THE STRUGGLE FOR THE LEFT TO TAKE AN ANTI-IMPERIALIST POSITION ON THE SYRIA CONFLICT

July 29 2012 – The imperialists are in a de facto war with Syria. From massively arming the Syrian “Rebels” to providing them with money and military intelligence to organising foreign mercenaries to fight for them to having special forces assist these “Rebels” to the media’s overwhelming propaganda campaign against the Syrian government, the imperial powers are doing everything short of a full-scale invasion to ensure regime change in Syria. In such a clash between imperialism and a small, ex-colony, the position of leftists should be clear. As Russian revolutionary leader Lenin stated in his Marxist classic, Socialism and War, written in 1915 (i.e. written in the days of Tsarist Russia prior to the Russian Revolution):

… if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just”, “defensive” wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory `great’ powers.

That means that we must today stand for the defence of Syria against the predatory NATO “great” powers and their proxies within Syria. This is the position that we in Trotskyist Platform fight for. This is why we have joined in solidarity with demonstrations called by those Syrian migrants who are opposed to imperialism and its “Rebels.” We do this while recognising, in the spirit of Lenin, that while we are in a temporary alliance with the capitalist, Baathist government in Syria against the imperialists and their allies, we should maintain our strict political independence from the Baathists and should continue to stand for the development of an independent, anti-imperialist, working class movement in Syria.

WESTERN LEFT GROUPS REPEAT THEIR STANCE TAKEN DURING THE LIBYA WAR

Trotskyist Platform (TP) seeks to mobilise working class opposition right here against Australia’s participation in the imperialist drive against Syria. As part of this struggle we need to win other activists and indeed other groups within the left-wing movements to also stand against the imperialist-backed Syrian “Rebels.” In this battle TP has our work cut out for us. For most of the left-wing groups in this country are supporting the “Syrian Revolution” even while nominally opposing direct military intervention by the Western powers that are the very backers of this misnamed “Revolution.”

Today, among the left groups with the most right-wing line on Syria is the Solidarity group and Socialist Alternative. Thus a 6 June Socialist Alternative article titled “A turning point in Syria?” parrots almost all the mainstream media propaganda supporting the Syrian “Revolution.” This includes repeating the corporate media lie that the Syrian government was responsible for the Houla massacre, a massacre which even an investigation by the conservative, mainstream German newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has had to admit was definitely the work of sectarian “Rebels” (for further details see our other main article on Syria.) The SAlt article goes on to gush with praise for the “Revolution” – that “Revolution” beloved by the Western capitalist powers, the world’s biggest oppressors.

The Socialist Alliance (SA) has roughly the same line as SAlt but is more circumspect in its support for the “Revolution.” It recognises that the Opposition has committed atrocities and includes Sunni fundamentalist gangs supported by imperialism. Yet, while expressing reservations about some of the Opposition, SA’s position is still one of support for what they claim is the “Syrian people’s legitimate uprising.” Thus a 13 June SA statement insists that: “The Syrian people have a right to use arms to defend themselves from the violence of government military and paramilitary forces.”

To justify this position, SA attempt to draw a huge wall between some sections of the Opposition and others. Thus their 13 June statement stresses that, “We recognise the secular and anti-imperialist nature of much of the mass democratic opposition. We do not recognise the Syrian National Council, or any other exile elements now unilaterally being promoted by the imperialist powers, as representative of the Syrian uprising.” It is plain wishful thinking to claim that the majority of the Opposition forces are “secular and anti-imperialist” when it is clear that the dominant Opposition forces are the Western-backed Muslim Brotherhood, the even more extreme fundamentalist Salafists and other religiously based groups. Furthermore, being nominally secular does not, in itself, equate to being “anti-imperialist.” Thus the main secular Opposition group, the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians, calls for an imposed “No-Fly Zone” over Syria and what is more is part of the Syria National Council that SA has itself identified as being pro-imperialist.

