People Before Profit blog

Interview with Salam Ali, Member of the Central Committee of the Iraqi Communist Party

Wed, 31 May 2006 10:07:00 +0000

Interview with Salam Ali, Member of the Central Committee of the Iraqi Communist Party, published by Nameh Mardom, central organ of the Tudeh Party of Iran, 26 May 2006, Issue No. 739

The new government of Iraq was announced yesterday. What is your view about the composition of the new government? Is this any near to your concept of the Government of National Unity? What position the ICP will take towards this government?

The new Iraqi government was formed after lengthy and tortuous negotiations between the various political blocs that won in the elections in Dec. 2005. The idea of setting up a broadly based national unity government was eventually endorsed, though reluctantly by some forces, to prevent a repetition of the policy of allocating posts on sectarian-ethnic basis. That policy had contributed to aggravating the sectarian polarization in society to unprecedented dangerous levels with catastrophic consequences for the people. The “principles of the government programme”, jointly worked out by representatives of the main political groups including our Communist Party, stated that “the principle of participation and representation of Iraqi constituent components” would be employed in forming the government. But, once again, narrow political interests and hegemonistic tendencies prevailed in the distribution of leading positions in governance: President and two deputies, Prime Minister and his two deputies, the speaker of parliament and his two deputies. These positions were divided up, along sectarian-ethnic lines, among three blocs: the Iraqi United Alliance (IUA), the Kurdistan Alliance and the National Accord Front. The democratic and liberal National Iraqi List that includes the Communist Party, ranking fourth with 25 seats (9% of the vote), was excluded from these posts. Attempts were also made to exclude the Iraqi List from “sovereign ministries”, although the ministries of interior and defence will now be allocated to “independent” figures who should not be associated with any particular bloc or party, especially one that has its own militia. The Iraqi List was openly and strongly critical of these steps, indicating clearly that it may not join the government unless its grievances were addressed. After last minute negotiations, the List was offered five ministries: Justice, Human Rights, Science and Technology, Communications and a Ministry of State.

In a statement issued on 21 May 2006, the National Iraqi List said that its “participation in the government is based on its recognition of the importance of consolidating the principle of national unity and Iraq’s security, safety and stability”. It also pointed out that “our participation with a number of ministers who represent a broad spectrum of our people, will help to restore the balance inside the government, strengthen the Iraqi patriotic voice in the Council of Ministers, and curtails the policy of sectarian quota”. Furthermore, it called on the Prime Minister to honour a number of promises and commitments that had been previously agreed. These include the need to remedy the “flagrant shortcoming in the proportion of women’s participation in ministerial posts” (only 4 women ministers out of 37), and to disband the militias and integrate them within state institutions “as individuals rather than organisations”.

It is, therefore, quite clear that the newly-formed government falls short of our Party’s aim and desire for a national unity government based on the above-mentioned criteria. But its composition, which is no longer totally dominated by one single bloc (the IUA) as was the case in the previous Transitional Government of Dr. Ibrahim Jaafary, opens up the potential for greater say in the decision making process. There is a relatively better representation of the political spectrum and diversity in Iraqi society. It is a permanent government with a 4-year term according to the constitution, that is facing enormous political challenges and will have a significant impact on the way a new Iraqi state will emerge.

There are those who argue that the ICP should not participate in the government and should instead support it from outside. This view points out that non- involvement of the ICP would have made it certain that it would not be tainted by the actions of a government which in the main is made of forces with a questionable past- and tendency for accommodating anti democratic- anti communist policies.

This argument, whether or not to participate in the government, was indeed seriously considered and carefully weighed by the Party, and also by the broad democratic and liberal electoral coalition, the National Iraqi List. Two important factors were taken into consideration: the government’s programme and the ability to influence the decision-making process. In addition, the composition of the new parliament, as well as the government, has changed, opening up possibilities for a realignment of forces on major issues facing the country, both national and democratic. Inner rules have also been agreed for the Council of Ministers that would help to curtail authoritarian tendencies in policy formulation. A “Political Commission for National Security” will be set up, providing a forum for national consensus on strategic issues among the main political forces.

