinians, the European Leaders hasten to defend Israel’s right to self defense, such that the Arab citizens take it as a joke. Israel is the only Country in the Middle East that has more than 200 nuclear bomb, yet nobody inspects its nuclear facilities. Israel also claims the imposition of sanctions against Iran just because there are doubts that it has the intention of fabricating a nuclear bomb, but has not done so yet! My third point is the development of the military credo on both sides. The US military credo is based today on intensive air strikes to clear the ground from any resistance, and this was practiced in Iraq twice and in Serbia. The Americans boast that they destroy industries and bridges without any scruples about civilian casualties. Yet, they keep criticizing the tactics of irregular war, and in particular the so called suicidal attacks. I do not condone suicidal attacks, but I respect these scores of youngsters who are ready to sacrifice their lives for a just cause. The issue may be unclear in their intellects, but they are ready to sacrifice their lives for a given cause. It is the only weapon the Palestinian People still has to face military might.

Mr. Helmi Sharawi

Has the application of democracy in Europe and the USA curtailed the military intervention in the South, and the Arab World in particular? All through our history we were subjected to infiltration by foreign capital, modernity and liberalism, but always accompanied by military intervention. We were surprised that millions demonstrated in Europe and the US against the invasion of Iraq, while the preparations were going apace for the invasion. How do we explain that? The dominant elite has separated itself from the political game, and became more militarily disposed, and this is a bad example for us. My second question is: to what extent can democracy be a sufficient cause for intervention in our internal affairs? If we accept liberalism on the American, or French model, will this protect us from their military intervention? The final point: Do the Europeans understand that the US political and military policies are bent on fomenting instability and “constructive chaos” as you have noted here? The Europeans seem to be happy with the chaos reigning in Somalie, in Darfur, or Afghanistan and Iraq, as this gives them scope for intervention. In the Arab World, such chaos leaves little scope for liberalization or modernity. Indeed, these are internal issues that we must solve ourselves, and not leave the governing compradors tamper with. Trying to solve these internal issues must not be confounded with our stand against Western military intervention.

Dr. Abdullah Saef

I would refer to Mr. Pflueger’s exposition of the intensive European interventions. I believe such tendencies exist since quite some time, even before the first intervention in Iraq in 1990, when the force of Eufor was created. What is new is the creation of a political-military mechanism, so that the military men are not isolated politically. My second point concerns the dialogue across the Atlantic, Even on the military level, the Agenda seems to be the same as regards the contents. The priorities may differ, or the explanations may differ, but there are common visions in these transatlantic spaces. In my opinion, the difference stems from the operational aspects of the US project. The European project seems to be inoperative as yet, but there are common measures on many aspects of the project. This takes place over the resolutions of the Security Council, the US and European military plans meet here, but conflict there, and so on.

The Hot Debate

     Between Arab and European Left

Editor: Elhami Al-Merghani

الغلاف الخلفى

• For the last 20 or 30 years, the Peoples of the World had to face a common onslaught by capitalism and imperialism. Indeed I maintain that capitalism and imperialism are inseparable phenomena, i.e. capitalism that is not imperialist is a hypothetical entity that never existed during the last four or five centuries; • In the economic sphere, this onslaught takes the form of imposing the “free market”, meaning complete deregulation of the markets, and full freedom for capital; • In the social sphere, it means dismantling all public services – and the health service in particular – all social security systems, and labor protection laws; • In the political sphere, this attack tends to empty democracy of any real content that may lead to any substantive social content for the popular classes. Hence it consolidates all coercive regimes, especially in our Arab region • In the military sphere, the imperialist capitalist system tries to impose its military domination on the whole Planet, and has launched wars of aggression on the countries the system considers as possible adversaries in one way or another.

Samir Amin In the opening session of Colloquium: “Arab European Relations from a Critical Perspective”, Cairo 23- 25 February 2007.