Globusz^® Publishing 

about

The moroccan revolution

(AUGUST 16.1972)

(Published In the magazine "Afrique-Asie", December 1975)

Q: What role did Oufkir play in the attempt of 1972?

A: To summarize, one might say that he was going to take on the role of Naguib and Spinola. But it was the young officers who planned and carried out the operation of August 16. They benefitted from Oufkir's complicity. But he - and these are his own words - "only wanted to take on the role of Naguib". He was aware of his reputation. his limits and of the exact role he was able to take on.

Q: Did he play any part whatsoever In the Skhirat affair of 1971

A: He was aware that plans were afoot. And he agreed to them. However, he was not aware of the details concerning the place and time of the coup d'Etat. He, like everyone else, was surprised by the events of Skhirat. So discrete had the officers planning the event been, that only a handful of officers knew about it.

Q: And the assassination of Ben Barka?

A: During the course of events in 1965, I myself held a teaching post in Casablanca and was a member of the UNFP. I was arrested and tortured three times: 1962, 1964 and on March 23, 1965. Consequently when myself and other young men became officers we spoke at great length of the Ben Barka affair with Oufkir, when the opportunity arose. The question as to who killed Ben Barka, was for us not the most important one. But is was the symbol of Ben Barka which was of interest to us. This had been a political assassination. Ben Barka was a political mixture of Lenin and Edgar Faure (i.e. left or right), and like Oufkir, fell victim to the regime and to the king whom he himself had helped set up In Morocco. A tyrant, like a scorpion, acts by Instinct and does not make a distinction between "friends" and enemies. The abduction and assassination of Ben Barka was not Hassan II's first criminal deed; nor was it his last. Dozens upon hundreds of militants were, like Ben Barka, physically eliminated. Since the Ben Barka affair took place in France, and because it had also became a matter for the French police, this political and criminal assassination assumed International dimensions. This affair ought therefore to be placed within the general political framework of Morocco, i.e. the savage terrorism of Hassan II against the people of Morocco.

It is within this framework which we spoke to Oufkir about It. Here is what he said:

"The king has created a special police force (SSS) which answers directly to him and which has the task of supervising the army and Oufkir and Dlimi himself. This system was devised by three experts from the CIA. Neither Oufkir, who was Minister for Domestic Affairs, nor anyone else knew the whole system. It was based on the do~le model of the Mafia and of the CIA. The king had given the order (recorded by Oufkir) that he wanted Ben Barka 'dead or alive'." Oufkir told me this and I am revealing for the first time that when Hassan II learned that Ben Barka had been killed by the crooks, he asked for Ben Barka's head or his entire corpse. Oufkir also told me that "Ben Barka is hurled under the Palace Wall: between the Palace and the Faculty of Law". Ben Barka's body was therefore taken back to Morocco on the command of Hassan II to be buried in the tradition of the Alaouite kings who thus behaved towards all their enemies.

Oufkir made us compile a dossier to institute genuine legal proceedings concerning the Ben Barka affair after the success of the coup d'Etat in August 1972. He himself stated that he was ready to take his share of the responsibility. He was, as it happened, well-informed. However, he told us that he had warned Ben Barka. He stated that when Ben Barka was in Morocco, he had warned him of Hassan Ii's plans of having him killed and advised him to leave the country.

Before meDOufkir swore that he had not killed Ben Barka. He said that Ben Barka was his natural ally. Oufkir's wife, who is still alive, can testify to this. Ben Barka was their personal friend. Once, during the Resistance against colonialism, Oufkir's wife had hidden Ben Barka and had helped him to escape by hiding him in the boot of her car, while he was being looked for by the French police. I must make things quite clear. I am not out to exonerate Oufkir. I am simply repeating what Oufklr told me.

It is my opinion that this affair should not be turned Into some sort of shady affair. It Is a political assassination. Hassan II had sentenced Ben Barka to death. And he executed him. In reality Hassan II himself was only carrying out orders. According to Oufkir, the date of Ben Barka's abduction had been moved forward under pressure from the CIA and the Israeli Mossad because Ben Barka, in his role as secretary general, was preparing the conference in Havana of the three continents by initiative of Nasser.

