Third phase of the Egyptian Revolution: Is this the path to war?Horace G.
Campbell2013-07-11, Issue 638 <http://www.pambazuka.org/en/issue/638>
http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/88195<http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/88195>[image:
Bookmark and 
Share]<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=fahamutech>Printer
friendly version <http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/88195/print>

*cc S G* <https://picasaweb.google.com/107591330714321806681>This phase of
the revolution will require clarity from those who understand that the
future of Egypt depends on the conscious and organized action of the people
to avoid open warfare. The agents of militarism are ready to use the excuse
of violence and security to hijack the will of the people

The contemporary Egyptian Revolution commenced after a popular uprising on
January 25, 2011, whereby millions of protesters from diverse
socio-economic, political and religious backgrounds demanded the overthrow
of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The Egyptian army's ousting of the
democratically-elected president, Mohammed Morsi, in a military coup on
July 3, 2013, marked a new phase of the revolution. This new phase has
gripped the attention of humanity as the differing paths become clear. Will
the popular progressive forces of workers, grassroots women, students,
cultural workers, journalists and the secular elements of religious
tolerance be able to build a new form of politics to break the power of the
military and entrenched social and economic forces? Or, will the military
along with their external allies and bankrollers in the United States and
Saudi Arabia thrust the society into civil war? The crossroad of a
protracted popular struggle for transformation and the alternative of civil
war became more open after the massacre of over 51 protestors on Monday
July 8, 2013, five days after the military removed the constitutionally
elected President Mohammed Morsi. [i] Vigilance and clarity will be crucial
to ensure that this military coup does not bring a repeat of the kind of
warfare and violence that overtook Algeria after 1992. Up to this moment,
twenty-one years later, Algeria has not recovered from the grip of military
orchestrated violence and killings.

The period of June 30 to July 3, 2013 in Egypt was one of tremendous
mobilization and organization by the people who opposed the Muslim
Brotherhood government. The mass mobilization by the ‘Tamarod’ (Rebellion),
to galvanize over 22 million signatures calling for the removal of Morsi
and then bringing out over 34 million people on the streets on June 30,
represented a new example of political mobilization and organization. Yet,
the military are the ones who have come to the fore in this stage of the
revolution. Noted author, Esam Al-Amin has summed up the return of the
military to power in his article, ‘In Egypt the Military is Supreme: How to
Thwart Democracy?’ [ii]

The Egyptian military is not monolithic and there are considerable class
differences in this force of close to one million (over 470,000 active
personnel and 480,000 active reserve personnel.) This military has a
considerable stake in the economy, controlling between 25 to 40 per cent of
the GDP. When one considers the cooperation between the US military and the
Egyptian military, epitomized by the $1.3 billion disbursement every year,
then there is clarity on what the people of Egypt are up against. [iii]
This is a military that employs conscripted labour and seeks to provide the
conditions for the accumulation of wealth by the top one per cent in Egypt
and to provide the conditions for the export of capital to the western
capitalist states from Egypt. For decades, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) had
developed an alliance with the military and the ruling political class,
dating back to the 14-year presidency of former President Gamal Nasser. It
was this alliance that provided the conditions for Mohammed Morsi to emerge
as President out of a convoluted electoral process. However, it became very
apparent after a few months that the MB could not contain the widespread
opposition of the people to joblessness, extreme poverty, homelessness,
destitution along with fuel shortages. Thus, the alliance between the MB
and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) cracked. From this crack
came the coup and now this third phase of the revolution. In this analysis,
we draw from the lessons of the previous two phases of the revolution and
seek to learn the positive lessons for a protracted struggle for the
development of a truly revolutionary consciousness to set in motion a
process of structural transformation. Not only is vigilance and clarity
needed inside Egypt but outside. Those who want world peace must oppose the
machinations of the imperial forces that are supporting the
unconstitutional removal of an elected President. This has set a dangerous
precedent and the African Union correctly condemned the coup.

