People Before Profit blog

Protests mark G-8 summit in Germany

Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:35:00 +0000

News Analysis

Demonstrators from throughout Europe flooded Germany last week to protest the G-8 Summit held June 6-8 in the coastal town of Heiligendamm on the Baltic Sea.

Security measures for the summit, which was attended by leaders of the eight largest world economic and military powers — the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Canada and Russia — were overwhelming, and reportedly included the largest massing of armed force in one place in Germany since the Second World War.

In the run-up to the meeting, clashes between riot police and demonstrators were the rule, not the exception. The events in Rostock, June 2, were emblematic, as a 16,000-strong police force took on an estimated 100,000 protestors. What began as peaceful demonstration turned into a skirmish. Over 500 people were injured and many hospitalized. Many protesters were jailed.

The clampdown started weeks before the summit. Repressive actions by the police took place in cities and towns throughout the country. The German authorities carried out “preventive raids” on organizations’ offices, where arrests were made. Biometric data was collected on key activists, including their “scent,” so police dogs could identify them at demonstrations.

At Heiligendamm, demonstrators were kept at least seven miles away from the luxurious hotel where the summit was taking place. At the cost of 12 million euros ($16 million), the authorities constructed a fence to keep protesters out of town. The fence became a poignant symbol of the spending priorities of the powerful and the mighty, and of how little they care for the urgent needs of the rest of humanity.

President Bush and other world leaders were shuttled in by helicopter to the site, so as to avoid coming anywhere close to the demonstrators.

Division and discord characterized the summit, given that many members of the G-8 are currently ensnared in political and economic conflicts, including with each other. Such an embattled climate hasn’t been observed at a G-8 summit since its founding in 1975.

The agenda included world climate changes, Africa, trade, Kosovo, Iran and the Middle East — but not Iraq, so as not to provoke additional conflict. The controversial anti-missile defense shield the U.S. is trying to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic brought an additional note of tension to the already highly charged summit.

While tensions were lifted somewhat when Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed allowing the U.S. to use a radar system in Azerbaijan, which would cover the entire European continent against a possible missile threat, just one day later his press conference proposal that the U.S. extend the missile shield to Iraq and to Turkey reignited the conflict.

Although summit leaders agreed on the need for a “fundamental reduction” of the emissions which cause the overheating of the planet, they did not all agree on a 50 percent reduction by the year 2050, which was the original proposal of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, supported by Canada, Japan and the European Union. The U.S., which has not even signed the Kyoto accord, stayed its course, refusing to agree to any specific goals.

The G-8 finally committed to $60 billion to combat AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in Africa. The U.S. will shoulder half the cost. However, one must keep in mind that the 2005 summit, on Tony Blair’s initiative, promised to double the aid to poor African countries by 2010, something that was never acted upon.

Laura Petricola (laurajpetricola@yahoo.com) writes from Athens, Greece.

Missile base flap shows Czech rightward trajectory

Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:31:00 +0000

NewsAnalysis

A dispute has arisen within the Czech Republic over Bush administration plans to set up a “Star Wars”-type anti-missile base south of the capital, Prague, and another in Poland.

Russian President Vladimir Putin reacted angrily to the plans, which he denounced as a revival of Cold War tensions. Although Bush claims that the base is intended to protect Europe from possible rogue missile attacks from Iran, Putin obviously suspects that it is a foot in the door for the United States to bolster its military presence in Eastern Europe, and is aimed at Russia and not Iran.

After an exchange of angry statements between Russia on the one side and the Czech and U.S. governments on the other, Putin countered by offering to set up an anti-missile base to be run by the U.S. and Russia jointly in Azerbaijan, which is much closer to Iran. (Presumably Azerbaijan will at some point be asked for permission to do this.)

But the Czech government made it clear that it actually wants the base, in spite of the fact that surveys show that three-fifths of the Czech population is against it, and despite many organized protests against it.

The dispute about the base points up the degree to which the Czech Republic, since the collapse of socialism and the breakup of Czechoslovakia, has become a principal collaborator of imperialism in European affairs and beyond.