Iraqi CP’s participation in the government, despite the above-mentioned reservations, will compliment its work in parliament and mass democratic struggles. Strengthening the position and influence of the democratic and secular forces, advancing their vision of a modern democratic state, and consistently combating sectarian and reactionary policies, are essential prerequisites for safeguarding against, and defeating, anti-democratic and anti-communist tendencies. One must also not overlook the urgent need for strengthening national unity and achieving national consensus to be able to seize back full national sovereignty and independence. The ongoing political battle to decide the character of the emerging Iraqi state is closely interconnected with the national task of eliminating the legacy of occupation and ending foreign military presence in our homeland. In all this multifaceted and complex struggle, our Party will be guided, first and foremost, by the interests of the Iraqi people, workers and toilers.

Would you please give your evaluation of the new Prime Minister? What is his programme? Do you think that this programme is capable of overcoming the current difficulties you are facing?

The new Prime Minister is a leading figure of the Dawa party led by Dr. Jaafary. He had been its representative in Damascus before the regime’s fall, and was well-known to various opposition groups based there. He has pledged to pursue non-sectarian policies in government, fight rampant corruption, deal firmly with the issue of militias, and tackle the chronic and deteriorating security situation and basic services. As pointed out earlier, the principles of his government’s programme had been worked out jointly with other political blocs, and are generally good. But his performance, and that of the government, will be closely scrutinized by the people in the coming weeks and months to see if the words are matched with deeds. The challenges ahead are enormous, and only a government truly embodying national unity can succeed.

It seems that during the past few month the security situation has gone out of control. Since October referendum and December General Election terrorism has become a daily feature of events in Iraq. What is the views of the ICP for a Qualitative change in tackling the security issue?

Our Party has always pointed out that the security issue should be tackled by adopting a multifaceted and integrated approach, including political, social and economic measures, rather than resorting to direct military force alone. The formation of a national unity government, drawing more political groups into the ongoing political process, promoting genuine national dialogue and isolating extremist and terrorist anti-people forces, are all essential prerequisites for handling this issue. The forthcoming National Accord Conference, to be convened next month, will provide an important platform and opportunity to discuss these aspects and develop further the agreement reached at the Cairo Conference last November.

There are many international observers who believe that presence of occupation forces is a key factor in the continuation of terrorist violence. Do you have any sympathy with this view? What is the IC Party position regarding the issue of bringing an end to the occupation and regaining full sovereignty and independence for the country?

Certain important aspects of the current violence in Iraq, further aggravated by sectarian polarization, are a direct consequence of the occupation and the policies implemented by the occupation authority (CPA) and the US administration in Iraq. Our Party has called for a timetable for withdrawal of foreign forces together with doubling the efforts to provide the internal political, institutional and security conditions for this withdrawal. The National Accord Conference held in Cairo last November supported such a withdrawal timetable in order to avoid chaos and additional suffering. We believe that this is a realistic agenda and can be implemented in a relatively short period. With the formation of a permanent government, that has already endorsed the idea of “an objective timetable” for withdrawal and speeding up the transfer of security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces, this issue will feature prominently on its agenda.

In your CC meeting in March 2006 you called for a serious and responsible National Dialogue. What form this dialogue will take? What conditions should be created so the dialogue could take place? Who will be invited/ encouraged to this national dialogue and who not?

The forthcoming National Accord Conference will be an important step in the direction of the desired National Dialogue. The agreement reached at the pervious Cairo Conference provided a good basis for such dialogue. But it has to broadened to include the full spectrum of social and democratic movements, including trade unions, women, youth, students organisations and other NGOs.

June 6 race could spell trouble for GOP

Fri, 26 May 2006 04:55:00 +0000

National attention is focusing on the June 6 special election in California’s 50th Congressional District, north of San Diego, to replace Republican Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Cunningham is now in prison after pleading guilty to taking bribes.