THE FIRST PHASE OF THE REVOLUTION

The first two phases of the revolution have received massive commentary
from inside and outside Egypt. Phase one consisted of the 18-day
mobilization that culminated in the removal of the Hosni Mubarak regime on
February 11, 2011. The outpouring of popular opposition and the forms of
organization had been documented extensively. Writers such as Esam Al Amin,
Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Wael Eskandar, Ahdaf Soueif, Samir Amin, Nawal El
Saadawi and numerous bloggers can be distinguished in their account of this
phase.

Esam Al Amin, in a series of articles compiled in a book, has outlined why
the struggles in Egypt merited to be recognized as a revolutionary
struggle. In one particular article, ‘Conditions and Consequences: Anatomy
of Egypt’s Revolution,’ Al Amin underscored the popular basis of the
revolution and the social forces that had set this revolutionary
consciousness in motion. He later elaborated on these themes in the book,
‘The Arab Awakening Unveiled: Understanding Transformations and Revolutions
in the Middle East’. [iv]

THE SECOND PHASE: CONSOLIDATING THE REVOLUTION

The second stage of the Revolution began after February 11, 2011. It was
the struggle to organize a new mode of politics to meet the needs of the
people. In the first phase, despite the massive outpourings on the streets,
it was when the workers downed tools all over Egypt that the regime finally
fell. Yet, in the immediate aftermath of the removal of Hosni Mubarak,
there was focus on the electoral forms of struggles. While the media
focused on elections and constitutions, the workers took to massive strikes
and reports by the Egyptian Centre for Social and Economic Rights (ECESR)
in April 2013 detailed labour strikes that took place in Egypt in 2012.
These struggles by the workers in Egypt involved railway workers, public
transport workers, doctors and police officers. ‘According to the report,
in 2012, Egypt witnessed 1,969 protests by workers – in the government,
public and private sectors – marking a considerable increase compared to
2010, when only 530 protests were recorded. The 2012 protests listed in the
report represented one of the highest levels of social struggle worldwide
and include demonstrations, sit-ins, road blockages and strikes. For the
first five months of 2013 the industrial activity by workers intensified
with initial reporting that there were 5,544 strikes and other
self-activity by workers in Egypt. These workers had broken the shackles of
the trade union organization that had been imposed on Egyptian workers by
the Egyptian Trade Union Federation; the industrial wing of Mr. Mubarak's
now disbanded National Democratic Party (NDP). For three decades this NDP
controlled trade union organization had restricted strike actions and trade
union activities to defend the rights of workers and their communities. It
was significant that on January 30, 2011, in the midst of the first phase
of the revolution the Egyptian Federation of Independent Trade Unions
(EFITU) was launched and immediately drew millions of new workers to its
ranks.

Together with the Egyptian Democratic Labor Congress (EDLC), EFITU has been
fighting for a basic freedom, the freedom of association that should be the
right of workers and the right to form their own organizations and
associations. On November 25, 2012, President Morsi issued a decree on
trade unions, Decree 97 of 2012, which had far reaching implications for
the independent activity of workers. [v] According to one scholar who
studied the implications of this decree, ‘The decree also authorized
Minister of Manpower and Migration Khalid al-Azhari of the Muslim
Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party to appoint replacements to vacant
trade union offices if no second-place candidate exists. State security
officials banned thousands of opposition trade unionists from running in
2006, so hundreds of candidates ran unopposed. Thus, as many as 150 Muslim
Brothers could be appointed to posts in ETUF’s 24 national sector unions,
while 14 of 24 executive board members will be sacked.’

As the Muslim Brotherhood moved to take control of all forms of independent
organizations and local governments the mass of people, whether in the
schools, media, arts or film began to see that the revolution to replace
Mubarak had been replaced by an organization that simply wanted to step
into the positions of the old Mubarak forces and hasten what commentators
termed the ‘Brotherhoodization’ of Egypt and its unions. [vi] It was the
response to this Brotherhoodization that ushered in the third phase of the
revolution.