The restoration of capitalism in the Czech Republic has gone to great extremes, as have efforts to crush anything that smacks of communism and socialism. Recently, the youth wing of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia was ordered dissolved by the Czech ministry of justice because its advocacy of socialization of private property was deemed illegal. (The communist youth are not taking this lying down and have been involved in the protests against the missile site).

Czech politicians have made a special project of Cuba, being the chief opponents in the European Union of those leaders like Spanish Prime Minister Rodriguez Zapatero who call for a positive engagement with the Cuban government. Czech Foreign Minister Karel Jan Schwarzenberg has developed connections with Cuban exiles and dissidents whom he compares to Eastern Europeans like himself who were exiled or repressed or, especially, whose property was nationalized by the socialist governments.

Schwarzenberg, who is a close friend and longtime supporter of former Czech President Vaclav Havel, was appointed by Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek of the right-wing Civic Democratic Party earlier this year. He is the head of what was formerly the wealthiest landowning family in Bohemia, and outside the Czech Republic (where the use of titles of nobility is not allowed), he is referred to as his Serene Highness, Prince Karl zu Schwarzenberg, Duke of Krummau.

The Schwarzenbergs are a German family that accumulated vast estates in Bohemia after picking the winning side (of the Catholic Habsburg emperor) in the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). When not bedeviling Cuba and fronting for the Bush administration on the matter of the missiles, he is involved in legal cases which have the purpose of getting back the various estates, castles and palaces that were confiscated from the Schwarzenberg family after 1945 by the pre-socialist government of Eduard Benes and later by the socialist government.

Oddly enough, his highness represents the Czech “Green” Party in the coalition cabinet, illustrating a rightward move in the European Green movement in general. Though Greens are supposed to be worried about the environment, Schwarzenberg has made contemptuous comments about people in neighboring Austria who have expressed a possibly well-founded worry about a Czech nuclear power plant, calling them “fools.”

The actions of the Czech government at home and abroad are justified by the rhetoric of “freedom from totalitarianism.” People like the Schwarzenbergs moan about how they were mistreated under socialism, implying that their main complaint is that their freedoms were unfairly restricted (Schwarzenberg went into exile in Austria).

But back in power, they show (for example by their efforts to destroy the Czech communist youth league) that their main interest is not allowing freedom of expression, but preserving their precious and sacred property rights.

Social Security: keep your eyes on the prize

Fri, 08 Jun 2007 06:53:00 +0000

Don’t blink your eyes; keep your eyes on the prize. If you don’t, then you’re sure to lose it.

Wasn’t it only a couple of years ago that Wall Street and its Bush administration waged a massive propaganda war to convince us that Social Security was in mortal danger and about to collapse? They did convince a lot of people — too many people — that steps had to be taken to “save Social Security for our future generations.”

Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, that Wall Street is concerned with the well-being of our future generations? Or, for that matter, that George W. Bush is concerned?

Their propaganda was simple in its essence. They said too many people are getting Social Security checks. These checks are too high and people are retiring too early, at age 67, and people are living too long, they said.

So, they said, we must get a lot more money into the Social Security bank account and quickly. How do we do that? Where is the magic? Just take about one-half of the Social Security tax we pay into the fund and turn that cash over to Wall Street to invest. That’s called privatizing Social Security.

The Social Security Fund takes in about $750 billion a year. Wall Street says each year we should invest about half of that — at least $300 billion — in their investment accounts.

The Wall Street/Bush propaganda is aimed at those who are still working. The main thread that runs through their lies is that there won’t be enough money for current workers when they retire. Therefore, they argue, it would be better to put half of your weekly Social Security tax payment into Wall Street. They are trying to divide active workers from current retirees.

But wait! Didn’t the unions, the working class and people’s forces stop that swindle from happening? Yes, indeed. But the fight is still not over. Wall Street isn’t going to give up $300 billion a year. They’re not do-gooders. If they were, they would be the first to “scrap the cap” on Social Security tax payments.

Social Security is funded by a 12.4 percent payroll tax. One-half is paid by the worker (6.2 percent of gross wages) and one-half by the employer. These taxes are levied on only the first $97,500 in wages and salaries each year. After that, the rich stop paying. That’s how the cap works. If that cap were scrapped, it would end any imagined fiscal crisis in the Social Security funds.

I began this article by saying: Don’t blink your eyes. Please don’t.