In Morocco, Hassan II was objectively only the ClA's agent, an agent of the USA. It is in this role that he assassinated Ben Barka. Those really responsible for the assassination of Ben Barka are the CIA, the israeli Mossad, and the USA. Hassan II was simply their agent in this affair. Before Independence, the Moroccan monarchy was not a hereditary one (from father to son). The 1'Ouléma" (religious scholars) chose the sultan. It was Ben Barka who, at the beginning of the independence, in his role as president of the "Council of Advisers"1 officially asked Mohamed V to designate Hassan as "crown prince"! Ben Barka was Hassan's mathematics teacher. The post of "crown prince" had not existed before the official suggestion of Ben Barka! Mohamed V was the "Trolan Horse" of French colonialism and Hassan is the "Trojan Horse" of neo-colonialist American-Zionism! Son of the traitor GIaoul who offered Hassan's mother, pregnant, to Mohamed V. Hassan, like Kabousse, consequently seized power by a commonplace coup d'Etat by assassinating his own father during a minor surgical operation on 26 February 1961.

Q: What could have brought Oufkir and Hassan II into conflict?

A: The same thing that brought the officers and Hassan into conflict: symbol of corruption and decadence. Oufkir was perhaps the only officer of his rank and generation who was not corrupted. He left nothing behind in personal fortune. The corruption scandalized and revolted him. The mentality of a king who treated Morocco as his own personal property and the exploitation of the people all revolted him. Officers of his generation had had a French training and Oufkir himself believed that this had given him a certain amount of officer's dignity. For example, kissing the hand of the Chief of State was, to his eyes, both incompatible and humiliating. Hassan ii treated his officers like slaves. In general, the officers of the army were indignant and scandalized by the fact that Hassan used the army as a strike force against the people and as a watch-dog of the monarchy.

The corps of Moslem officers, in general, can not be used indefinitely to maintain the status quo. The soldiers of the Islamic world have come from the people and stay by them.

Q: Had the coup d'Etat succeeded, what sort of regime would you have instituted?

A: We wanted to institute Liberty as method and not as content. The rules of the democratic "game" and not the "game" itself. It was not up to us young officers to make decisions, but for the whole of the people of Morocco in a democratic regime. A propos the political content and the orientation cf the regime, Oufkir left us young officers to take the initiative. We had prepared a plan, a political charter and a provisional programme. Oufkir's aim was above all to ally himself with us to eliminate the monarchy as the first necessary step. Afterwards it would be up to the people to decide the kind of regime they wanted. We, the young officers, had a programme but it was a programme among others, meant as a suggestion to the people as opposed to an imposition. The summary of our intentions was published by the Western press. In the proclamation, which was going to be broadcast on August 16 1972 (see "Paris Match", 29.9 1973), we spoke of the Islamic Republic of Morocco. Our aims were liberty, democracy and unity: unity both national and Arab ("In the name of Allah, in the name of the people, etc ...), liberty of the citizen, democracy, social justice, ownership of every means of production by the people through democratic and decentralized self-government and respect for non-exploitative private property. Social democracy and Arab unity. We do not conceive a Morocco isolated from the Islamic and Arab nation. We do not recognize artificial borders created by imperialism and colonialism. Borders created to divide the Moslems and Arabs and to rule them. Islamic and Arab unity is no romantic dream but a vital necessity. A question of life or death for the Islamic and Arab nation and for all Moslems and Arabs. Economically1 politically and militarily it is only an Islamic and Arab unity which can take us out of the present serious deadlock which lead to the division. Towards and in Islamic and Arab unity there are problems but these problems can and must be overcome. However, the problems of the present catastrophic division will only lead to death as an Islamic nation and an Arab independency. The existence and strength of the Jewish usurper and bandit state Israel is only built on our schism and weakness.

Q: So the main objective was to eliminate the monarchy?