BROTHERHOOD AND NEO-LIBERALISM

The occurrence of these social struggles after Morsi’s presidential
election in June 2012 highlights the reality that the core goals of the
revolution were not being addressed. Amr Adly raised a fundamental
question: ‘Perhaps the revolution has been aborted, leading to a transfer
of power to a broad alliance consisting of the army, intelligence services,
police, and a new political class dominated by the Brotherhood. This
alliance is devoted to the same repressive policies of the old July
regime—the denial of civil liberties, trade union rights, freedom of
information and expression, the right to assemble, and the independence of
civil society. Instead, this regime favours the rituals of procedural
democracy where every few years citizens make a mass pilgrimage to the
voting booth. Perhaps it is more accurate to call this an authoritarian
electoral system rather than a democracy.’ [vii]

The Revolution was sparked by the massive oppression of the majority of the
Egyptian people while the oligarchs managed their relationship with
international finance capital mediated through the International Monetary
Fund. No sooner had the people removed the repressive Mubarak regime than
the MB announced that they were negotiating an austerity program in
exchange for a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund. As
the people mobilized against the ‘Brotherhoodization of Egypt,’ this second
phase revealed the clarity that religion alone cannot change the conditions
of life. The reality was that the MB and its political leadership solely
offered religion and Sharia law as an antidote to the grinding exploitation
of the people. Millions had come out in the elections looking for
alternatives to the austerity measures of the military and the MB, but the
fundamentalists (even with their differences) only offered more religious
statements and the politics of exclusion. In order to change from the
neo-liberal policies of Mubarak, more was needed than elections. Yet, the
liberal orientation of the organizers of the National Salvation Front and
their allies at home and abroad was to focus on elections as the evidence
of democratic participation when all over Egypt the anti-democratic control
of social organizations had been underway. Esam Al Amin summed up this
electoral stage in this way,

‘Over the next two years, the political process that followed Mubarak’s
overthrow allowed for the will of the Egyptian people to be expressed
numerous times through free and fair elections and referenda. The people in
Egypt went to the polls at least six times: to vote for a referendum to
chart the political way forward (March 2011), to vote for the lower and
upper house of parliament (November 2011-January 2012), to elect a civilian
president over two rounds (May-June 2012), and to ratify the new
constitution (December 2012). Each time the electorate voted for the choice
of the Islamist parties to the frustration of the secular and liberal
opposition.’

These votes demonstrated to the people that the electoral game was rigged
and soon the younger citizens began to learn of the historic alliance
between the Brotherhood and the military. Wael Eskandar has most recently
written a quite lucid recapitulation of the close cooperation of the
‘Brothers and Officers: A History of Pacts.’ [viii]

Younger readers may not be aware that whatever the origins of the MB, this
organization had been propped up by western forces as an anti-communist
front during the Cold War. With the support of the US intelligence services
and the conservative Islamists in Saudi Arabia, this Muslim Brotherhood
grew to be a major political force in North Africa and Arabia. Through
periods of conflict and cooperation, the ruling elite and the Brotherhood
mapped out a strategy to consume the energies of the youth in the direction
of destructive intolerance and male chauvinism. [ix] Eskander outlined the
constitutional initiatives undertaken by President Morsi and concluded that
‘the constitution, which was prepared by a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated
constituent assembly, provides basis for military trials of civilians and
sets the military’s budget and activities, including its revenue-generating
economic enterprises, above the reach of conventional parliamentary
oversight. In other words, the ‘new‘ political order in the country is one
that seems to be governed by a partnership between the Muslim Brotherhood
and long-standing bureaucratic centers of power entrenched inside the
Egyptian state—a partnership that speaks to a long history of pacts between
the Brothers and successive wielders of power in Egypt.’

>From day one of the overthrow of Mubarak, the very organizations that
toppled Mubarak determined to maintain their independent character and it
was this character that unleashed the forms of organization to usher in the
third phase of this ongoing revolution.

