Democratic Palestine : 19 (ص 21)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 19 (ص 21)
- المحتوى
-
Mubarak - Sadat in Disguise
Mubarak Involves Egypt
Deeper in Camp David
Interview with Abdullah Diab, famous progressive
Egyptian economist
a
« Warming up the cold peace» - Egypt’s prime minister lights Peres’ cigarette.
What is your opinion of the meeting that took place
between Mubarak and Peres in Alexandria? What
are its motives and how do you evaluate the Ifran
meeting between King Hasan II and Peres?
First, I would like to draw attention to the short time period
between these meetings. This confirms that the first meeting
was in preparation for the second. The first meeting was to test
the reaction to an Arab leader meeting with an Israeli official.
We note here that the Mubarak regime was the only one to
declare support to the Hassan II-Peres meeting. Mubarak
himself supported this step, though he belittled it in compa-
rison to the big step taken by Sadat when he visited Jerusalem.
Mubarak considers Sadat’s step as the main step that opened
the doors to the peace process, while the Hasan I]-Peres meet-
ing was just another step on the same road.
Before the Alexandria summit, Mubarak was claiming that
he was not involved in the Camp David process. To prove his
claims, he said that he had never met with any of the Zionist
leaders.
In his meetings with some of the opposition forces, Mubarak
always insisted that the special relations with the U.S. were
necessary, since Egypt suffered many economic difficulties.
Mubarak said he had to have special relations with the inter-
national financial institutions, the same institutions that
represent neocolonialism. Mubarak always expressed disgust
that the day would come when he would have to deal with the
Zionist entity directly. He said he would rather die first.
There were other tricks Mubarak pulled to contain and split
the ranks of the progressive national movement, such as claim-
ing that he was «a democrat», while all the emergency rules
and regulations, that grew much more in his term, make spea-
king of democracy a deception. The torture of the political
prisoners by the police, and the sentences passed against pro-
gressive militants, only prove the deception of his claims.
Mubarak repeatedly threatened the opposition forces, in order
to prevent them from going beyond certain limits. What
Mubarak called «the national issues» are considered off-limits.
These include the special relations with the U.S. and adhering
to Camp David. Not to agree with him about these «national
issues» means, in his view, going beyond the limits of demo-
cracy, which could lead to a «dark fate». By this, he is refer-
ring to the possibility of a military coup lead by Abu Gazala.
The possibility of a military coup is very limited, first,
because Mubarak himself is part of military institution.
Second, the US government, that has gone through a bitter
experience with military regimes in Latin America, no longer
objects‘to dependent, multi-party, liberal regimes, that basi-
cally have a coalition of two main parties in power. The two
parties are from the same class, have the same aims, and
alternate in the government, in addition to other smaller par-
ties, for decoration. The two main parties in Egypt are the
National Party, and the Wafd party. Therefore, to speak of the
«military option» is only an attempt to blackmail the national
and democratic forces.
Third, after he was inaugurated, Mubarak convened an
economic conference in February 1982. In the conference, he
replaced the open door policy of importing consumer goods,
with the open door policy of producing goods locally.
Actually, Sadat spoke of the same idea two years before he was
assassinated. Sadat also attacked parasitism. He said it was a
vague concept, and that the parasitic bourgeoisie was unde-
fined and not represented in specific individuals.
Mubarak’s slogan of opening the door for production meant
an attempt to develop industries in Egypt, directed toward
serving the vast majority of the masses who have a very limited
income, but not- Mubarak said- to serve the privileged elite. He
also claimed it was meant to minimize dependency on imports.
However, none of the positive recommendations, including the
ones proposed by the liberals in the conference, were taken into
consideration.
The February 1985 conference, confirmed that the promise
Mubarak had made to himself, was reversed. The class diffe-
rences, and the exploitation of the poor masses, are going
according to the directions of the World Bank, which always
aimed at not resolving the economic crisis of any country, as
much as it increases the burden of the poor masses.
More than 100,000 workers of the public sector participated
in a series of strikes, directed against the authorities. Although
the workers raised economic slogans, collision with the owners,
i.e., the state, turned the strikes into a political struggle.
We could then say that the objective conditions on the eco-
nomic and, consequently, the political level, and on the level of
relations with the US, paved the way for the Mubarak-Peres
meeting. We note that Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem followed the
January 18-19th mass uprisings. The Mubarak-Peres meeting
follows many uprisings and strikes, such as the strike of the
workers at Al Mahalla, the railroad workers’ strike and the
revolt of the central security forces.
We can look at the issue from another perspective. The pro-
duction policy of the last eleven or twelve years is one of free
capitalist development. This entails dependency on foreign and
Arab capital that has the financial capacity to fill the gap bet-
ween the funds available and the need for investment. The
foreign and Arab capital has the technological capability to
boost the Egyptian economy, but foreign investment means
foreign capital’s control, and thus financial dependency on the
imperialist camp. The imperialists never give us advanced
technology. They retain control of the technological opera-
tions, and only allow us to use their technology in minor
industries. Of course, the main profit goes to the multinational
companies and foreign capital, whereas the local capitalists get
a very small percentage of the profit.
Mubarak’s era has contributed greatly to the process of
subordinating the national and progressive movement by con-
taining it. The national and progressive forces were betting on
the government, and on a guided capitalist system that would
rescue Egypt from its crisis, while we all know that only a
socialist system will rescue the underdeveloped countries. In
order to prepare the people to accept foreign capital, they have
to have hopes that a guided capitalist system will solve the
crisis. All the aid that was given to Egypt was part of an
attempt to keep the economy afloat until the process of class,
social and political subordination is completed. Egypt became
involved in endless debts. It became very dependent on foreign
imports-at least 40% of its food needs and 75% of its wheat
requirements. This is one of the means to subordinate Egypt.
19 - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 19
- تاريخ
- أكتوبر ١٩٨٦
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed