A quick summary and translation of a message just sent to me by a leftist lawyer: "On Sunday 8 March the south Cairo court will examine the case raised against the Saudi investor Abdallah al-Ka'ki, after he fired nine workers, including two union representatives, after a strike in last July. Please spread the call and participate in a show of solidarity with the workers of Tanta Linen Co. during the court session at the south Cairo court at Bab al-Khalaq on Sunday, 8 March."
The whole message in arabic can be found at Tadamon.
06 March, 2009
04 March, 2009
Business and Democracy - Liberal Think Thank Ramblings
I just stumbled upon a fascinating piece of liberal thinkthanking in last week's issue of Al-Ahram Weekly. Amr Hamzawy, senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Piece, put forward the often repeated argument that the emerging business elite can be a liberalising force. Some excerpts:
"On the otherwise stagnant Arab political scene, something has stirred. Slowly but surely, business elites have found their voice, formed their own associations, and begun to have an input into the region's political and social life. /---/
"The business associations of Morocco and Tunisia and the chambers of commerce of Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait are all playing a major role in determining public policy on labour and investment. Before any laws affecting wages, social security, pensions, unemployment benefits, privatisation, trade, and anti-trust regulations are passed, the business community is consulted."
Hamzawy believes that this increased role of the business elite in politics "may eventually relax the customary grip of the state." Others would say that business elites are naturally opposed to democracy precisely because they want to make sure they, but not the majority of the people, are consulted when it comes to "laws affecting wages, social security, pensions, unemployment benefits, privatisation, trade, and anti-trust regulations."
Liberals often depict various business associations as a vital component of "civil society," without acknowledging that these organizations also have a strong common interest with the authoritarian state in stiffling the free operation of other segments civil society. As Marsha Pripstein Posusney argues in her book Labour and the State in Egypt, "genuine political liberalization would necessarily entail an end to the screening of union leaders and their co-optation into the ruling party, as well as the lifting of the ban on strikes and other legal constraint on union activities. Because these measures have their corollaries in similar restrictions on the activities of professional associations, opposition parties, and mass organizations, liberalizing union laws threatens to unravel the entire repressive apparatus of the regime."
In the last paragraph of his article, Hamzawy admits that most Arab businessmen "would defend their governments to the hilt in the face of opposition movements, whether religious or non- religious," and that "few if any Arab businessmen are willing to speak up for democracy." Despite this he maintains that "their presence gives us a shot at democracy that we wouldn't have had otherwise." That's liberal logic for you.
The article makes sense, however, if "democracy" is defined as something like this: More laws that benefit the business elite, more privatization, lower wages, less social security and unemployment benefits, weaker anti-trust regulations, more flexibility on the labour market, more security crackdowns on union activists, more harassment and lawsuits against independent media that cover labour protests, and so on...
By the way, the wikipedia has this interesting piece of information about Amr's employer: "Jessica T. Mathews, the current president of the institute, has become a source of controversy for the institute due to the claims by the International Labor Rights Forum that garment workers at the TOS factory owned by HanesBrands Inc. in the Dominican Republic are subject to serious workers' rights violations.[5] Mathews is a Board Member of HanesBrands. On March 14, 2008, students and labor activists demonstrated outside the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Carnegie Endowment, in order to "pressure" Mathews to "use her power as a Hanes board member to end sweatshop conditions" at the factory.[6] One worker from the Hanes factory, Julio Castillo, carried a poster with the slogan "Human Rights Hypocrite of the year". According to the protestors, Mathews refused to meet the workers.[6][7]"
"On the otherwise stagnant Arab political scene, something has stirred. Slowly but surely, business elites have found their voice, formed their own associations, and begun to have an input into the region's political and social life. /---/
"The business associations of Morocco and Tunisia and the chambers of commerce of Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait are all playing a major role in determining public policy on labour and investment. Before any laws affecting wages, social security, pensions, unemployment benefits, privatisation, trade, and anti-trust regulations are passed, the business community is consulted."
Hamzawy believes that this increased role of the business elite in politics "may eventually relax the customary grip of the state." Others would say that business elites are naturally opposed to democracy precisely because they want to make sure they, but not the majority of the people, are consulted when it comes to "laws affecting wages, social security, pensions, unemployment benefits, privatisation, trade, and anti-trust regulations."
