Jamie Allinson’s “Leftist” take on the Syria conflict : a critique (Part III)

/jamie-allinson’s-“leftist”-take-syria-c

  • La troisième (et ça n’est pas fini !) partie de la réponse d’As‘ad AbuKhalil à Jamie Allinson. Si l’aspect « réponse à… » peut paraître anecdotique, l’intérêt de ces textes est désormais beaucoup plus général : Jamie Allinson’s “Leftist” take on the Syria conflict : a critique (Part III)
    http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/jamie-allinson’s-“leftist”-take-syria-conflict-critique-part-iii

    To be sure, the political uprising that started in Syria had a class element: the rural poor were protesting against cruel neo-liberal policies adopted by the regime, to the glee of Western governments and lending institutions. After all, cruel neo-liberal policies often win the praises of Western leaders and are often referred to as “reforms” or “liberalization” in the Western press.

    The class dimension was suppressed not only by the repression of the regime, but also by the imposition of the agenda of gulf oil and gas regimes (and the Muslim Brotherhood – a mere tool of Qatar and Saudi Arabia in the case of Syria) on the political movement. The regime was quite cognizant of the class dimension of the early phase of the political protest in Syria and even condescendingly referred to protesters as Abu Shahhata (father of flip-flops) in order to appease to middle class Sunnis and to mock the poor background of the protesters.

    The Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army never ever championed the poor, especially when their early supporters (before Western and Gulf moneys poured in) were wealthy Syrian businessmen residing in Gulf countries and enjoying good relations with Gulf regimes.