In an April 11 open primary, Democrat Francine Busby shocked national political pundits by winning 44 percent of the vote in a district where Republicans have a 44-30 percent lead in voter registration. A May 18-20 poll shows Busby leading Republican Brian Bilbray 47-40 percent.

A Busby victory on June 6 would further energize Democratic efforts to win back a majority of the House of Representatives in the Nov. 7 elections. Busby’s continuing lead in what has been considered a Republican safe seat reflects national polls showing congressional Democrats heavily favored over Republicans based on issues.

Busby, a former school board trustee, challenged Cunningham in 2004 and won 37 percent of the vote. Her platform stresses ethics reform. On Iraq she calls for an exit strategy with clear benchmarks for restoring security and infrastructure. She opposes offshore oil drilling in California and privatization of Social Security. She supports “tough air and water quality standards,” “cutting taxes for small businesses and working families by eliminating corporate tax shelters and loopholes,” and “women’s right to choose.” Among her supporters are Emily’s List, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, the San Diego Sierra Club and MoveOn.org, which is mobilizing national support for her candidacy.

Bilbray previously represented California’s 49th Congressional District but was defeated by Democrat Susan Davis in 2000. His slogan is “Proven Tough on Illegal Immigration,” and his platform features “fiscal responsibility” and “protecting our children from sexual predators.”

Bilbray’s web site features support from Vice President Dick Cheney, Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former California Governor and San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson. Bilbray is co-chair of the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Bilbray’s platform on immigration speaks of enforcement only, including deploying the military on the border and limiting “birthright citizenship” to children of citizens and permanent residents.

A Busby victory could put a chill on the House Republican leadership’s enforcement-only approach on immigration. Busby supports the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform bill, although she emphasizes penalizing businesses that hire undocumented workers, high-tech border enforcement and a guest worker program, and opposes amnesty.

Whoever wins the June 6 special election will still face a re-election race on Nov. 7.

June 6 will also be a statewide primary election in California, where the key focus is on the Democratic gubernatorial race. The winner will face Republican incumbent Arnold Schwarznegger in November. In the primary, State Treasurer Phil Angelides, who has the endorsement of the state Democratic Party and the California Federation of Labor, is running against state Controller Steve Westly, a former eBay executive who has put $32.5 million of his personal funds into the campaign.

Tax bill to benefit super-rich

Fri, 19 May 2006 04:44:00 +0000

If you make $1-million-plus a year, you’ll be happy with the Republican tax bill signed by President Bush May 17. You’re set to save another $43,000.

If you make $40,000-$50,000 per year, you’ll get $47 – enough for a tank of gas.

If you make less than $40,000, Bush’s tax plan promises you next to nothing.

Richard Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities summed it up: “This indefensible agreement provides a windfall for the most well-off but little or nothing for most other Americans, relies on budget gimmicks to help mask its long-term costs, and will further increase our already large and unsustainable deficits.”

At the same time, Congress is trying to permanently repeal the estate tax, which benefits fewer than 1 in 100 people (see People Before Profits column, page 7), and is considering other pro-business, pro-wealthy tax cuts.

The Bush tax plan is not a “tax cut” but a “tax shift.” Over five years it shifts $70 billion worth of tax burden away from wealthy taxpayers (and corporations) and onto workers and low-income people.

The ways it does this include a one-year extension of exemptions from the alternative minimum tax, a two-year extension of the low 15 percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends, expanded tax breaks for business investment in labor-saving equipment, and provisions allowing multinationals like GE and Citigroup to avoid taxes on certain income shifted overseas.

Federal revenue has fallen from 21 percent of gross domestic product in 2000 to 17.5 percent today. At the same time, federal spending has risen from 18.4 percent to 20.8 percent, fueled by Iraq and other military costs. The difference between income and spending is made up by borrowing. The government’s debt — $8.3 trillion and rising $2 billion per day — will be used for many years to come as an excuse to impose further cuts on programs that benefit the working class.

