11.01.1996

Workers are the real target

THE BRITISH state continues, as part of its offensive against the whole working class, its campaign against ‘alien’ workers. On top of a whole array of anti-immigration measures, it wants to make it all but impossible for workers to obtain political asylum in Britain by rushing through its Asylum Bill.

But sometimes other people are caught in the net, particularly those whose activity is proving damaging to the interests of big business. One of these is Muhammad al-Mass’ari, a bourgeois academic who runs the London-based Islamic organisation, the Committee for the Defence of Legitimate Rights. This is a Saudi opposition campaign whose main call is for “the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners” and for “freedom of speech and assembly and the right to choose accountable leaders”.

Dr al-Mass’ari has been tortured by the viciously autocratic Saudi regime and requested asylum after coming to Britain in 1994. You might have thought that his case was beyond question, but not in the eyes of the British government and business interests. Their Saudi torturer pals are so upset by his propaganda activities - conducted by fax and Internet from London - that they have refused his request and ordered his deportation on January 19 unless he appeals.

They have even bribed the tiny Caribbean island of Dominica to grant him asylum by offering increased ‘aid’ for its vital banana industry.

The problem was the Saudi regime was threatening to refuse lucrative trade deals to British firms, in particular a huge contract with arms manufacturers Vickers. It turns out that Andrew Green, British ambassador-designate to Riyadh, is a director of Vickers. Shares in such companies all rose, following the announcement to deport Dr al-Mass’ari.

What makes this case unusual is the openness with which the government has admitted that its decision was based on capitalist commercial interests.

John Major further claimed that the dissident was a threat to “the stability of the complete Gulf” (meaning imperialism’s ability to continue exploiting its people and resources) and even claimed that he was an ‘illegal’ immigrant - a term usually reserved for people who arrive in Britain surreptitiously or without documentation.

While Saudi workers should ally themselves with all who are prepared to fight for democratic rights, they should seek to establish their own hegemony over such revolutionary campaigns. Exclusive Islamic-based campaigns, despite any good intentions, can never meet workers’ aspirations.

In fact Islamic groups are gaining influence throughout the world and often assert a viciously reactionary lead over workers.

Nevertheless this case exposes the fact that the British state will not allow profits to be upset by ‘asylum’ and uses immigration controls for its own advantage. We may also note that the banning of Islamic groups on university campuses has preceded the banning of leftwing groups.

It is in workers’ interests to oppose this deportation. Such measures will inevitably be used more and more against our own comrades.

Jim Blackstock

The Weekly Worker’s Peter Manson spoke to the man at the centre of the current asylum controversy, Muhammad al-Mass’ari

How do you feel the campaign against your deportation is going? Do you think the government will rescind its decision?

It is possible. The government is weak and under a lot of pressure (not, of course, because of our campaign). We have some very strong legal points to back up the appeal against deportation which will be lodged next week.

I don’t expect ever to see Dominica. I am sure we would be able to find a safe haven to continue our work in a third country.

Do you see your campaign linking up the fight for democratic rights in Britain and Saudi Arabia?

There is no doubt that some people in the system here have something at stake. The Saudis have an excellent ability to corrupt anyone like an infectious disease. For example, I hate the CIA; I don’t want them in my country, but I believe the CIA has been fed misinformation by the regime. It is not stable and it has survived miraculously. It is bound to crumble, because a relationship between the rulers and the ruled where the mass of people are alienated has all the conditions of collapse.

I had thought the British were better informed. British business will be bound to suffer in the long term by siding with the Saudi tribal clique.

You have a comfortable academic background. How did you get involved in the campaign in Saudi Arabia?

I am from a wealthy family, but in my young years in the sixties I saw this appalling regime and felt I had to fight it. I see the fight for democracy as part of the same struggle for the Islamic faith. The conditions are ripe for establishing genuine Islamic democracy - completely different from what we see in Iran.

What conditions did you suffer in Saudi Arabia?

We were continually harassed. Our initial committee of seven was not important in itself, but if they allowed us to operate, next they would be faced with opposition parties and trade unions. I was arrested and beaten with rods, but my ‘privileged’ position from the ‘heartland’ enabled me to avoid the worst treatment, such as that given to poor Bangladeshi workers and religious minorities - electric shock and sexual torture.

The British have used against you your claim to be a revolutionary and your statement that you “understood the motives” of the bombers of the US installation in Riyadh.

“Revolutionary” is an honourable title. They can tar me as black as they want: that is unimportant. A revolution need not be bloody - perhaps it can arise through a general strike.

Regarding the Riyadh bomb, I view the American military presence as illegitimate, and one which is covered up by the regime. So the bomber did a shrewd job: the common man sympathised with the action, which would not have been the case if, for example, a supermarket had been the target.

We ourselves do not take military action. We have political and intellectual targets.