In any case, it matters little if some Opposition factions are nominally secular and claim to be anti-imperialist when these factions are allied, however loosely, with forces that are rabidly anti-secular and obviously imperialist-backed. For example, the different Syrian Opposition factions largely fight under the same flag. More significantly, while some of the different Opposition factions may not like each other, may get into pushing and shoving with each other at conferences and even, on rare occasions, minor skirmishes, they all do the overwhelming bulk of their fighting against the Syrian government and not against each other. In the context of a civil war between two camps, a grouping can claim to be a “third force” separate from the two but if it is only shooting at one side then it is in practice in an alliance with the side that it is not shooting at! That is the essence of the issue! When there is a war between the government of a “Third World” country and imperialist-backed Opposition forces, supporting some Opposition groups’ “use of arms to defend themselves” from government forces when these groups are not using arms equally against the openly pro-imperialist “Rebel” forces means to aid the imperialist camp in the war. What would it mean, for example, if during the war on Libya one of the fractious “Rebel” groups claimed that it was not supporting NATO and yet mainly attacked the Gaddafi forces and not the pro-NATO “Rebels”? Regardless of that faction’s pretensions, it would clearly have been aiding imperialism.

To be fair to SA, they have placed more emphasis on opposing imperialist intervention in Syria than the likes of Socialist Alternative (SAlt). However, their overall support for the imperialist-backed Opposition undermines the ability of the Left to mobilise actual action against imperialist intervention. For when people who do oppose intervention are told that the imperialists are actually backing the right side in the conflict, this would make them less enthusiastic about actually getting active against the intervention. A similar thing occurred during the Libya War last year. Then even after NATO started bombing Libya in support of the “Rebels,” SA continued to back the “Rebels.” Thus a 27 March 2011 Green Left Weekly editorial, while opposing NATO intervention, emphatically reiterated SA’s support for NATO’s “Rebels”: “Gaddafi’s dictatorship deserves to fall and those Libyans fighting his rule deserve support. But Western military intervention is no solution …. The Libyan rebels deserve support in their struggle to overthrow Gaddafi.” With such a contradictory line it is little wonder that SA was largely paralysed when it came to actually organising actions against NATO’s war on Libya. They were only involved in one of the three actions that took place in Sydney against the bombing of Libya. The first and the third of these actions, on March 27 and September 10 respectively, which SA did not participate in, were emphatic in opposing all forms of imperialist intervention – military, diplomatic and political – and refused to give any support to the NATO-backed “Rebels.” The second action on April 3, which SA helped to organise alongside SAlt, Solidarity and the Communist Party of Australia (CPA), while opposing the military intervention had as part of its call the appeal for Australian diplomatic intervention. Meanwhile, despite a strong speech from John Pilger that refused to support the “Rebels,” the speeches and placards from all the left groups organising the event called for support for the “Rebels” and their drive for regime change. When people are being told that they should support the “Rebels” that NATO is supporting and should support their drive for regime change then some may well think why not then “use” NATO to achieve that aim (which is actually what one long-time SA member was allowed to advocate for in public SA literature.) Little wonder then that although this April 3 rally was held relatively early in the Libya War, the groups that led it organised no further actions against the NATO attack for the remainder of the war.

Now a group that takes a slightly more left stance on Syria than SA is the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP.) Although they tilt somewhat in favour of the “Rebels”, the RSP position gravitates towards one of neutrality in the Syrian civil war:

What started as a democratic uprising is now being manipulated as an imperialist intervention. Its democratic content is being poisoned, and the character of the struggle is now one of civil war, with backers of both sides having no intention of implementing any democratic or progressive reforms. As hated as the Assad regime may be, it is not clear that the armed insurgency is popularly supported.

Direct Action, 20 March 2012

However, we cannot remain neutral in a de facto war between imperialism, via its proxies, and the government of a semi-colonial country. We must take the side of the oppressed country against the pro-imperialist forces.

THOSE WAVERING MUST BE WON TO A CLEAR ANTI-IMPERIALIST POSITION

What is badly needed is for those activists, within the various wavering left groups, with a stronger anti-imperialist understanding to aggressively challenge and defeat soft-on-imperialism tendencies within their own groups. To assist this struggle we here respond to some of the chief arguments raised by those leftists that support the Syrian “Rebels.”

