ORIGINS OF SUNNI-SHIA SPLIT The first Islamic caliphate (religious kingdom) centralized around the area that the Islamic State of al-Sham (ISIS) is claiming as a new nation - western Iraq and eastern Syria. There, the Umayyad dynasty centralized the government around the late seventh and early eighth centuries BC. It based itself on a combination of slavery and a form of feudalism. Especially in the later decades, a series of revolts broke out. These were coupled with a series of military defeats for the dynasty as it tried to expand into India, the Caucasus, southern France and Anatolia. This combination of military defeats and domestic revolts from below led to the overthrow of the dynasty by the masses in 750 BC. As was common, especially in those days, this movement was clothed in religious garb. This religious doctrine became the basis of Shiism, while the new dynasty (the Abbasid dynasty) that rose from the ashes of the Umayyed dynasty, became the basis for Sunniism. Since it represented the new ruling class, Sunniism became dominant. (Note: We are indebted to John Pickard’s excellent book, “Behind the Myths”, which is a history of the development of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, for this history. That book is well worth reading today.) Although Shiism was the religious garb of an underclass of that time, today the hierarchies of both wings of Islam are simply controlled by different and competing ruling classes - as is true for all organized religions (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.) Mid East borders as drawn up by French and British colonialism ISIS (L) and Vladimir Jabotinsky (right): They have some things in common Iraq oil workers protest anti-union law Youth celebrating the fall of government in Mosul: they will be very disappointed in future. Even US capitalisms Time magazine recognizes that the old order is collapsing Iraq: “Things Fall Apart” Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold… W. B. Yeats The Second Coming So wrote William Butler Yeats in describing the period shortly after WWI. So he might have written today, and nowhere is this more true than describing what is happening in Iraq. World imperialism had imposed “order” on the region through WWI, which was a colonial scramble to redivide the then-colonial world. As part of that bloody scramble, the British and French capitalists reached the Sykes-Picot Accord, which divided up the Middle East into “spheres of influence” - that is, it was an agreement over which gang of capitalists would get to rape which peoples in that part of the world. So much for the war to make the world safe for democracy. Sykes-Picot It was through the Sykes Picot Agreement (whose existence was revealed by the Bolsheviks after they took power and went through all the documents left by British and French capitalism’s step-child — the Russian Tsar) that the national borders of most of the middle east were drawn up. Imposed from outside, although these borders have developed a life of their own to an extent, they have also always been somewhat artificial and subject to collapse. During the entire post WW II era, when the world was dominated by the rivalry between capitalism (especially US capitalism) and the Soviet Union, these borders held. For a few decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, US capitalism was able to to maintain world order on its own. Al Qaeda Wings of the Arab capitalist class – especially in Saudi Arabia – have funded al Qaeda, first to counter the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and then to advance their interests elsewhere. The character of this sector of the capitalist class (which in some ways is not far removed from a feudal class) can be seen by their repression of women and support for sharia law. The “Arab Spring” delivered a death blow to this regional stability. Unable to find a way to overthrow capitalism, this revolt from below has temporarily stalled and, in the case of Syria, been thrown into a bloody civil war, which is in some ways a war by proxy. (See this article for the background oaklandsocialist.files.wordpress/2013/06/146-syria-pdf.pdf) As in nature, politics hates a vacuum, and into the vacuum in Syria stepped reactionary forces. On one side is U.S. capitalism, coupled with capitalist forces from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and elsewhere. These are the forces supporting the “rebels” in Syria. On the other side is the Assad regime, supported by the Iranian and Russian regimes. Caught in the middle are the masses, and if the working class cannot advance, then the forces of reaction will. In this case, that has meant the strengthening of the Sunni Islamic fundamentalists, including the al Nusra Front and ISIS, who are leading the “rebel” groups. As for al Qaeda, they receive their funding from the Muslim hierarchy in the region as well as from individual capitalists. They