A: Yes. The monarchy Is a personal power. The king is "boss". In Morocco the monarchy Is not, strictly speaking, a national "institution" but rather a Mafia. Only one man is in charge. Everything comes from him. He "manages" Morocco as his private property and the Moroccans as slaves and between the king and the people are a band of bandits and bastards. One can not move forward a single step today in Morocco without the fall of the king. One can therefore not go forward, realize objectives in development and in democracy, without abolishing the monarchy, without abolishing the regime of Hassan II, and without proclaiming an Islamic republic1 a democratic state. Hassan II symbolizes and personalizes corruption and moral, political and economical decadence. "He Is the state" In Morocco and it is by his physical elimination that a change is possible. All attempts at camouflaging and reshuffling of his rotten regime have failed. The politicians in true "Edgar Faure" style, i.e. the opportunists, have made us lose a great deal of time and made the people feel contempt for the "politicians".

Q: It was your intention to proclaim an Islamic republic. You are aware that western "specialists" on Morocco have often mentioned Berber attempts to seize power.

A: First of a11, for us, an Islamic or Arab republic does not mean an ethnic or racial republic. To our eyes it was a definition of the political content of the regime we had in mind. For example, it Is a totally superflous fact to know whether Nasser, who himself is a symbol of Arabism, was, racially or ethnically speaking, an Arab or not. He is a Moslem.For us Arabism refers to a nation united by history, culture and also by the religion of Islam. Today It is also an Islamic nation which struggles and which the Islamic revolution unites. In Morocco, the man in the street does not understand that it is possible to distinguish between Moslem and Arab. For him, every Moslem is an Arab and every Arab, a Moslem. At the level of the people it is impossible to have this "division" or this "antagonism" of which the imperialistic "specialists" and French or American colonialists speak and which they themselves created. In the Arab World Islam is the soul of Arabism, the Islamic culture is the Arab culture. For us, Arabism is Islam and every Moroccan Is a Moslem and all our citizens are Moroccans; equal and united. The Koran Is our true constitution and its language our national language. Our problems are political ones!

Q: The "specialists", however, presented Oufkir as a Berber nationalist.

A: The word "Berber" is of European origin. Those you call "Berber" call themselves "imazighn" or "chlouh" and not "Berber". "Amazigh" means "free" while "Berber" comes from "Barbare", a qualifier the Romans used to refer to the inhabitants of their colonies and their non Roman slaves.

Myself, I am "amazigh" and "chalh", born at Tafraoute, a Soussi from the Tahala tribe in the Souss Mountains; but I do not regard myself as a "Berber"! Every Arab, every Moslem is "lmazighn", that is to say a free man born free. All moroccans are "imazighn". ("Amazigh" is the opposite of "Ahrdan" which means slave. Mahjoubi Ahrdan is a slave of the king and not an "amazigh"!) Oufklr was a Moroccan! A Moslem that Is to say an amazigh Arab!

The division of Moroccans into "Berbers" and "Arabs" is an old colonialist dream which has undergone a total failure since the infamous fiasco of the "Dahir Berber" attempt. Our problems are not ethnical ones!

Q: But Ouftir was the kingdom's no. citizen. Why was it that he did not try to show his opposition for the king at an earlier stage?

A: From the outset of independence all the political parties and political élites of the country paid allegiance to the king and gave absolute power to the monarchy. Oufkir was a soldier and not a politician!

Oufkir never had the means of overthrowing the king. There you have another legend which must be destroyed: since Independence Oufkir had never been in the army. And the army Is the only strength which could overthrow the king. Not one political party called the monarchy into question. Oufklr was at the Palace and the Ministry of the Interior. However, in this position as Minister of the Interior, he did have one corps under his command: the humble "Auxiliary Forces". He confided to us that he had prepared a plan to overthrow the king by using the Auxiliary Forces, together with Colonel Chebuati. We ourselves asked Oufklr your same question. From the outset we did not want to involve ourselves with him at any price.