Liberals often depict various business associations as a vital component of "civil society," without acknowledging that these organizations also have a strong common interest with the authoritarian state in stiffling the free operation of other segments civil society. As Marsha Pripstein Posusney argues in her book Labour and the State in Egypt, "genuine political liberalization would necessarily entail an end to the screening of union leaders and their co-optation into the ruling party, as well as the lifting of the ban on strikes and other legal constraint on union activities. Because these measures have their corollaries in similar restrictions on the activities of professional associations, opposition parties, and mass organizations, liberalizing union laws threatens to unravel the entire repressive apparatus of the regime."
In the last paragraph of his article, Hamzawy admits that most Arab businessmen "would defend their governments to the hilt in the face of opposition movements, whether religious or non- religious," and that "few if any Arab businessmen are willing to speak up for democracy." Despite this he maintains that "their presence gives us a shot at democracy that we wouldn't have had otherwise." That's liberal logic for you.
The article makes sense, however, if "democracy" is defined as something like this: More laws that benefit the business elite, more privatization, lower wages, less social security and unemployment benefits, weaker anti-trust regulations, more flexibility on the labour market, more security crackdowns on union activists, more harassment and lawsuits against independent media that cover labour protests, and so on...
By the way, the wikipedia has this interesting piece of information about Amr's employer: "Jessica T. Mathews, the current president of the institute, has become a source of controversy for the institute due to the claims by the International Labor Rights Forum that garment workers at the TOS factory owned by HanesBrands Inc. in the Dominican Republic are subject to serious workers' rights violations.[5] Mathews is a Board Member of HanesBrands. On March 14, 2008, students and labor activists demonstrated outside the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Carnegie Endowment, in order to "pressure" Mathews to "use her power as a Hanes board member to end sweatshop conditions" at the factory.[6] One worker from the Hanes factory, Julio Castillo, carried a poster with the slogan "Human Rights Hypocrite of the year". According to the protestors, Mathews refused to meet the workers.[6][7]"
03 March, 2009
More labour unrest as economic crisis worsen
Some of the labour actions that have taken place during the last few days, from today's issue of el-Badeel: Workers at two branches of Nile Cotton went on strike, protesting delays in payment of the salaries for februari. At Daytex in Alexandria, workers striked in protest against the continuing refusal of the company to pay last years "labour day bonus." They had been promised to receive it on 1 Mars, but instead discovered that they wouldn't even receive their usual bonuses and allowances on the grounds that the company is making losses. Service taxi drivers in Alexandria also announced a strike in protest against arbitrary fines and abuse by the traffic police. And employees at Atlas Contracting refused to receive their salaries after they discovered the management had deducted 5% from their wages without reason.
Although we can't know for sure, at least three of these protests could be tied to the global economic crisis, that is hitting the Egyptian economy and the textile industry in particular very hard. This point was also made by trade unionist Fatma Ramadan during the discussion organized at the Center for Socialist Studies yesterday. Lay-offs, wage cuts, delayed payments is getting more common, and there is reports about mass dismissals of thousands of workers in the industrial zones - where many are working on temporary contracts or without contracts at all.
Although we can't know for sure, at least three of these protests could be tied to the global economic crisis, that is hitting the Egyptian economy and the textile industry in particular very hard. This point was also made by trade unionist Fatma Ramadan during the discussion organized at the Center for Socialist Studies yesterday. Lay-offs, wage cuts, delayed payments is getting more common, and there is reports about mass dismissals of thousands of workers in the industrial zones - where many are working on temporary contracts or without contracts at all.
Long live Palestine - and the Arab regimes
I just read this report by Hossam al-Hamalawy about George Galloway's "ass-kissing carneval": "The “red carpet” welcome, planned by Egyptian activists and opposition parliamentarians, to receive George Galloway’s “Viva Palestine” caravan, has been canceled. The activists learned tonight that Mr. Galloway has made arrangements with Mubarak’s NDP, and will be received by Ahmad Ezz, steel industry monopolist, senior NDP henchman, and the target of several anti-corruption campaigns."