THE NEW ORGANIZATIONAL FORM FOR REVOLUTIONARY POLITICS AND REVOLUTIONARY
CONSCIOUSNESS

The Egyptian revolutionary process after 2008 (date of the April 6
movement) had been initiated by a loose alliance of differing social
forces. At the time of the first phase of the revolution, I had termed
these forces as belonging to a revolution without self declared
revolutionaries. Then I had noted that ‘The youths and women who have been
organising day and night are the inheritors of organising traditions that
had been undertaken by trade unionists, writers, journalists, farmers,
artists, progressive intellectuals, women, religious forces and patriotic
business-persons. The strength of these social forces is so remarkable that
the ruling elements resorted to violence.’ However, the very looseness
which was a source of strength was infiltrated by the differing social
forces who wanted to oppose President Morsi without opposing
neo-liberalism. Thus, in light of the opposition to the Brotherhoodization
of the society, elements such as Mohamed El Baradei had joined the
movement, crafted a National Salvation Front (NSF) and offered himself up
as a leader of the popular revolt. Like the MB, El Baradei has no
alternative to the austerity packages of the IMF and his appointment as
vice president to the interim president, Adly Mansour, will sharpen the
contradictions within the ‘Tamarod’ (Rebellion).

By the time of the anti-democratic decrees of President Morsi, the elements
from the Mubarak regime (called the fulool) had calculated that the wave of
rebellions and strikes would delegitimize the Morsi regime. These elements
from the party of Mubarak, the National Democratic Party (NDP), therefore
attached themselves to the growing rebellion hiding behind the youths,
workers, students and women. Hence, the very loose organizational form that
had been a source of strength in the first phase threatened to be a source
of manipulation as the old bourgeois and liberal forces such as El Baradei
joined in this rebellion. In this third stage there were differing social
forces with contradictory agendas; the revolutionary youths, workers and
women, elements from the Mubarak party (NDP), former security officers,
liberals such as El Baradei, leaders of the Coptic Church, all united
against the political rule of Morsi and the Brotherhood. With far more
resources and organizational depth, the former officials of the Mubarak
period plotted and waited. The integration of the El Baradei wing of the
rebellion with western financial centers became evident from the interviews
that were being given to the Anglo-American media.

Because the base of the rebellion had been in the independent actions of
the poor and organized workers, the depth of the rebellion eclipsed the
machinations of the fulool and the liberal elements. As the writer Adel
Iskandar, summed up in his article titled ‘Tamarod: Egypt's Revolution
Hones its Skills,’ the:

‘Tamarod stands to be one of the most successful ever, having garnered
colossal engagement in a record time period. All this was done while
inspiring a spontaneous eruption of popular dissent that promises to
eclipse even the eighteen days in 2011. While this success deserves to be
acknowledged, it should rightfully raise suspicions and concerns about what
could be done with all this political capital and bring forth queries about
whether Tamarod was facilitated, sponsored, or propped up by such
authoritative institutions as the military or security services. As
Egyptians descend into the streets in the hundreds of thousands if not
millions to couple their petition signatures with corporeal representation,
it remains too early to resolve these questions. For now, we can only stop
and marvel at how agile, energetic, imaginative, and resilient Egypt’s
revolutionary current has thus far proven to be.’ [x]

The organized and spontaneous activities of the Tamarod coalesced in a
novel campaign to gather signatures to call for the removal of President
Morsi. From April 2013, the forces of the rebellion organized a campaign to
call for early Presidential elections by gathering 15 million signatures, a
million more than Morsi had received during his presidential run. The
Tamarod had called for a day of protest on June 30 for the people to show
their collective opposition. The call was answered when millions, some say
up to 34 million Egyptians, answered this call and took to the streets
across Egypt to demand Mr. Morsi resign and allow fresh presidential
elections to be held. The movement promised a campaign of civil
disobedience if the president did not step down. Mr. Morsi rejected the
calls, but on 1 July the military warned him to satisfy the public's
demands or see the generals impose their own ‘road map’. We now know from
the Western media that the US national security adviser to President Barack
Obama gave the go ahead to the Egyptian military to proceed with the
military coup after the millions of people came out on the streets on June
30. [xi] We also know that on June 8, 2013 U.S. Secretary of State John
Kerry confirmed that Egypt would receive $1.3 billion in military
assistance. [xii]