also reportedly get money from various criminal enterprises such as drug smuggling. Where did this come from? What are the origins of these forces? Capitalism in the former colonial world Capitalism has been generally unable to develop the former colonial world, where their class representatives remain with one foot firmly planted in their feudal past. Since they must have some sort of base, they have to appeal to something in the traditions of their society. But it is the past traditions to which they must appeal, much of which involves the repression of women. So it was that Chinese rulers, for instance, were unable to end the binding of little girls feet, until the Chinese Revolution of 1949 overthrew capitalism and feudalism. In India to this day the caste system remains as does the routine rapes and murders of girls and women. In the Arab world, the Saudi ruling class is one of the most degenerate. From this ruling class springs “Wahabism” and its region-wide offshoot – Salafism. This school of thought of the Muslim hierarchy seeks a return to the earliest days of Islam (“Salaf” means the ancestors or the predecessors), including repression of women. Al Qaeda uses this as its ideological base. Springing as it does from a wing of the Saudi ruling class, it represents the imperial ambitions of that class in two senses: First, it opposes the influence of the US and Western capitalist classes. It also opposes the influence of the Persian (Iranian) ruling class. So they have not confined their holy war to attacking Western (especially US) forces; they have equally attacked the forces of their Iranian rivals. Basing themselves as they do on religious fervor, they must not only attack the direct representatives of Iranian capitalism, but also those upon which the Iranian state seeks to base itself – that is, all Shiites. From Pakistan and Afghanistan to Yemen and Syria, wherever there is a crisis in the Islamic world, and wherever the working class cannot stamp its imprint on the situation, the Islamic fundamentalists have found an opening. Zionist Revisionism and ISIS In one sense, Sunni nationalism seems to be developing similarly to how Zionism developed. The early Zionism movement developed as a client of British colonialism; they had no thought to forming a “Jewish” state that was independent of British rule. Instead, they saw themselves as settling the region of Palestine under the protection of and as the representatives of British colonialism. Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Zionist Revisionism, took matters a step further and first proposed an independent Jewish state – what has become the State of Israel. Jabotinsky also was sympathetic to fascism, and his inheritors – the Stern Gang – actually proposed entering WW II on the side of the Nazis. Similarly, whereas al Qaeda does not envision redrawing the map, an offshoot of al Qaeda has developed – the Islamic State of al Sham, or ISIS. Harkening back to the days of the Abbasid dynasty (see box on “Origins of Sunni-Shia Split”), they propose a new, independent state in the region that that dynasty ruled over – what is now eastern Syria and western Iraq. In both these areas, especially western Iraq, the methods of the Sunni fundamentalist groups like ISIS are reminiscent of fascism. This includes cutting off the hands of alleged thieves and mass murder of opponents. Iraq in Crisis Iraq, a majority Shia society, has little history of sectarian, Sunni-Shia violence. In fact, many clans or tribes contain both wings of Muslims and intermarriage was not uncommon. And while the dictator Saddam Hussein based himself on and favored the Sunni minority, that was as much based on his tribal origins (which happened to be mainly Sunni) as it was based on religious sectarianism. In fact, Hussein sharply repressed political Islam during his reign. The US invasion of Iraq, however, disrupted this. Among other things, the US invasion and its aftermath has been an economic disaster for the masses of Iraqis. At least under Hussein there was some government social programs as well as state run enterprises. Under US tutelage, most of this has been eliminated, yet there has been little capital investment. As a result, some 35% of Iraqis live in poverty and unemployment is officially running at about 20% and is especially severe amongst the youth. To divert attention and to build some sort of base, Maliki has greatly favored the Shiite majority vs. the Sunni minority. As one article reported, “Ordinary Sunnis complain of discrimination in almost all aspects of life, including housing, education, employment and security.” Maliki charged the top Sunni politician, Vice President Tarek al-Hashemi, with “terrorism” and forced him to flee the country for his life. With a repressed labor movement (see below), it was inevitable that large layers of these youth would turn to religious extremism. Early Iraqi Workers