A quick online search reveals that the Egyptian regime isn't the only one courted by Galloway. He recently met with the prime minister of Tunisia and hailed the government's support for the people of Gaza. Meanwhile, The Tripoli Post reports that "Libyans at the public and official levels are preparing to welcome the convoy with cheers and support for their noble undertaking.. Leading the welcome preparations of the convoy is the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (GICDF) which said it is to join the Gaza Aid Convey with its own convey of medical aid. ... According to GICDF, the pro-Palestinian British PM George Galloway, the force behind the aid initiative, has been in contact with the foundation and coordinating with it."
Arguably, coordinating with the regimes in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt is probably the only way to have such a caravan pass through the North African countries, and to ensure its entry into Gaza from Egypt. But if Galloway hadn't designed this campaign in order to ensure the maximum possible media attention for himself, he could have considered other ways to support Palestine - without becoming a propaganda tool for authoritarian regimes. This is particularly offending in the case of the Egyptian regime, since it was widely criticized in the region for its stance during the war, its participation in the blockade, and the heavy crackdowns on pro-Gaza demonstrations.
I'd like to draw attention to another initiative recently launched in Sweden: "Ship to Gaza." The idea is "to send a ship from Scandinavia to Gaza via ports in Europe and the Mediterranean with humanitarian assistance, from human to human. The voyage draws attention to an issue that must have a just solution, and sends a clear message to the people in Gaza: you are not alone." Behind this campaign stands solidarity movements, trade unions, religious groups, and European Jews for a Just Peace. Thus, it's a real grassroots initiative, and I would be surprised if the organizers allowed it to be used as internal propaganda by Arab dictators.
UPDATE: Sarah Carr spoke today with Sabah El-Mokhtar, a British lawyer and one of the organisers of the Viva Palestina convoy, who told her: "With the greatest respect to him, none of us know who this Ahmed Ezz is. We are not involved in the domestic politics of Egypt and categorically deny that we have coordinated with political parties. We have to deal with the state's authorities in order to get through Egypt and our coordination has been with these bodies only. If a state wants to send representatives to greet the convoy that is entirely a matter for that state. In the states we have passed through already like Algeria we were greeted by many people and sometimes we didn't know who they were – whether they were official figures or not."
In other words, if any autocratic regime wants to use the convoy as a tool for domestic propaganda, they are most welcome to do so, because the campaign is not involved in "internal politics," and the organizers are too naive or careless to find out who they are dealing with.
Note that I'm not condeming the participants in the convoy or suggesting that their initiative is not a "noble undertaking," as the Libyan state-controlled media put it. I'm just saying that activists in Europe should work harder to find ways to support Palestine without alienating the oppresed opposition in Arab countries, as the struggle for a just solution in Palestine must be linked to the struggle for democratic reform and justice in the Middle East.
A quick online search reveals that the Egyptian regime isn't the only one courted by Galloway. He recently met with the prime minister of Tunisia and hailed the government's support for the people of Gaza. Meanwhile, The Tripoli Post reports that "Libyans at the public and official levels are preparing to welcome the convoy with cheers and support for their noble undertaking.. Leading the welcome preparations of the convoy is the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (GICDF) which said it is to join the Gaza Aid Convey with its own convey of medical aid. ... According to GICDF, the pro-Palestinian British PM George Galloway, the force behind the aid initiative, has been in contact with the foundation and coordinating with it."
Arguably, coordinating with the regimes in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt is probably the only way to have such a caravan pass through the North African countries, and to ensure its entry into Gaza from Egypt. But if Galloway hadn't designed this campaign in order to ensure the maximum possible media attention for himself, he could have considered other ways to support Palestine - without becoming a propaganda tool for authoritarian regimes. This is particularly offending in the case of the Egyptian regime, since it was widely criticized in the region for its stance during the war, its participation in the blockade, and the heavy crackdowns on pro-Gaza demonstrations.
I'd like to draw attention to another initiative recently launched in Sweden: "Ship to Gaza." The idea is "to send a ship from Scandinavia to Gaza via ports in Europe and the Mediterranean with humanitarian assistance, from human to human. The voyage draws attention to an issue that must have a just solution, and sends a clear message to the people in Gaza: you are not alone." Behind this campaign stands solidarity movements, trade unions, religious groups, and European Jews for a Just Peace. Thus, it's a real grassroots initiative, and I would be surprised if the organizers allowed it to be used as internal propaganda by Arab dictators.
