How Should Marxists Respond to the Yemen Crisis? — by Hamid Vahed
The focus of political crisis has been shifting from one point to another very rapidly. What started in Tunisia transferred to Egypt and toppled the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. Following the events in Egypt, the people of Libya and Syria rose up against their dictators. If Qaddafi was overthrown relatively easily with the help of the whole imperialist world, Assad in Syria has survived after three years of armed struggle.
Unlike Qaddafi, who was completely isolated, Assad has enjoyed the assistance of Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah, and Iraq’s Shia militias. In Syria, the Alawites, who are a Shia sect, have the upper hand in the government.
Space for a progressive party was lacking in the Syrian crisis. Progressives were hemmed in by both the Assad government and reactionary parts of the opposition, which were funded by imperialists and subimperialists like Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
With the appearance of ISIS, the crisis was transferred to Iraq. ISIS took advantage of the unhappiness of the Sunni minority in Iraq and conquered some major cities like Mosul. The advance of ISIS was stopped by the resistance in Kobane, in the Kurdish region of Syria. In fact, Kobane rekindled the spirit of revolution in the Syrian civil war. Although the leaders of the resistance in Kobane were impressed by the newly anarchist ideas of “Apo” Ocalan, the leader of the PKK, revolutionary Marxists all over the word supported and helped the resistance in Kobane. For Marxists, Kobane recalled the Paris Commune. Although it was organized in part by anarchists, Marx and Engels did not hesitate to support the first workers’ state.
Kobane was an exception in our era, in which religious movements have appeared, one after the other. Once Marx said, “Religion is the opium of the people.” By that Marx meant that religion acts like a tranquilizer that calms down the exploited, unhappy workers, and makes them stop asking questions and fighting for justice, instead relaxing and praying. If Marx witnessed the emergence of Khomeinism in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Boko Haram in Nigeria, and ISIS in Syria/Iraq, he would have said religion is the LSD of the people, which makes people nuts and wanting to explode themselves and behead their foes and all of it under the name of Allah and his Prophet Muhammad. In the face of all these reactionary religious movements, Kobane was an exception in that leftist fighters there defeated ISIS.
Soon after the victory in Kobane against ISIS, the flame of civil war flared up in Yemen.
Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Yemen was divided between South and North. The South was supported by the Soviet Union and the North was pro-Western. After the collapse of the Soviet bloc, Yemen became one country. The conflict between the present Yemeni government and the Houthis goes back a decade. The Houthis are a sect of Shia Islam. The Islamic Republic of Iran has supported and trained their militia. Last month, during the celebration of the anniversary of the founding of the Islamic Republic, a picture of the Houthi leader — Abdolmalek Alhouti — was carried in the procession.
Iran’s intervention in Yemen has worsened its relations with the Saudis. Recently, some Arab countries like Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, and Kuwait, as well as Turkey and Pakistan, started air strikes against the Houthis, who are in control of most of the Yemen. The U.S. and Israel openly supported these airstrikes.
The Houthis want a religious Islamic government. The Marxist position should be to reject the rhetoric of Islamic leaders when they use populist propaganda to stir up the masses. Unlike many in the global Left today, who have supported Assad, the Houthis and Iran, the Marxist position should condemn the imperialist attack on Yemen but should not fall for the anti-U.S., anti-Israeli rhetoric of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Houthis.
Both sides of the conflict in Yemen are reactionary. The Houthis want to impose a religious government and are supported by Iran, while the other side is supported by imperialist and subimperialists (Turkey and Saudi Arabia).
Stalinists have openly and without any hesitation supported and defended the Houthi rebels, but Marxists should not forget the outcome of the Iranian revolution of 1979.
A friend of mine asked me if the possibilities existed for a progressive movement in Yemen, similar to Kobane. I replied that I am not sure, but noted that for more than twenty years a pro-Soviet regime ruled South Yemen. It was the only Arab country where something like this took place. During this time, Marxist literature was published and many progressive social measures were taken. Marxist revolutionaries in the Dhofar region of neighboring Oman also fought a long war against the imperialists and the Shah of Iran in this period.
To be sure, the Marxist tradition exists in Yemen, but the question is how and when this tradition will bear fruit and we will witness the development of a revolutionary party in Yemen.
هیچ نظری موجود نیست:
ارسال یک نظر