The military had been planning all along to ‘stabilize’ the situation in
Egypt and when faced with the millions in the streets, the head of the
military issued an ultimatum to President Morsi giving him 48 hours to
reach an agreement with the opposition. Mr. Morsi rejected the ultimatum
and stated clearly that he was the legitimate leader of the country. Morsi
stated categorically that any effort to remove him by force could plunge
Egypt into chaos. Based on the long history of double-dealing by both the
MB and the military, Morsi had been confident that with superior
organization, the MB could prevail, but the internal and external forces of
capital could not tolerate the leadership of Morsi that galvanized the
popular opposition. By July 3, the defense minister and head of the armed
forces, Gen Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, announced that the constitution had been
suspended and that Chief Justice Adly Mansour would oversee an interim
period with a technocratic government until presidential and parliamentary
elections are held. The government of the United States refused to call
this a coup playing around with words to disguise its alliance with the
military and the fulool. At a news conference on Monday July 8, Jay Carney,
the press secretary for President Barack Obama, stated that, ‘We have not
made a determination about what to call or label the events in Egypt that
led to the change in government there.’ He said, ‘We will take the time
necessary as we review our legal obligations and as we consult with
Congress when it comes to this issue of designating and labeling the events
that took place.’ [xiii] Under Section 508 of the Foreign Assistance Act it
is unequivocally stated that there can be no aid ‘to any country whose duly
elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.’ However,
the tripartite pact between Egypt, Israel, and the USA is so central to the
military management of the international system by the USA that the
political leaders in the USA cannot call the unconstitutional removal of a
president a ‘coup.’

WHICH MILITARY ORCHESTRATED THE COUP?

The more perceptive sections of the people of Egypt understand clearly that
maintaining the neo-liberal based external oriented economic system
prevents processes of structural transformation to improve their economic
conditions. Although this is now clear as the global capitalist crisis
deepens, western capital considers Egypt too strategic for the people of
Egypt to determine their own destiny. Western commentators (especially from
the think tanks in Washington, D.C) will dwell on the fact that the US has
provided over $60 billion over the past three decades and that every year
the US delivers $1.3 to the military. However, as we stated from the
outset, this military is not monolithic. The top officers of the military
share the same social background as other capitalists in Egypt and the
military benefited from the nationalizations that had taken place under
Nasser. These senior officers are the ones who manage vast land holdings
and businesses. It was over 40 years ago when in the book, ‘Egypt Military
Society: the Army Regime, the Left, and Social Change Under Nasser’, we
learned of the pivotal role of the military in Egyptian society. [xiv]
These same officers dominate the boards of parastatals and have access to
lucrative contracts after they retire from the military. Estimates vary as
to the size of military-owned industries .The companies not only produce
military hardware, but also products and services for the domestic consumer
economy.

The senior officers ‘have access to a wide array of government posts after
retirement, subsidized services and goods, the command of significant
resources and opportunities within the civilian economy, and elevated
social status. The officers’ republic additionally exercises exclusive
control over the defense budget, U.S. military assistance, and
military-owned businesses. Moreover, it is underpinned by a deep sense of
institutional and personal entitlement. Rolling it back will be a delicate,
protracted process that will take many years. It plays a social role,
providing employment and a sense of national identity to many Egyptians.’

This officer corps has very little in common with the conscripted labour
working in the state owned enterprises or the conscripted soldiers in the
armed forces. Thanks to Wikileaks we know that US diplomats have been
monitoring economic activities and the fact that they controlled ‘the
network of commercial enterprises particularly active in the sectors of
water, oil, cement, construction, hospitality, distribution of fuel and a
large housing stock in the Nile delta and the Red Sea coast.’ As owners of
large enterprises this military high command was taken aback by the wave of
strikes and popular opposition to President Morsi. The contradictions that
led to the break between the military and President Morsi are the same
contradictions that will lead to a break in the military between the top
officer corps and the rank and file. This phase of the revolution will
require clarity from those who understand that the future of Egypt will
depend on the conscious and organized action of the people of Egypt to
avoid open warfare. The massacre of 51 protesters on July 8, 2013 opened
new paths for crushing the popular outpourings under the guise of seeking
stability. President Putin of Russia has stated that Egypt is headed
towards civil war, but this is not an outcome which should be anticipated
by those who want peace and social justice.