One argument raised is that the “Uprising” is a “democratic revolution”, centred on the working-class, against neoliberal policies. Now, there is no doubt that many of those originally involved were motivated by justified anger at the effects of neoliberal policies. However, opposition to the effects of neoliberal policies – like unemployment and high prices – is not the same as opposition to neoliberal policies. Thus the largest Opposition faction, the Muslim Brotherhood, is pro-“free market” and favours even more neoliberal policies than the Assad government including further privatisations.

Originally, the Opposition movement was neither progressive nor completely reactionary. Rather, although imperialist influence was already significant, the movement featured a mish-mash of groups with conflicting agendas. However, imperialism was eventually able to decisively subordinate the movement. This is hardly the first time that anger over legitimate issues has been harnessed into a reactionary direction by reactionary forces. The most extreme case was the rise of Hitler’s Nazis which fed off anger at poverty and joblessness in Germany from the unemployed and from insecure layers of the middle class.

If the Syrian “uprising” is truly “democratic” and “progressive” then there is no way in hell that the reactionary, absolute monarchs that rule Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain would be enthusiastically backing it. And since when do the imperialist powers finance and give arms to movements against neoliberalism? And do people really think that the Western tycoon-owned media would fervently back a progressive uprising? The truth is that if there was a truly progressive rebellion against neoliberalism in Syria then the imperialists, despite their frosty relations with the Syria regime, would be supporting Assad in crushing it. It is worth going back to the events in Syria and Lebanon in 1976. Then Lebanon was in a civil war that pitted leftist and Palestinian forces in a coalition against conservative forces. Although there was also a sectarian aspect to the conflict with many Muslims supporting the leftist-Palestinian side and many Christians the right-wing side, the working class definitely was on side with the leftist-Palestinian coalition. However, with this progressive side nearing victory, Bashar Al-Assad’s father, Hafeez, sent in the Syrian Army to crush their movement. Although Syria at the time was a Soviet ally and probably had even frostier relations with the West than it had at the start of the 2011-2012 uprising, the U.S. and France welcomed Syria’s repressive intervention. Those leftists who today support the Syrian “Rebels” please take note! If Assad was indeed crushing a progressive uprising then the imperialists would be supporting him – not opposing him!

Now another argument raised by leftist supporters of the Syrian Opposition actually refers to events like Syria’s repression of the leftist-Palestinian movement in Lebanon. It claims that the Syrian government is equally pro-imperialist as the Opposition. According to this schema, the Western imperialists only really decided to support the Opposition by chance. Yet if both sides were equally subservient to them then the imperial powers would have backed Assad since there is no way the Opposition would have the strength to take power without their support. The Baathists

“anti-imperialism” is indeed rather flimsy. However, the imperialists want totally reliable puppets. And the Syrian government is not subservient enough for them. It is notable that in the infamous 2002 Nuclear Posture Review delivered by the U.S. Department of Defence, Syria is named as one of only seven countries against whom the Pentagon was ordered to draft plans for a nuclear strike (Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.) The list is telling. Of the other six countries, two – Iraq and Libya – have already been subjected to imperialist-imposed regime change and another, Iran, is widely believed to be next in the firing line. Two of the other countries are the socialistic states who are, ultimately, most targeted by imperialism: China and North Korea. In any case, one does not have to take our word nor that of any other left group as to which side in the Syrian conflict is more pro-imperialist. For the imperialists have themselves decided that question – they have delivered their verdict by choosing to support the “Rebels” against the Syrian government. And that says it all!

Some leftists say that the Syrian uprising is part of the Arab Spring and that’s why we must support it even if the imperialists are attempting to intervene in the Arab Spring in order to bring it under its influence. There is no doubt that the Syrian uprising was influenced by the Arab Spring – the regional uprising which began in Tunisia, spread to Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and other countries. Western imperialism quickly saw the potential damage to their interests if many of their US-backed rulers in such countries were overthrown and if this occurred as a result of movements developing into an anti-imperialist, pro-working class direction. Thus the West partially engineered revolts in countries with more strained relations with them – Libya and Syria in particular – and then moved to derail initially independent forces that joined these movements for their own reasons by steering these whole uprisings into a decisively pro-Western direction. As in Afghanistan and other countries, Western imperialism is quite happy to use a combination of religious fundamentalist and other pro-Western elements to set up a totally subservient, pro-imperialist government. The best way to open the road to a true Spring for the toiling masses and the women of Syria is to support all efforts to defeat US and Western proxy imperialism there. In this struggle, the Assad government is a temporary, but only temporary, ally.