“There is no evidence that massive tax cuts create jobs, but there is considerable evidence that they contribute to economy-choking deficits,” said United for a Fair Economy.

Budget proposals being worked on in the Republican-controlled Congress all contain cuts to people-friendly programs and entitlements. The House plan would cut expenditures by $132 billion over five years. So more than half of these cuts — in things like help with college tuition and health care for the poor, elderly and disabled — will go to pay for this new round of welfare for the rich. Some Republicans, worried about the November elections, are balking at some of these cuts.

This $70 billion is on top of earlier tax cuts. For example, for dividends and capital gains tax cuts totaling about $50 billion over five years, $21 billion comes from this package, while the other $29 billion comes from previous tax bills.

To put it in personal terms, Bush received $26,204 and Vice President Dick Cheney received $1,093,937 from the tax cuts that were just extended as well as the other tax changes pushed through by their administration.

Extending the 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains is of value almost entirely to the very rich. Dividends and capital gains are two forms of income from investing in the stock market (or in bonds, real estate or other financial instruments). Even for better-off members of the working class, almost all of their investments are in retirement plans like IRAs or 401(k)s. This tax cut does absolutely nothing for those holdings. The overwhelming bulk of this tax cut goes to the super-wealthy.

Dividends and capital gains are income that people get for doing absolutely nothing. Most of us are taxed at a rate between 33 percent and 36 percent (income and Social Security/Medicaid taxes combined) on our income, for which we work hard every day.

The wealth of the really rich is invested in stocks, bonds, etc. They get huge incomes from these investments. On this income, they pay federal income tax, but no Social Security tax. Without special treatment, their rate would be 35 percent. So the idle rich would pay the same tax rate as middle-income people who work for a living. This is bad enough — under any principle of fairness, the rich should pay a higher rate than everyone else.

But the Bush tax cuts, on top of some earlier ones, drop this investment income to a 15 percent tax rate — less than half of what we pay!

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made an apt comment: “The tax reconciliation bill giveaway on capital gains and dividends will do much more for Exxon Mobil board members than it will do for Exxon Mobil customers.”

CPUSA Statement in Response to Bush Immigration Speech

Wed, 17 May 2006 09:08:00 +0000

George W. Bush’s speech to the nation on May 15, 2006 highlighting deployment of the National Guard to the Mexican border represents an aggressive policy of racist, anti-immigrant demonization and hysteria. It was a demagogic attempt to mobilize the conservative base and appeal to fear in the lead-up to the November Election, and impact the current Senate debate.

Bush’s call for ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ includes predominantly punitive, exploitative measures that belie the democratic traditions of our country. His proposals to maintain 6,000 Nation al Guard troops at the border and increase facilities to imprison immigrants constitute the domestic side of a permanent war policy, which diverts funds from human needs and must be rejected.

Bush’s feigned embrace of our country as ‘a nation of immigrants’ cannot hide the vicious anti-immigrant, anti-worker substance of his proposals.

We join with all those who are speaking out against this blatant attempt to play to the right wing and distract attention from mobilizations to call upon the US Senate to amend the Hagel-Martinez-Specter compromise, S. 2611. As written, this bill would exclude the vast majority of undocumented immigrants now in the country from a path to legalization and citizenship. It would create a tiered and permanently unequal workforce that splits families.

This attack of Bush makes it necessary to redouble calls and messages to the Senate and the House to take out every punitive and restrictive measure from immigrant legislation. Senate Bill 2611 should be defeated if efforts to radically amend it in a progressive, pro-immigrant direction do not succeed.

Bush’s proposals pander to extreme right-wing, racist efforts to drive immigrants out of the country, demonizing our sisters and brothers as ‘terrorists,’ ‘criminals,’ and ‘invaders’. His ‘guest worker’ proposal makes workers dependent on their employer to maintain their status, institutionalizing their vulnerability and undermining the position of all workers. The identification system proposed for immigrants is a step toward an Orwellian national ID card that could be extended to all workers.