WAR AND REVOLUTION

The class warfare in Egypt that ushered in the peaceful revolution to
overthrow the Mubarak regime is now threatened with violent confrontations.
Nawal El Saadawi, the veteran feminist writer, has boldly stated that the
people’s revolution in Egypt is neither a crisis nor a coup. [xv]

However, far more than bold statements are now required to strengthen the
popular forces to withstand the repression of the military as they will
seek to implement the austerity measures of the International Monetary
Fund. The leaders of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have now
chipped in $8 billion to shore up the military coup. [xvi] But the crisis
in Egypt is not one of an absence of resources; it is the absence of the
organization of the resources for the 85 million Egyptians. There are
powerful external forces that are arraigned against the people of Egypt and
believe that the domestic needs of the society should be subordinated to
external interests. The fuel crisis in Egypt is a prime example of the
planners placing the needs of supplying gas to Israel over the interests of
the poor. Additionally, the poor in Egypt have watched as the workers of
Syria are caught between an oppressive Assad regime and an Islamist
opposition that does not offer any real alternative to President Assad.
These Egyptians have witnessed the recent history of Algeria where the
Algerian military in alliance with the Western capitalist states waged a
bloody war against the Islamists who had won the 1992 elections.

These experiences of Syria and Algeria weigh heavily on all popular forces
as they ponder the paths of war and revolution. More than twenty years ago,
the realist of International Relations theory in the USA, Stephen Walt,
wrote an important book on ‘War and Revolution’. In this book Walt noted
that, ‘revolutions are much more than critical events in the history of
individual nations, they are usually watershed events in international
politics. Revolutions cause sudden shifts in the balance of power, alter
the pattern of international alignments, cast doubt on existing agreements
and diplomatic norms, and provide inviting opportunities for other states
to improve their positions. They also demonstrate that novel ways of
organizing social and political life are possible and often sympathizers in
other countries. Thus, although revolutions by definition occur within a
single country, their impact is rarely confined to one state alone. Indeed,
revolutions tend to disrupt the international system in important ways.’
[xvii] Though I do not agree with the realism of Walt, but in this instance
the views of Stephen Walt coincide with the earlier observation that
Egypt’s popular revolution will change the world. Already, the counter
–revolution that arose in Libya after February 2011, exposed the duality of
revolution and counter-revolution within one region. The coup in Egypt
coming in the aftermath of the massive outpouring of 34 million on the
streets on June 30, 2013 has also brought home this duality of revolution
and counter-revolution inside Egypt. *Vladimir Lenin had also discussed at
great length the relationship between war and revolution and explored the
major wars that swept Europe after the French Revolution. Though both Walt
and Lenin dealt with the relationship between wars and revolution, Lenin
asked different questions from Walt. Lenin had paid close attention to
which class in society was benefitting from war and more importantly to the
social forces that can overcome war. This same germ of hope is now
expressed by progressive Egyptians who have written that ‘there is still
hope for the Egyptian revolution.*’ [xviii] However, recent experience of
the youths who organized behind Barack Obama on the promise of hope has
shown very quickly that ‘hope’ is insufficient to curb the power of the
entrenched financial oligarchs. These experiences from Egypt in 2011 and
the United States in 2007-2008 exposed the reality that the progressive
forces must be very clear about their objectives and their strategies when
they enter into alliances with other social forces. This is even more
crucial when the kind of violence that was unleashed on Monday promises a
new wave of repression. The progressive forces inside this phase of the
revolution will need to ensure that when the violence stops, the military
and the oligarchs will not be the ones to claim victory and to claim that
Egypt has been stabilized.

Sharif Abdel Kouddous, the young Egyptian journalist, noted that ‘the mass
mobilization on June 30 eclipsed even the 2011 demonstrations against Hosni
Mubarak; a few days later, on July 3, the army forced Morsi out of office,
in what amounted to a military coup. His year-long tenure ended with a
televised address by the head of SCAF.’ [xix] He concluded that, ‘If recent
history is any indication, continued authoritarianism in Egypt will only be
met with more mass mobilizations and revolutionary calls for change.’

