There are presently negotiations under UN auspices taking place which seek to find a final solution to the conflict between the Mali government and the armed Tuareg separatists. Algeria,the only non-monarchical North African state to not be subverted during 2011*, is one of the chief mediators. As in Libya, it desires to check the spreads of takfiri banditry; to nip in the bud the radicalization of its own Tuareg population; and to resolve as quickly as possible a situation that could otherwise justify (continued) destabilizing foreign interventions in the region.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/expresses-hh%20ope-round-mali-talks-28996685
In the background, Islamist provocation targeting all concerned parties continues.
Meanwhile, the independent writes puff stories about the local art scene:
The idea might be idealistic, but the music is good and certainly exportable.
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/how-the-music-of-mali-strikes-a-chord-for-peace-10048412.html
Everyone feel free to chime in.
*It should be observed also that Algeria, unlike the Kingdom of Morocco, is not (yet?) subject to a de facto division of its territory by ethnic separatists.
Edited by RedMaistre ()
For example, they campaigned for Morsi on the premise that a NDP-aligned candidate would paralyze the revolution. Then when the Muslim Brotherhood started governing like one might reasonably expect, they freaked out.
The other thing I've pointed out before is that Seymour (he was SWP at the time) tried to build this narrative where he said NATO wanted a rump state around Benghazi while keeping Gaddafi in power. And he would say that the likely outcome was a stalemate. Within days though the government started to collapse like a wet paper bag. But the 'stalemate' idea was supposed to structure a belief that NATO didn't "really" want Gaddafi gone, and that only the revolutionary left could depose Gaddafi by defeating him on his home turf.
stegosaurus posted:love the sub-political maneuvering of delusional trots
"shit..."
*leans back into shadowed alley*
getfiscal posted:The other thing I've pointed out before is that Seymour (he was SWP at the time) tried to build this narrative where he said NATO wanted a rump state around Benghazi while keeping Gaddafi in power. And he would say that the likely outcome was a stalemate. Within days though the government started to collapse like a wet paper bag. But the 'stalemate' idea was supposed to structure a belief that NATO didn't "really" want Gaddafi gone, and that only the revolutionary left could depose Gaddafi by defeating him on his home turf.
wasn't gaddafi already in hiding at that point too lol
c_man posted:seymour who?
stegosaurus posted:love the sub-political maneuvering of delusional trots
their egypt section was pretty big, and was a dedicated part of the youth movement in egypt that was important in the square movement. but repressing the union movement, their potential base of support, was basically unanimous between bourgeois parties. basically it was the same logic they use in syria: they know assad is not going to build socialism, so they support the opposition, because it has elements they like, and at least opens the chance that something good could happen. it should be said that for many people these are life-and-death choices, and difficult choices, and are often marred by confusing primary ties.
i'm not sure groups always have to enthusiastically take a side in all conflicts, and i don't mean 'third camp' either really. there's a tendency for socialist groups to want to shout everything because they perceive an emergency. in reality i think people are often right to simply wait to see how things shake out while focusing on simpler organizational issues.
As for taking sides-Developing an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist "commonsense" is not an unimportant task. And this means a willingness to take an active interest in world affairs, and not just as disinterested observers, but as world citizens in potentia. In addition, there is no rule out there that dictates that the absence of the "correct" sort of political actor in this or that situation should bar anyone from having an opinion about the rights and wrongs at stake.
The problem again returns to the reality that Western orgs latch onto orgs that look like their own but which, because they are far away, they can deceive themselves into thinking are somehow significantly more relevant than themselves. And this, in turn, feeds into the factional narcissism of their corresponding non-Western faction.
At all events, party conceit is to be despised, and replaced by
concrete facts. Anyone who reinforces conceit, or prefers it to
concrete facts, is certainly not be to taken seriously.
From The Modern Prince by Antonio Gramsci
*which ended the two most concrete benefits of 2011 for the Egyptians: The brief parliamentary opening up of the political system and the election of a government friendly to Gaza and the Palestinian cause.
Edited by RedMaistre ()
getfiscal posted:repressing the union movement, their potential base of support, was basically unanimous between bourgeois parties.
could you talk a little more about this please
getfiscal posted:i don't remember much about it really, sorry.
i just thought that trade union membership in egypt was very, very small in numbers and proportion. but i don't know where those numbers are found within the country so i guess there may be disproportionate impact in important places.
so membership wasn't very high to begin with. i don't know how that would provide a natural base for anything. as far as i know the union membership in egypt is aged and aging, which is why it was such a big deal when ETUF leaders were age-capped. if the argument is that such a base would exist otherwise, i'm leery of counterfactual arguments about mass movements that aren't things like, "if the united states had not bombed them from the sky existing members of the movement would probably still be alive".
littlegreenpills posted:i dont think the tuareg and the polisario are exactly comparable
Well presented as that way,no,because the tuareg is an ethnic group scattered across several countries while polisario is a specific political org representing the interests of the Sawhari people.
But in so far as both are an expression of politicized ethnic difference within a post-colonial context, we can talk of them being related phenomena.
Whether they are qualitatively the same is a different question. Polisario have the advantage over the various Tuareg groups that they are a single, secular organization operating in area's whose disputed status is, ironically, delimited by a series of proclamations and accords. Whatever else one thinks of their movement, they are thus a known and stable quantity that is clearly distinct from the rise of regional takfiri movments.
Edited by RedMaistre ()