Movement The Iraqi working class potentially could provide a class based means of struggle. This class has long traditions, starting under British rule, when Iraqi oil workers formed unions and went on strike. In the period after WW I, the Iraqi Communist Party was a powerful force among Iraqi workers. Typically of the “Communists” of that era, however, its leadership never sought to bring the Iraqi workers to power; it always sought an ally outside of the class. When the Baath Party seized power in Iraq, the Iraqi Communist Party supported them – as dictated by its leadership and as opposed by many Iraqi working class Communists. After Hussein secured his rule, of course, he proceeded to crush the Communists. Hussein also pushed through a labor law which forbade the formation of unions in the public sector. This included the oil industry, which was nationalized. Following the overthrow of Hussein by the Bush regime, privatization of the oil industry developed, but the union was still repressed. Nevertheless, the oil workers still organized and as early as 2004 they went on strike. This included strikes against privatization. Iraqi Workers Organize After Fall of Hussein In 2013, the group U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW) filed this report: USLAW received a brief message from Hassan Jumaa Awad, President of the Iraq Federation of Oil Unions, informing us that at a court hearing in Basra today, all charges against him filed by the Ministry of Oil and South Oil Company were dismissed. The case arose as managements response to strikes and work stoppages organized by the oil workers in response to broken promises, mounting grievances, unremedied health and safety violations, increasing harassment of union activists and continued failure by management to respect worker rights to organize, bargain and strike when necessary guaranteed by international law and treaties. Although the only union leader to be criminally prosecuted, Brother Jumaa is not the only target of government and oil company repression. Administrative fines by the Ministry of Oil totaling more the $600,000 have been levied against sixteen other union activist, including IFOU Vice President Ibrahim Rhadi, in retaliation for their role in organizing worker protests.” These workers struggles continued. “On December 10, more than 3,000 angry oil workers surrounded the headquarters of the Southern Oil Company (SOC) in Basra.... Part of what brought these weathered veterans of the drilling rigs into downtown Basra is the continuing illegal status of their union. The government wants to destroy our union, Hassan Jumaa Awad, president of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, told Truthout in a recent interview.... Other demands dramatize the fact that although these workers produce Iraqs wealth, they still live in squalid conditions, working for low salaries.... We have a set of demands that should be answered, but the most important of them are dues [wage bonuses] correlated to annual profit, and the provision of housing and worthy residential buildings for staff, risk and rotation allowances, in addition to incentive pay, Mahdi al-Jabri, one of the organizers, told the Iraq Oil Report.” Beware of the AFL-CIO The Iraqi working class has shown itself to be a potentially powerful force in Iraq. However, according to many reports, the USs AFL-CIO is involved in giving “advice” to the union leadership in Iraq. This is done through the AFL-CIO “Solidarity Center” - the new version of the Agency for International Free Labor Development (AIFLD), whose name the AFL-CIO had to abandon because it had such a foul odor in the nostrils of all informed workers in Latin America. That was due to AIFLDs having been an open CIA front that supported one military coup after another. “Solidarity Center” may appear slightly different, but this mainly reflects the changed situation of US capitalism (including the fall of “Communism”). Of its $30 million budget, it receives $28 million from agencies of the US government, and it still will support right wing coups where “needed”, such as the attempted coup against the Chavez regime in Venezuela in 2002. One of its main roles, however, will be to try to ensure that no workers movement gets out of hand, that none “goes too far.” Without knowing exactly what they are doing in Iraq, we can be sure that they are doing their best to pressure the Iraqi labor movement not to become independent of capitalist politics. Since it is now the Obama policy to seek a modification of or even an end to the Maliki regime and to build one that is more conciliatory towards the Sunni minority, this is what Solidarity Center will be pushing. In other words, they will be pushing for the Iraqi labor movement to support a more “inclusive” and “democratic” capitalist regime in Iraq, meaning capitalist democracy. Fallujah Falls Both the repression of the Maliki regime and the