Perhaps the most sophisticated rationale promoted for discounting the significance of Western imperialist backing for the “Rebels” is the claim that this is a conflict between different imperialisms – between Western and Russian imperialism. Yet this argument is totally invalid for two reasons. Firstly, while Russia has military strength inherited from the USSR and Russia’s capitalist rulers would like to be an imperialist power, it as yet lacks the economic clout to be an independent full-scale imperialist power. Secondly, and more importantly, Russia does not have the economic strength to turn Syria into its own neocolony, the way that the Western imperialists want to. Thus it seeks only to maintain the pre-“Uprising” status quo where it has some influence. Yet even in that status quo, it was the Western powers rather than Russia that were the biggest players in the Syrian economy.

Indeed, those leftists that support the “Rebels” have unwittingly admitted this when they speak of the “the West’s preference for authoritarian, neoliberal regimes such as Assad’s” (Green Left Weekly, 1 July, emphasis added.) Indeed in Syria’s oil sector, the biggest players are not Russian corporations but the British/Dutch Shell, France’s Total and Britain’s Gulfsands. Thus, in the situation today where the Western powers are trying to raise their domination over Syria from the level of parasitism to the level of outright neocolonial subjugation, socialists should welcome any Russian arms that flow onto the side of the Syrian government.

CORRECT THEORY AND CORRECT PRACTICE

So why are leftists throwing up faulty arguments which lead them and those they influence to back pro-imperialist forces in Syria? Ultimately, they are indirectly bending to the intense media propaganda. Thus, when holding stalls on campuses and the like it is easier, when queried by people influenced by media lies, to say that “we support the Syrian uprising too.” Yet a wrong theoretical approach also makes it more likely to capitulate to these pressures. This wrong theoretical approach gives more weight to abstract calls for “democracy” in Developing Countries ahead of the need to free these countries from imperialist domination. Yet, all the so-called “Third World” countries are ground down and exploited by imperialism. This includes Syria where much of the hardship was caused by imperialist-dictated austerity measures like privatsiations, subsidy cuts and the ending of price curbs. Thus in these countries, the struggle against imperialist subjugation is a central task of any progressive revolution. In turn, if the imperialists choose to support a movement it definitely cannot be progressive!

Furthermore, it is the poverty and inequality caused by imperialist exploitation that is the cause of dictatorial rule in the semi-colonial countries. As long as these conditions exist – and they will remain as long as capitalists remain in state power – then the rulers of these countries can keep the masses down only through dictatorship. Thus any new government that is brought to power with imperialist backing and is thus beholden to allow still greater imperialist exploitation of their country, will necessarily be compelled to unleash even more severe repression than the government it deposed. This will be the case regardless of whether it came to power promising, or even intending, to bring more “democracy.” That is why the idea that one can in certain circumstances “use” imperialist assistance to help “win democracy” in a Developing Country is a fantasy. Libya proved this yet again. There the movement that took power with imperialist backing in the name of “democracy” has unleashed the most fearsome terror as it seeks to suppress the masses facing greater poverty and inequality as a result of more savage looting by imperialist corporations.

Sydney, 27 March 2011: The first action in Australia against the NATO attack on Libya. The united-front rally opposed all forms of imperialist intervention – military, diplomatic and funding of political groups – in the Middle East and called to “Defeat the NATO air strikes on Libya!” The demonstration was initiated by Trotskyist Platform, which at the rally emphasised the need to stand for the defeat of the NATO imperialists and its allies and for defence of the Libyan forces being attacked by them.

If leftists can understand this point, they will be more resistant to mainstream media claims that Western-backed movements will bring “democracy.” This struggle for theoretical clarification is thus vital. The issue of Syria concerns not just the fate of Syria but the whole Middle East and ultimately the whole world. The largest body of left-wing forces as possible must be cohered to agitate for workers’ action within the Western countries against the neo-colonial proxy war on Syria. ☭