Wall Street is still on the march. They are firing their big guns: President Bush in his 2007 State of the Union address; Henry Paulson, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, during his confirmation hearing for treasury secretary; and Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Board chairman, in recent speeches. They are leading the charge “to reform and save” Social Security.

They believe that eventually they can win no matter who is in power in Washington. Don’t forget that the right wing succeeded in deforming welfare and aid to dependent children during the Clinton years. They didn’t wait for a Republican administration.

What needs to be done about Social Security is to raise benefits substantially, lower the retirement age, make benefits nontaxable and scrap the cap. That’s what needs to be on the agenda for the first 100 hours of a new people-first Congress in 2009.

You can find a host of articles on saving and improving Social Security in the People’s Weekly World dating back a number of years at www.pww.org.

pbarile @cpusa.org

Venezuelans rally against destabilization moves

Fri, 08 Jun 2007 05:07:00 +0000

News Analysis

Watchers of U.S. television coverage of the last couple of weeks’ events in Venezuela might be forgiven for thinking that leftist President Hugo Chavez has been trying to silence the opposition press and that the Venezuelan people have arisen en masse to protest this power grab.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether from ideology or journalistic slovenliness or both, our media are giving us a much-distorted picture of what’s going on.

Protests have indeed arisen over the decision of the Venezuelan government not to renew the 20-year license of a private television station, Radio Caracas TV (RCTV). The government, citing RCTV for numerous violations of accepted norms of responsible media behavior, decided to award the bandwidth to another broadcaster.

The protests, some of which were violent, involved several thousand people, including some elite university students. They got statements of support from abroad, including from organizations like Human Rights Watch.

The U.S. Senate passed a resolution criticizing the Venezuelan government. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also criticized the nonrenewal of the license. Pro-business publications like the Economist magazine darkly hinted that this was the beginning of totalitarianism in Venezuela.

Of course the right-wing media in the U.S. went ape over the issue.

But here is what you are not being told:

On Saturday, June 2, supporters of President Chavez hit the streets in far greater numbers — up to 500,000 people by some estimates — to support the government’s move, a fact that went unreported in the U.S. press.

At the march, Chavez, who is working with the support of the vast majority of his people to move Venezuela toward a new form of popular socialism, defied the international capitalist interests which are trying to destabilize his Bolivarian Revolution, saying, “Go to hell, representatives of the global oligarchy. We are a free country!”

On May 31, several nongovernmental organizations held a press conference in which they presented evidence they say indicates some right-wing journalists, including those at both RCTV and Globovision, have been receiving payments from U.S. government sources with the purpose of destabilizing and overthrowing the Venezuelan people’s government.

Bernardo Alvarez Herrera, Venezuela’s ambassador to the United States, responded to Rep. Pelosi’s statement with a respectful letter in which he pointed out that most Venezuelan media, being controlled by members of the old oligarchy, continue to publish and broadcast opinions critical of the Chavez government.

According to Alvarez, there are still, in private hands, 79 television stations, 706 radio broadcasters and 118 newspapers, none of which have been interfered with by the government. Even RCTV can continue to operate satellite and cable programming; only its service on the limited public airwaves has been cut off.

Alvarez pointed out that the station had on several occasions violated clearly delineated and extremely reasonable norms of behavior.

“In April 2002, RCTV promoted a coup against the democratically elected government of President Chavez,” he wrote. “After that, it participated and encouraged the sabotage of the oil industry of Venezuela, causing tremendous suffering to the Venezuelan people.”

During the 2002 coup attempt, RCTV and some others not only were open in supporting the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government, but when it turned out that the mass of the Venezuelan people were not in agreement and poured dramatically into the streets demanding that Chavez be restored to power, they refused to cover this as news and ran cartoons instead.

In Venezuela as in the U.S., the media are mostly controlled by giant corporate monopolies whose interests are opposed to the interests of the great majority of the people. These media make sure that important stories are not covered or are completely distorted. This is not “freedom of the press,” but more nearly its opposite.

Supporters of Chavez point out that moving control of the media away from the rich oligarchies, whether in Venezuela or the U.S., and into the hands of the grassroots popular movement is a step toward freedom which merits international support, not condemnation.