continued rise of ISIS shows that this is an illusion: In December of last year, the forerunner to ISIS seized control of Fallujah, in Anbar Province – a majority Sunni region. This went all but ignored by the Obama administration and the US capitalist class in general, as they had and have enough problems around the world. ISIS was in the lead in Fallujah, but they did not monopolize power, granting some power to other Sunni (pro-capitalist) forces. Meanwhile, they used this power base to build up their forces. As an Iraqi journalist reported at that time: Fallujah is also connected to nearby agricultural areas and some of these are also under the control of the insurgents. That has actually seen the price of meat drop in Fallujah because farmers are scared that their cattle and sheep will be killed by indiscriminate shelling by the Iraqi military, so are trying to sell them early.... “The number of insurgents in Fallujah grows every day,” Rashid al-Muhammadi, a Fallujah local and a tribal elder, told NIQASH. “Everyone wants a gun now. The parents of the younger people who were killed want guns and they’ve decided to join the insurgent groups because they’re upset at the government’s behaviour and at the shelling.” Additionally, as a high ranking security source who wished to remain anonymous, said: “there are hundreds of militants coming to the city every day. They’re coming from Ninawa, Diyala and Salahaddin. They all want to fight the Iraqi army.” The storm clouds were gathering. The economic crisis, especially for Iraqi youth, continued as did the repression and discrimination against the Sunnis. ISIS and its allies were gathering their forces within the country. In neighboring Syria, ISIS became one of the foremost fighting forces, giving its members much battle training. They also had an ideological goal: The building of a new nation-state based on the old Abbasid dynasty, which contained eastern Syria (where they were fighting) and Anbar Province in western Iraq (where the oppressed Sunni were in the majority). US and Western capitalism was also more or less paralyzed and unable to intervene, mainly because they couldnt find any force they could count on. So it should have come as no surprise when ISIS attacked earlier this June and thoroughly routed the demoralized Iraqi forces in a series of towns in Anbar province. ISIS Greeted Although there is little tradition of either sectarian division in Iraq or of sharia (Islamic law), ISIS fighters were greeted with open arms in some of the towns they entered. As opposed to their methods in Fallujah, they immediately imposed a monopoly of power in the towns they took over. This includes disarming the general population. They also moved to terrorize the population by conducting mass executions of captured Iraqi soldiers and police, who they called “Safavids” - an insulting term for Shias. They are doing this because they know that as they impose sharia there will be growing opposition, and that this opposition will also be fueled by their inability to resolve any economic problems. In fact, there are already reports of increasing inflation in the areas controlled by ISIS. Nor is ISIS a force to be underestimated. They have thousands of “battle hardened” troops plus serious financial resources. According to one report, in the beginning of June, they had about $850 million, but with the simple seizure of Mosul these resources nearly doubled to $1.5 bn. Much of their previous resources came from “criminal” activities like extortion of businesses, kidnapping, etc. But as they start to take on the role of a state power, what was “extortion” will become simply levying taxes. Surely, their capture of an oil refinery will be a huge boost. (One thing they lack up until now is any sort of air force, always a necessity for any modern state. Their reported capture of a dozen or more US helicopters might be a small step in the direction of solving this problem, but that remains to be seen.) US Capitalism Weakening US capitalism, the capitalist “centre”, is no longer able to hold. Under Obama, they have conducted a “shift to the Pacific” in order to counter the rise of Chinese capitalism. And what has been accomplished? Early this spring, the Chinese regime sent an oil rig into a disputed region of the South China Sea, provoking a crisis with the Vietnamese regime. And just a few days ago it sent four more rigs. While US and Western European capitalism scored a victory of sorts in western Ukraine, it did so by having to base themselves on neo and outright fascist forces. This will surely come back to haunt them as it creates further disruption throughout Europe. There were reports that some strategists for US capitalism were happy to encourage the civil war to continue in Syria as this would be a drain on the Iranian and Russian regimes. Now, it is exactly that civil war that has become a major factor in the rise in ISIS and its