Oufkir also said that he had never politically supported the regime of Hassan II, contrary to the politicians who continue to do so. He worked for the State as a soldier, while at Independence, all the political officers, all the leaders entered the services of Mohamed V. It was them who chose him as Chief of State. It was even Ben Barka in his position of president of the Council of Advisers who proposed Hassan as "crown prince". Oufkir suffered from the reputation which the people had of him. He was hoping for the chance to show his true face. And It was for this reason that he allied with us young officers when he could have allied himself with the generals and other corrupt high-ranking officers. The army Is but the mirror of Moroccan society. When, in 1971, the king handed over charge of the army to Oufkir, he instinctively drew closer to those elements of the army exhibiting revolutionary tendencies, and he also opposed the corrupt elements as well as the "monarchists". (ln the army there are no monarchists by conviction, but only through interest.) Oufkir enjoyed the same bad reputation from the young officers as he did from the people. The army is not a separate body of Moroccan society. When, in July 1971, the radio announced that the king had given charge of the army to Oufkir, the young officers received the news angrily and obiectionably. However, very soon, Oufkir achieved an immense popularity in the heart of the army. We, therefore, discovered that we had misjudged him. We learned that many of the things previously attributed to him were simply made up.

Q: Sometimes it has been said that Oufkir was the mun of the foreign powers; France, the United States and even israel. What was he?

A: In Morocco, Hassan II is the first agent of imperialism.

So instead of criticizing Hassan II, who is the head, those

involved are critized: Oufkir, Dlimi, Benhima and Gdira.

When Gdira was Minister of the Interior, the press only critized him. But the people were not deceived by this; in the streets it was said: Gdra, not Gdira, is to be critized. If Oufkir had the importance the legends attributed him with, if it was he who marked out the politics, the regime would, of course, have changed after his disappearance. What does one see today? If there has been any change whatsoever, the regime is worse than it was. The Royal Palace is Morocco's largest American base. We are governed by a traitor and a drugged villain. Should this villain fall, his entire regime would fall.

Q: Yes, but even so, when he was under sentence of death In France, the French Government did allow Oufklr to come to Lyons to receive treatment for his eyes.

A: France knows that Hassan II is the "master" of Morocco. It was the French and the Americans who put him there. Hassan II is no marionette, it is the others, his "ministers" and his slaves who are the marionettes. Yes, he is a marionette of the French, the Americans and the Zionists but not of his collaborateurs. De Gaulle himself had said that the man responsible for the abduction of Ben Barka was Hassan II. Hassan is the agent of the Americans.

Q: When Oufkir was in power one often spoke of relations between the Israeli and Moroccan secret services.

A: Firstly, the Moroccan monarchy (like all Arab monarchies) and Israel have the same enemies: the Islamic revolution.

Every victory of the Islamic revolution is a threat both against Israel and the Arab monarchies. Hussein of Jordan and Hassan of Morocco are the objective allies of Israel. These allies share common relations and interests. Israel, for example, sold 100 tanks (AMX 13 tonnes) to Morocco after the 1967 war. This story caused enormous scandal in the army. In the tanks the soldiers found Israeli coins and newspapers. Sometimes the insignia of the Israeli army could be seen through the peeling paintwork. Furthermore, the tanks were in bad condition. French officers from the armoured division (60 technicians) came to repair these tanks. Only 60 of the tanks could be repaired. The repairs, when it came down to it, cost more than If Morocco were to have purchased new tanks. Oufkir was not In the army at that time. Moreover, he himself told me that Mohamed V, this "Trojan Horse" of imperialism and colonialism, had, upon Independence, appointed Dr Benzakin, a notorious Zionist, as minister of postal and telecommunication systems, to allow the transfer from Morocco towards Israel of Moroccan Jews who were encouraged to emigrate to Israel. We of the capital. in the Souss Mountains, have always called the sultan nAglid yiromein", that is to say "the king of the colonialists". Hassan II is the king of the lews and the Americans.

Q: So after the disappearance of Oufkir, Hassan II was able to completely reestablish the situation?

A: The two coups d'Etat weakened the regime but the repression and the dictatorship were only increased. Fascism " à la Hassan II" and the Moroccan feudal system still survive. But Hassan II realizes that Time is not on his side; he knows that he is unable to stop the direction of History. He is doing what he can to play for time. We have a proverb: when a fire is just about to go out, it makes a lot of smoke. At this moment Hassan II is making a lot of noise, he is leaving a lot of smoke

Q: Was the attempted planting of a guerilla in Morocco in March, 1973, a serious one?

