9 - 15 August 2001
Issue No.546
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 9 - 15 August 2001 Issue No.546 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Of life and national dignity
The boycott of US and Israeli goods may hurt our pockets. But times like these require nobility of purpose, and self-sacrifice, argues Nader Fergany
Israel's brutality towards defenceless Palestinian civilians has spurred people out of apathy and into action. That action has rippled through the Arab world, from the Atlantic to the Gulf, in the form of a boycott against Zionist and American goods and companies. One hopes that this popular activism will extend to all areas of public life. For public enthusiasm is the backbone of the boycott, indeed its greatest hope for success; for when the greater public summons its resolve, the boycott acquires an impetus that is indeed formidable.
The boycott against Zionist and American goods is a spontaneous, grassroots movement involving people of all ages, but particularly the young. It had its seeds in the popular outrage against Israeli tyranny, and those that supported it, and crystallised in the call for a complete boycott of Israeli commercial interests and those Egyptian agencies doing business with them. The movement also demanded a selective boycott of American interests, as a protest against the US government's unconditional moral and material support for Israeli aggression. The boycott of companies targeted, such as Coca Cola and McDonalds, may have had little commercial significance, but there was a potent symbolic resonance. The boycott also extended to certain British firms and products, owing to the UK's complicity with the US stance towards the Arab people.
In Egypt, several groups calling for a boycott emerged, as did numerous lists specifying companies and goods to be targeted. For fear that the boycott movement would fragment, or become excessive with its lists, representatives of the various groups appealed for a coordinating mechanism. The result was the Egyptian General Committee for the Boycott of Zionist and American Goods and Products. The functions of this body are to coordinate the grassroots boycott efforts, to work to sustain the impetus of the boycott, and to issue the lists of those companies to be boycotted. The committee is responsible for ensuring that the lists are restricted only to Israeli companies and products and to those companies whose support for Israel whether through trade, investment or donations, can be reliably documented.
That the boycott is a purely spontaneous grassroots movement is shown by the virtual absence of party-political dynamics and steering, even from the opposition parties, and from the disparity between official and popular positions. Some of this is understandable. Governments, plainly, are bound by certain restrictions and do not enjoy the same manoeuvrability available to popular movements. But I would suggest that Arab governments tend to exaggerate their limitations, particularly towards the peace process, which is collapsing thanks to the inequities Israel imposes on the Palestinians (with unmitigated US support). They also overplay their limits regarding the relentlessly arrogant US economic blockade of Iraq, which to date has claimed more than a million and a half lives, many of whom were innocent children.
Arab governments should note two things. Firstly, they have a greater chance of pressuring a US governed by Republicans because of the powerful ties between the Republican Party and big business. Secondly, a powerful Arab grassroots boycott aimed at Israel, and at the US for its unthinking support of Israel and its aggressive policy against Iraq, enhances the opportunities available to Arab diplomacy to defend Arab rights. So it is feasible, and morally desirable, for Arab governments to seek to close the gap between official and public positions, and to express more openly and in more practical ways, the Arab popular will. On this basis, the Egyptian General Boycott Committee appeals to Arab governments to reinstate an official boycott of Israeli commercial interests and those western commercial interests that support Israel. The official boycott has been an effective weapon in the past; that is why lifting it has been one of Israel's prime demands in the peace process.
Some object that the boycott will have no effect on Israeli or US policy while bringing us only economic ruin. The implication is that the political impact of the boycott and its economic impact on us are two sides of the same coin. They are not. Certainly some influential commercial interests that benefit from interaction with Israel and its supporters will be harmed, but the extent of this harm has been grossly exaggerated. To hear the claims of boycott opponents, one would imagine that Egypt is suddenly a paradise awash with waterfalls of foreign investment, bringing job opportunities galore and bountiful prosperity. This may be the case for the boycott's critics, but where is this lost paradise for the general public, particularly the poor and unemployed?
In fact, the economic and social impact of foreign investment into Egypt (and all other Arab countries) is minimal. According to the 1996 census, foreign organisations working in Egypt employed fewer than 24,000 Egyptians, or one out of every thousand in the Egyptian labour force, while a million and a half -- which I take to be a conservative estimate -- were unemployed.
It should also be stressed, firstly, that the boycott will not comprehensively repudiate all American goods and companies, and, secondly, that the world of commerce does not consist of the US and Israel alone. A true opening of our economy requires us to establish a broad network of economic and political relations across the globe, rather than simply orbiting the US. Indeed the boycott may actually do some economic good. The decreased demand for foreign goods should enhance the competitiveness of locally produced products, which, in turn, should inspire local entrepreneurs to target local markets, thereby contributing to the development of domestic infrastructure, increasing employment opportunities in Egypt and improving the prospects of autonomous sustained development in general.
Simultaneously, it should be noted that, while the amount of unemployment the boycott may cause will be minimal compared to the overall level of unemployment, it is important to take measures to offset any adverse effects. Many alternatives are available. We can, for example, introduce a form of unemployment insurance, whether state or privately administered, generate job opportunities by stimulating investment and expand the activities of labour bureaus: all measures which we should, in any case, adopt to curb unemployment in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world.
Our material progress need not be tainted by the blood of innocent Palestinian children. Once we have absorbed that fact, we will discover any number of ways to overcome temporary obstacles. Nor should we be overly fraught at the prospect that the taps of US aid will be turned off. As is well known, the bulk of US aid is calculated to feed back into the US economy. More importantly, it is time we base our calculations for development on considerations of economic self-dependency. In this regard we take heart that some of the most significant achievements in the development of Egypt and the Arab World happened when the Arab boycott of Israel and its supporters was in full force.
The forces of Palestinian resistance against Israeli aggression have always found strength and succour in the boycott of Israeli and US interests. But the boycott should be considered as only one facet of a comprehensive system of support for the Al-Aqsa Intifada, as well as the victims of US sanctions against Iraq. That system should promote all forms of material and moral rejection of the injustices perpetrated by Israeli and American arrogance and brutality and should engage all Arab peoples and governments. The hallmark of civilised societies is the ability to promote higher values over ephemeral material interests. The sanctity of life, human dignity and national esteem: these values can only be furthered through practical stances and, especially at crucial moments in history, through dedication and self-sacrifice.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page