seizing power in western Iraq, a development that seems headed for a breakdown in the arrangements that were made almost 100 years ago through the Sykes Picot Accord. The Obama administration didnt intervene in to support the “rebels” in Syria, mainly because they couldnt find any group it could support. Now, they are considering air strikes against ISIS in Syria, which means being forced into de facto support for their (and Israels) sworn enemy – Assad! It used to be that when US capitalism strongly opposed a regime, they simply arranged a neat little coup. From the end of WW II to the fall of the Soviet Union, they did this almost once every year. From that time to the present, they succeeded only slightly more than once every ten years, and one of those – the 2002 Venezuelan coup, was a dismal failure. They are no longer able to simply order a coup because it is much more difficult for them to build a base of support in other countries now. For a time, under the G.W. Bush administrations, they responded to this weakened position by increased aggression – sending troops into battle around the globe. Their installation of Obama (vs. McCain) into the White House in 2008 amounted to a recognition of the failure of this approach. It is why Obama chose “diplomacy” over military attack on the Iranian regime. It is why he withdrew the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is why he is unable to find any force that US capitalism can support in Syria, thus forcing it to effectively stand on the sidelines. Now, and most spectacularly, the Obama administration is considering entering into a de facto alliance with the Iranian and Syrian regimes by attacking ISIS in Syria! Saudi Arabia & Perspectives The imperialist “order” that was imposed on the Arab world through the Sykes-Picot Accord is collapsing. Even “Time” magazine recognizes that (see their cover above). Already we see the new “order” in the disorder of bloodshed, mass fleeing of refugees, and reactionary regimes such as that which ISIS is trying to impose. It will get even worse. The June 25 Wall St. Journal carried a column by one of its former publishers in which it described Saudi Arabia as “an island of relative tranquility in roiling waters”. The author referred to turmoil in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Egypt and commented “its hard to see how these events and trends will not threaten the (Saudi) kingdom sooner or later. If or when that happens, the U.S. would face a dilemma of far greater magnitude than those yet faced in the Mideast.” It explicitly referred to the fact that Saudi Arabia is the worlds number one oil exporter. As the crisis in Iraq unfolded, former US Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney (former candidate for the US Senate from Wyoming), attacked Obama in an op-ed piece in the Wall St. Journal (June 17). They wrote: The tragedy unfolding in Iraq today is only part of the story. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are resurgent across the globe. According to a recent Rand study, between 2010 and 2013, there was a 58% increase in the number of Salafi-jihadist terror groups around the world. During that same period, the number of terrorists doubled. In the face of this threat, Mr. Obama is busy ushering Americas adversaries into positions of power in the Middle East. First it was the Russians in Syria. Now, in a move that defies credulity, he toys with the idea of ushering Iran into Iraq. Only a fool would believe American policy in Iraq should be ceded to Iran, the worlds largest state sponsor of terror....American freedom will not be secured by empty threats, meaningless red lines, leading from behind, appeasing our enemies, abandoning our allies, or apologizing for our great nation—all hallmarks to date of the Obama doctrine.” The gradual erosion of the ability of US capitalism to control world events has resulted in their shifting from relying mainly on behind-the-scenes actions (coups) to open intervention (military invasions) and back again (“diplomacy”). If and when Saudi Arabia is threatened, or in the event that an Israeli military adventure like an attack on Iran more thoroughly disrupts the region, then US capitalism is likely to shift gears once again. It is likely to push forward even more aggressive strategists. Already they are waiting in the wings, as shown by the op-ed piece by the Cheneys. We do not know what independent forces are developing among the Iraqi youth or inside the Iraqi labor movement. Who here in the US knows what is developing through the workers movement and the environmental protests in China? Who knows what remains of the original movement in Syria, which included the formation of embryonic workers councils? We only know that what the likes of the AFL-CIO and others of their type advocate is a disastrous illusion.
Posted on: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 22:52:23 +0000