A: The people's struggle has never stopped. All armed attempts figure in the framework of the Moroccan revolution. The attempt of 3 March 1973 is an episode of this revolutIon which is still going on. It was a deed of courage which had been prepared at length. Every revolutIon has had its temporary and brief failures. We learn a lot from our failures.

Q: Is there a revolutionary situation In Morocco?

A: Objectively, there is a revolutionary situation in Morocco. The regime Is anachronistic: feudalism in the middle of the 20th century. Were it to disappear tomorrow, no one would be surprised. The regime Is historically condemned. Hassan II is very well aware of this. It Is a matter of a few more years at the most. We have, in Morocco, all the objective conditions of a radical and Islamic revolution. If we are still neo-colonized, it is because we are still neo-colonisable.

Q: Where could the next alert come from?

A: Hassan II forbids any opposition or political party which does not recognize the present monarchial regime. This means that only monarchist political parties are tolerated. Any criticism of the king or of his politics is forbidden while it is the king who is responsible for the regime and the politics of the governing party.

So where could the next alert come from? Not from any of the present parties. The parties have condemned themselves. They are playing the regime "game". They take part in the regime's camouflage strategy. The divisions between the parties are moreover artificial; they do not reflect the country's real social forces. It is Hassan II who creates and decides the limits: the existence or not of these parties as well as the party leaders and the elimination of those who are not tolerated. It was he who subdued the political, marketing and professional 4lite. Whether they be in the Government or belong to the "opposition", these partisans are simply playing the roles given them by Hassan II. The Shah of Iran had also created an opposition party to his regime: "The opposition of His Majesty". The parties betrayed the Moroccan revolution. They only make deals with the Palace in order to have a share In the power. The only way they enter the Palace is on all fours. The two attempts made by the army and the attempt of 3 March 1973 to overthrow the regime which resulted In the deaths of martyrs, were shamefully exploited by professional politicians to turn the outcomes to their political spoils. After the uprising in Casablanca In 1965, which resulted in thousands of victims, and which was totally spontaneous, Hassan II called upon those men who had played no part in them. They wait until Hassan II offers them ministers and also to become his servants and share his crumbs. They claim to represent the will of the people. In reality, these puppet leaders do not represent their "parties" at the Palace, but rather the Palace in their "parties". Revolutionary struggles sort out the men: opportunists are always discovered in the end. The professional politicians are those who wait for the revolution to create an atmosphere of fear, steal this and use this to take power and "harvest" its fruits! In the army, we, too, have our "Portuguese", that Is to say, revolutionary officers and soldiers. Had these officers "attempted a coup" and succeeded, they would not have kept power themselves but would certainly not have given It to the political parties at that time. If we were to start up a revolution this would in no way benefit those men who are members of Hassan's regime. The present parties play an Integral part In the regime and it is our intention to overthrow the whole regime. It is Hassan who Imposes on the "legal" parties, men who have the "ability" to lead them, men who must be ousted, what they may write in their "newspapers" what they can or what they can't say etc ... It is the duty of the revolutionaires to condemn these men who have betrayed and who participate objectively in Hassan li's masquerade. The only way to put an end to the exploitation is to Institute a political, social and economic democracy, called "shora" in Islam. For this, Hassan II must be eliminated politically because he will not eliminate himself. Only a revolution can abolish this regime. We must organize a united front to carry on the Islarnic struggle. There Is but one armed struggle which could wipe out the regime. Experience from Hassan Ii's regime must convince us all that only by an act of armed and political resistance will his dictatorship be overthrown. Only the re-institution of revolutionary and pure Islam can save our country from the abyss and death.

Abdelkrim Al Khattabi, in the darkest night of colonialism, fought in the name of Islam, weapons In hand, In the Rif, against two armies; the French and the Spanish. This is the only man never to have betraved. He lived and died with honour. The example of Abdelkrlrn must guide us. This is the lesson which we must take after 30 years of the present regime.