UPDATE: Sarah Carr spoke today with Sabah El-Mokhtar, a British lawyer and one of the organisers of the Viva Palestina convoy, who told her: "With the greatest respect to him, none of us know who this Ahmed Ezz is. We are not involved in the domestic politics of Egypt and categorically deny that we have coordinated with political parties. We have to deal with the state's authorities in order to get through Egypt and our coordination has been with these bodies only. If a state wants to send representatives to greet the convoy that is entirely a matter for that state. In the states we have passed through already like Algeria we were greeted by many people and sometimes we didn't know who they were – whether they were official figures or not."
In other words, if any autocratic regime wants to use the convoy as a tool for domestic propaganda, they are most welcome to do so, because the campaign is not involved in "internal politics," and the organizers are too naive or careless to find out who they are dealing with.
Note that I'm not condeming the participants in the convoy or suggesting that their initiative is not a "noble undertaking," as the Libyan state-controlled media put it. I'm just saying that activists in Europe should work harder to find ways to support Palestine without alienating the oppresed opposition in Arab countries, as the struggle for a just solution in Palestine must be linked to the struggle for democratic reform and justice in the Middle East.
02 March, 2009
MB on Gaza, internal reform, and the social protest movement
Islam Online recently published an interview with Mohamed Habib, deputy supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, conducted by blogger and journalist Abdel Moneim Mahmoud. It focuses on the question - asked by many - of why the MB mobilized on a large scale during the recent war on Gaza, while being comparatively passive on internal issues, whether economic or political.
Habib's response is that solidarity with Gaza is among the first priorities of the movement, and that this is not separate from but "parallell" or "equivalent" to demands of internal reform, because of the strong link between fighting Israeli occupation and the autocratic regimes in the region. He also says that the issue of Palestine is the central and most important issue for all muslims and arabs, but also something that concerns the whole world. And for the MB, he says, it enters "the heart of our strategy and planing."
He then goes on to say: "The issue of Palestine, with its regional and international dimensions, has both negative and positive effects on the internal situation, whether economical or political, in the Islamic and the Arab world. We shouldn't distinguish between what's happening on the regional level and internally in Egypt. In our view, solving the question of Palestine will be an entrance to solving the internal problems of the arab nation and muslim nation, including the issue of political reform."
Interestingly, this is almost opposite the slogan that is commonly heard among leftists: that the road the the liberation of Palestine runs through Cairo, Damascus and Amman. One possible way to interpret this statement is as an implicit acknowledment that the MB won't dare to seriously challenge the regime as long as the regional situation means that a MB-led government in Egypt risk being treated as a pariah by the US and the "international community," in the same way as the elected Palestinian government led by Hamas.
Habib also says that support for the Palestinian resistance can "liberate us from fear" and inspire the peaceful struggle for change in Egypt and Arab countries. Comparing the issue of Gaza and internal reform, he says: "There are priorities, and when there is a humanitarian catastrophe as in Gaza, it is a human and legal and national duty to pressure our regimes and governments to move, and to express our angers towards the aggressor."
Still, he acknowledges that "the brotherhood did not respond as strongly to social issues like the bread crisis or soaring prices as we should have at the time." His explanation for this is that "involvement in the social protest movement in a political way could make the regime deal with it more harshly and violently." Despite this, he claims, the MB has been giving support to the social protest movement, and "were present" in many of the protests, including the strikes in Mahalla, "but without giving them a political character to ensure the continued existence [of the movement]."
This sounds rather vague. Also, all the union activists and workers I've met in Mahalla and during other strikes and protests in the industrial sector during the last year strongly denied any involvement of the MB (or any other political group for that matter) in organizing or supporting their struggle. In the rare cases where militant workers have admitted association with - or even talked favorably of - any political trend, it has been the socialists or communists.
Habib's response is that solidarity with Gaza is among the first priorities of the movement, and that this is not separate from but "parallell" or "equivalent" to demands of internal reform, because of the strong link between fighting Israeli occupation and the autocratic regimes in the region. He also says that the issue of Palestine is the central and most important issue for all muslims and arabs, but also something that concerns the whole world. And for the MB, he says, it enters "the heart of our strategy and planing."