Western imperial interests have made it crystal clear what kind of change
they want in Egypt. The Wall Street Journal has called for a Pinochet to
emerge from the officer corps while Tony Blair has called for the European
financial elite to throw their weight behind the coup. The Wall Street
Journal and Tony Blair are too far behind because they do not understand
that whatever comes next, the Egyptian revolution has already deepened the
disruption of the international system that had been established to
maintain western interests in Africa and the middle East. The prolonged and
protracted struggles for peace and social justice will call for responses
inside and outside of Egypt. If and when outright war comes in this phase
the progressive forces inside Egypt will have to have an answer on how to
end the war.

In this third phase of the revolution, the progressive forces need to have
a clear and concrete plan on how to counter the violence coming out of the
Egyptian military because – from the lessons learned in Algeria and
elsewhere – it’s the progressive voices that easily get silenced when
agents of militarism use the excuse of violence and security to hijack the
will of the people. Revolution is not an event but a process. The history
of revolution and war should steel the women, progressive youth, and
workers to be prepared for a protracted struggle.

* Horace Campbell is Professor of African American Studies and Political
Science, Syracuse University. Campbell is also the Special Invited
Professor of International Relations at Tsinghua University, Beijing. He is
the author of Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya: Lessons
for Africa in the Forging of African Unity, Monthly Review Press, New York,
2013.

END NOTES

[i] http://tinyurl.com/pdsc8ga
[ii] Esam Al Amin, http://tinyurl.com/pj9kvrd
[iii] Jeremy M Sharp, “Egypt: background and U.S. Relations,” Congressional
Research Service, June 27, 2013
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33003.pdf
[iv] Esam Al Amin, The Arab Awakening Unveiled: Understanding
Transformations and Revolutions in the Middle East, American Educational
Trust, 2013
[v] http://tinyurl.com/o4eyap2
[vi] http://tinyurl.com/ozyle2w
[vii] http://tinyurl.com/nkexpjb
[viii] http://tinyurl.com/p2n9fmg
[ix] Ian Johnson, “Washington’s Secret History with the Muslim
Brotherhood,” New York Review of books, February 11, 2011,
http://tinyurl.com/4scrucn
[x] http://tinyurl.com/nze3ku4
[xi] David D. Kirkpatrick and Matt El Sheikh, “Morsi Spurned Deals, Seeing
Military as Tamed,” New York Times, July 6, 2013. http://tinyurl.com/nw3umek
[xii] http://tinyurl.com/mcepq2r
[xiii] Dana Milbank, “When a coup is not a coup,” Washington Post, July
9,2013,http://tinyurl.com/nh7huyh
[xiv] Abdel Malek, Egypt: Military Society, the Army Regime, the Left, and
Social Change Under Nasser, Random House, New York 1968
[xv] Nawal El Saadawi, “The People’s Revolution in Egypt: Not a Crisis or a
Coup,”http://tinyurl.com/ph46kmz
[xvi] . Dana Stuster, “Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates Rush to
Congratulate Egyptian Military on Transition,” Foreign Policy, July 3, 2013.
http://tinyurl.com/oeq4nwl
[xvii] Stephen M. Walt, Revolution and War, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, 1996, New York. For another view of Revolution and War see V.I.
Lenin, War and Revolution, A lecture delivered May 14, 1917 in Lenin
Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1964, Moscow, Volume 24, pages 398-421
[xviii] Wael Eskander, “There’s Still Hope for The Egyptian Revolution,”
Counterpunch, July 1, 2013. http://tinyurl.com/nf9wo27
[xix] Sharif Abdel Kouddous, “What Led to Morsi's Fall—and What Comes
Next?” The Nation, July 5, 2013.
http://www.thenation.com/article/175128/what-led-morsis-fall-and-what-comes-next#axzz2YKf4H8k6
See
also Cihan Tugal, “The End of the “Leaderless” Revolution, Counterpunch,
July 10, 2013, http://tinyurl.com/oqktxhs
------------------------------
READERS' COMMENTS


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to