:: Monday, May 19, 2003 ::

Short Primer on the Ba'ath Party in the Middle East:

Anwar Syed at Dawn has a good overview of the Ba'ath party in Iraq and Syria, from its inception to the current period. Well it's all history now, but a retrospective perpspective might add some depth to the usual shallow readings of the region.

Founded in the 1940s by two teachers, Michel Aflaq (1910-1989) and Saleh ad-Din al-Bitar (1912-1980), educated in French schools in Syria and later at the Sorbonne in Paris, the Baath (Resurrection) was professedly dedicated to socialism, Arab unity and freedom. Aflaq and Bitar claimed that a common language sufficed as a basis for Arab nationhood and an Arab state extending from Morocco to the Persian Gulf. Established in Syria and Iraq, the two wings of the party soon became separate and rival entities. Its spokesmen in Iraq espoused Iraqi nationalism, and they would work for Arab unity if it were to be brought about under their leadership. They maintained that the Iraqi nation, born several thousand years ago, had created great civilizations from the Sumer and Akkad through Babylon, Assyria, Chaldea, and the Abbasid caliphate. Destined for greatness, Iraq should lead the whole Arab nation. Iraqi interests were, therefore, to receive first priority. The party was organized along the lines of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union with an elaborate structure of cells, sections, divisions, and branches extending from the national to the local levels. A tightly knit and purposeful organization, its membership stood at 5,000 in 1968, increased to about 50,000 by 1978, and then decreased to some extent as a result of purges. Read More here

:: Conrad Barwa 1:59 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............

The Left Post-Iraq: How Tattered is the Red Flag:

It is a miserable thing always to be on the losing side. In its present stance the Left is condemned, probably for a generation, to watch glumly as the US clocks up one comprehensive victory after another. The Left has no great cause to rally behind as it had (even if it proved the wrong cause) in the 1930s; no plausible alternative heroes or ideologies to offer today’s oppressed masses; no singly vision of progress to counter that of the US neo-conservatives; and like the Pope, no divisions at its command. It is denied even a convincingly evil enemy: the US may in some technical sense, be veering towards fascism (in which the corporate sector and the state merge), but it is in no sense Nazi or Stalinist (at least not yet). For the first time in history, a democracy is indisputably the most powerful country on the earth, with no immediate rival. Should we not be happy that the goodies are winning at last?

There are two broad answers. First a true liberation struggle comes from within a country, not from invasion; and unless it does come from within, “liberation” is unlikely to do more than substitute one tyrant for another or, perhaps worse, lead to anarchy, as seems all too likely in Iraq. The democratic Left felt relieved if not actually overjoyed at the collapse of Eastern Europe’s bloodless revolution in 1989 and after, even though it was a decrepit Leftist God that had finally failed, because their impetus came from within. As did the impetus for the overthrow of apartheid in South Africa. The whole of South America, once full of nasty little dictatorships, has converted to democracy in one form or another with hardly a shot fired. Iran, though far from western standards, is more open, liberal and democratic than it was a decade ago. These examples suggest that non-violent struggle, mounted from within a country but with outside sympathy, has better results than outside intervention: the people duly mobilised, have achieved more than soldiers ever have, and it is too early to say that this is disproved by Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. However, the old anti-colonial principle still holds: that people, all too often, prefer incompetent, corrupt, tyrannical and even murderous rule by their own kind to occupation by a foreign power. This applies particularly to many Arab nations, who see the West’s belief that it has the right to determine the political shape of their region as a collective humiliation. It is patronising to think that Arabs are incapable of democracy, or that they are incapable of determining their own future and still more patronising that they are anti-American merely because they are dupes of propaganda.

Secondly, any programme of “liberation” should proceed within a consistent and coherent context of international law and humanitarian principle. The law may be imperfect and inadequately applied, but that does not entitle aggrieved countries to take it into their own hands, any more than a domestic authority’s failure to catch and convict a burglar allows a householder to pursue the culprit and exact summary justice. A mission to strengthen and improve the law would be one that the Left could cheer – but the US has shown little appetite for it in recent years, not even paying its full UN dues until after 11 September 2001. US objections to being lectured on human rights at the UN by vicious dictatorial regimes would carry more weight if the US did not lecture others on free trade while subsidising its farmers, protecting its steel industry with tariffs and giving tax breaks to its exporters - all in defiance of WTO rulings. As for the humanitarian issue, the Left’s position is clear: the roughly £50 billion spent on the war could have been spent in poor countries on primary schooling, clean water, basic sanitation, adequate food and disease prevention. For example, it would cost just £2 billion to feed all the world’s starving, and £1 billion to provide clean water for 500,000 people. No doubt this would not be as simple a mission as a massive aerial bombardment followed by a ground invasion but it would need none of the casuisitical justifications advanced for the war Iraq and the results would be more certain and tangible.

Once, it was the Left (or a large section of it) that believed in Utopian solutions. Build the workers’ paradise, and everything would be all right. The piecemeal improvement of existing conditions was mere tinkering and persuaded people to accept a flawed social and economic order; while the deliberate infliction of suffering and death was a small price to pay for a better world. Now, the Right takes the same view in reverse. Everybody in the world will prosper if only they will embrace market economies and liberal democracy; humanitarian aid just scratches the surface, propping up discredited regimes that should not survive. The Right seems to be committing the same mistakes that the Left once did.

:: Conrad Barwa 11:15 PM [Permanent Link] :: ::
..............