He then goes on to say: "The issue of Palestine, with its regional and international dimensions, has both negative and positive effects on the internal situation, whether economical or political, in the Islamic and the Arab world. We shouldn't distinguish between what's happening on the regional level and internally in Egypt. In our view, solving the question of Palestine will be an entrance to solving the internal problems of the arab nation and muslim nation, including the issue of political reform."
Interestingly, this is almost opposite the slogan that is commonly heard among leftists: that the road the the liberation of Palestine runs through Cairo, Damascus and Amman. One possible way to interpret this statement is as an implicit acknowledment that the MB won't dare to seriously challenge the regime as long as the regional situation means that a MB-led government in Egypt risk being treated as a pariah by the US and the "international community," in the same way as the elected Palestinian government led by Hamas.
Habib also says that support for the Palestinian resistance can "liberate us from fear" and inspire the peaceful struggle for change in Egypt and Arab countries. Comparing the issue of Gaza and internal reform, he says: "There are priorities, and when there is a humanitarian catastrophe as in Gaza, it is a human and legal and national duty to pressure our regimes and governments to move, and to express our angers towards the aggressor."
Still, he acknowledges that "the brotherhood did not respond as strongly to social issues like the bread crisis or soaring prices as we should have at the time." His explanation for this is that "involvement in the social protest movement in a political way could make the regime deal with it more harshly and violently." Despite this, he claims, the MB has been giving support to the social protest movement, and "were present" in many of the protests, including the strikes in Mahalla, "but without giving them a political character to ensure the continued existence [of the movement]."
This sounds rather vague. Also, all the union activists and workers I've met in Mahalla and during other strikes and protests in the industrial sector during the last year strongly denied any involvement of the MB (or any other political group for that matter) in organizing or supporting their struggle. In the rare cases where militant workers have admitted association with - or even talked favorably of - any political trend, it has been the socialists or communists.
Railway technicians in Assiut stage sit-in
More protests among the railway workers: El-Badeel reports that 70 technicians at the station in Assiut held a sit-in on Saturday, demanding equality with their colleagues working within the administration after the latter had received a bonus that was twice as high. The sit-in ended quickly after the management had promised to realize the demands.
01 March, 2009
Egyptian National Railways: "The workers' demands took us by surprise"
Al-Masry al-Youm published an interview with top officials of the Egyptian National Railways yesterday, including the general manager Mahmoud Samy. Responding to the question why the company didn't look into the workers demands and attempted to settle the conflict before the recent strikes, in order to protect the interests of the passengers, he says: "First of all, we don't have the financial resources for any new demands from the workers, and when we decided the budget for 2008/2009 no demands existed, either from drivers or others. We were taken by surprise by the demands in late November, and explained to the union that there was no additional resources."
This is a blatant lie, since protests occured on several occasions before November, for example in Februari 2008 and December 2007. But more importantly it's also a sign of the ineffectiveness of the state-controlled union in giving a voice to the workers. If Samy can claim he didn't know of any demands, it's because the union officials refused to transmit the demands and grievances of the workers.
The interview also revolves around the issue of privatization. The restructuring of the ENR has led to speculation that parts of the company will be privatized. Mahmoud Samy denies this is the case, and says the restructuring merely represents an introduction of "private sector thinking" in the administration of the railways. But he does say that if any investor wanted to establish a new line or run a train outside the existing schedule, he would be "welcome" to do so.
This is a blatant lie, since protests occured on several occasions before November, for example in Februari 2008 and December 2007. But more importantly it's also a sign of the ineffectiveness of the state-controlled union in giving a voice to the workers. If Samy can claim he didn't know of any demands, it's because the union officials refused to transmit the demands and grievances of the workers.
The interview also revolves around the issue of privatization. The restructuring of the ENR has led to speculation that parts of the company will be privatized. Mahmoud Samy denies this is the case, and says the restructuring merely represents an introduction of "private sector thinking" in the administration of the railways. But he does say that if any investor wanted to establish a new line or run a train outside the existing schedule, he would be "welcome" to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)