Those who do not wish to understand must be left behind and the fight continued despite them. Our sadness is due to the fact that many of our political leaders who knew how to begin their career in politics (for independence) with honour, did not know how to terminate them with honour. Arab leaders are not acquainted with an honourable "retirement"!

The army alone should not be expected to provide the revolutionary fight. The entire people ought to provide it. What is the army anyway? It Is an integral part of Moroccan society. It is the unemployed who become soldiers. It is secondary school pupils, out of work students, who experience the same misery as the people, who became officers. They are fully aware of all the problems facing the people. There exists no antagonism between the people and the Moroccan army. In Morocco, our army is not of the Latin American or European type. Our army is a young one without traditions or military caste. Servicemen and civilians organized in an avant-garde party can carry out a true revolution, not a revolutIon of centurions but a popular revolution. The example of the Nasserlan revolution shows us that Arab and Islamic officers and soldiers can only be natural allies of every popular revolution and without some action against the despot Hassan II by the Moroccan army, the deadly immobilism pervading in Morocco could last for many years to come.

And when I speak of Islam, I mean the enlightened and tolerant Islam.

Q: What state Is the army in after Skhirat?

A: The officers are, at present, all young. The old guard was done away with in various ways. Therefore the officers have the same state of mind as the rest of the youth in Morocco. It is of course understood that within the body of officers, all the divisions of society exist. The coups of 1971 and 1972 have proved this. Besides, these young officers bear daily witness to the exploitation of the people and the rottenness of the regime. They see every scandal. Their anger is aroused by the fact that they realize that the regime is using them to terrorize the people and to protect the monarchy from the anger of the people. Their dignity is held up to ridicule because they know that they are acting as guard dogs for the protection of corruption and decadence. Today's army is like a corps of teachers, a corps of engineers and a corps of doctors. But in the army the difference lies in discipline and a keener pragmatic sense more inclined to action than to words. In any case, objectively, the mood prevalent in the army is one of revolution. Hassan has practically lost his grip on the army. For a regime without popular legitimacy and which is founded solely upon police strength and repression, it is the end.

Q: What influence did participation in the war of October 1973 have on the Moroccan army?

A: In 1967 and in 1973, the initiative for participation came from the officers themselves. They spontaneously put themselves down as volunteers. As for king Hassan II, he rather feared contact between the young Moroccan officers and the revolutionary Syrian and Egyptian officers. In 1967, 60 officers threatened to resign If they were not sent to the front. Hassan might have thought that in sending them far away, he would have rid himself of them. But the contact of the ~1oroccan army with the people of Syria again strengthened the revolution- ary and unionist tendencies of the young Moroccan officers who are aware of Hassan's true objectives.

For Moroccans, and, in general all Arabs, the fight against Zionism, imperialism and Arab reaction is one and the same. The fight against Zionism and imperialism and the struggle against Hassan II are complimentary. For the army, the uprisings against Hassan and the participation In the war against Israel are of the same type. Hassan II and Zionism are enemies of the Moroccan people. In 1 967-68, Moroccans In the south rose up against Spanish colonialism. It was Hassan II, at that time head of the army, who, together with the Spanish Army, quashed the uprising.

Q: Are Moroccans more to the Right or to the Left?

A: We are neither the one nor the other, but revolutionary Moslems. In our eyes there Is no Right or Left but progressives and reactionaires.

"Left", "Right" are imported European notions. We have no need to import ideologies from either the East or the West. All we have to do Is to apply the eternal principles of Islam found in the Koran.

The ideology of our people is Islam. We do not want to make a revolution with the people we dream of but with the people we have. If you import an Ideology you must Import a people and a nation, too! We are Moslem Arabs and each of our revolutions must spring from Islam. Evolution means evolving what we are towards what we want to be and not "aping" or imitating.

Only an Islamic, cultural, social, economic and political revolution can put an end to this moral and political decadence with which we are at present living.

As we see it, Islam and Arabism are one. I cannot envisage a deislamized Arabism or an anti-Arab Islam. Islam and Arabism are like mInd and body, Inseparable. The rise or decline of Islam always depends upon the strength or weakness of the Islamic Arab World.

Our people are Moslems and religious. But religion can perhaps be Interpreted in different ways. Like ideologies. One must make distinctions between ideas and their applications, between religions and the applications men give them. One must distinguish between Islam and the Moslems. When revolutionaires talk of Islam they understand it to be a radical revolution which not contradicts the Islamic revolution but is the foundation and origin of it and is also an Integral part. One cannot separate the revolutIon from Islam. Trying to separate Islam from the revolution in the Arab world is to create an obscurant "Islam" à la Saudi Arabia. One must understand that the people and the peasants in the Islamic feudal tyrannic monarchy in Morocco do not have the protection of religion as they did from the Catholic Church In the Europe of the Middle Ages. In our country there is no Church or caste of priests. On the contrary, in Morocco, every revolution was an Islamic one. The Algerian revolution was called the Moulahadirie revolution (the Marxists, on the other hand, were against it from the beginning as were the French Communist Party).

Islam is a revolution. All religions, at the beginning, are revolutions for social justice, human dignity and liberty.

Q: What do you think of the good relations which exist between Morocco on the one hand and the USSR and China.

A: It is sad that the world's two largest socialist countries, the Soviet Union and China, have betrayed their role in their domestic and foreign policies. They have become arms merchants. The Soviet Union, like the USA, sells weapons to most dictatorships, for example to Hassan II. It sells them to everyone. The "Moroccan Communist Party", whose strategy is dictated by the Soviet Union, has become an objective ally to Hassan II. These regimes have become large vulgar powers Interested In great powers. The Islamic revolution Is part of the world revolution. The pole of world revolutIon Is no longer the Soviet Union or China but shows a tendency of going more and more towards the Third World. The Soviet Union and China are betraying their role, they are only fighting amongst themselves to increase their zones of influence in the Third World. Despite everything they are a part of the world revolution to counterbalance American imperialistic hegemony. They make mistakes but with "self-criticism" they can rectify and better help the repressed nations of the Third World. Let's hope so!

Q: When you say that the Moroccan revolution is a part of the world revolution you seem to liwist on the Moroccan revolution as belonging to the Arab revolution rather than the African revolution. What do you say to this ?

A: Geographically, Morocco Is part of Africa but culturally we belong to the Islamic and Arab world. If you mean the black non-Islamic Africa it is cut off from us. It is called either English or French speaking, etc (why not African speaking?!). Africa, as Ren6 Dumont said, "is badly divided". In the North of Africa we have succeeded in safeguarding our personality and In freeing ourselves from Intellectual colonialism. We are part of Africa but we are also a part of the Third World. But when I speak of Islamic and Arab unity, I am not speaking of something new which has to be created. I am speaking of a unity that existed, that exists In the popular awareness and which is only to be restored. But we would also like unity with Africa: but let us begin with cultural and linguistic unity. It is the tendency of the people to unite. IBut with Africa it is more a matter of creating something new. An effort must be made to abolish the cultural, political and geographical desert which separates us. Today, simply to fly from Dakar to Rabat one must often fly through Paris. Politically and culturally one must also often go through Paris. But a problem, even today, is the presence of cultural colonialism in Africa. Algeria has remained "French" for a hundred and fifty years, but it doesn't call itself French speaking. The borders between the Arab countries are artificial and cultural unity has existed for a long time now. I do not oppose Islamic and Arab unity against unity with Africa, I am only saying that in the former case there exists a unity to be restored, which has previously existed and which ideologically, linguistically, spiritually and politically exists between the Arab countries. We Arabs are only split by the present regimes to rule better over us. Any Instituting of a democratic, legitimate and representative regime in an Arab or African country is a large step towards unity of the peoples. The present conflicts and animosities are the work of dictatorial and neo-colonialist regimes intent on division to make their ruling easier. They are non-representative and illegitimate regimes. They are regimes which represent neo-colonialism and all the Interests that go with It.