Undocumented immigration is a worldwide issue caused by the increasing differences of wealth among and within countries. The international trade polices of the US administration force millions in Mexico, Central America, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and other countries of Latin America, Asia and Africa to uproot themselves and seek work here. Employers, who violate immigrants’ most basic labor and civil rights with impunity, knowing that these workers have diminished leverage to defend themselves, are subjecting undocumented immigrants to super-exploitation. This is bad for all workers.

We join with labor, immigrant and community organizations in calling upon the US Senate to pass legislation for legalization of undocumented immigrants with a clear path to citizenship, full civil rights and due process, labor rights, family reunification, civic education and participation.

The Communist Party USA supports special measures to achieve immigrant rights:

Legislate a speedy path to permanent resident status with access to citizenship for all 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country.

Increase the number of permanent resident visas instead of guest worker programs.

Halt all raids and deportations until the immigration issue can be positively resolved.

End the practice of breaking up families through the deportation of breadwinners.

Defend the labor and civil rights of all workers and their families, at work and in the community.

End imperialist trade and foreign policies that exacerbate the poverty of countries like Mexico, El Salvador, Haiti, etc. and therefore make mass labor immigration inevitable.

Hating Barry Bonds

Wed, 17 May 2006 09:03:00 +0000

Hating Barry Bonds has become a national passion—or so the very sportswriters who have whipped up this hate tell us. What they don’t tell us is that this passion is prevalent almost exclusively among a few white men.

Not that others, including myself, don’t think that Barry probably used steroids. Though not proven, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. However, most people have better things to do with our lives than hate Barry. And one’s mind must be seriously clouded to overlook a number of important factors:

First, the steroid scandal is principally (though not only) the fault of Major League Baseball, not of any player. Baseball did not ban the use of steroids until 2004. The owners and the commissioner knew about their widespread use and refused to discourage let alone ban steroid use.

They made huge money from the steroid-powered home run binge and put their profits before the good of the game and the health of the players. To blame the players alone, let alone one single player, for the steroid scandal is blatantly ridiculous.

Why isn’t the hate aimed at the commissioner or the owners? Is anyone calling for the resignation of the commissioner or for the owners to be banned from baseball, or at least to be penalized in some way?

Second, although the most high profile steroid users (or suspected users) are power hitters, pitchers also used steroids. In fact, although position players far outnumber pitchers, so far more pitchers than hitters have been actually caught and punished for steroid use. Pitchers on steroids were throwing to hitters on steroids. Who benefited the most from their use, the hitters or the pitchers? Surely not just Barry Bonds.

I assume steroid use also affected fielding. So if there are any asterisks applied to records because of steroids, they should be applied to every baseball endeavor over the last decade: all aspects of pitching, hitting and fielding.

So why do a few white men hate Barry Bonds with a passion?

Ask Henry Aaron, the reigning all time home run king. He received constant death threats and racial hatred when he neared Babe Ruth’s hallowed home run record. The racism was so bad that the FBI was deployed to open his mail, Aaron was assigned a personal bodyguard, and his teammates stood constantly at the ready to defend their friend.

Bigots made his life (and his family’s life) a living hell. To this day he refuses to discuss his home run chase because it brings back so much pain.

Even in today’s racially “enlightened age,” many cannot get over the fixation on the Great White Hope. Even dead ones like Babe Ruth whose records have already been surpassed.

And some sportswriters and fans don’t seem to be able let racial stereotypes die, especially when they overlap with sensationalism. They constantly find some black athletes to excoriate as beasts, e.g. Allen Iverson, Rasheed Wallace, Terrell Owens, Shani Davis and Barry Bonds. And they forever tell us that white superstars like Larry Bird, Steve Nash and others succeeded due to their superior “work ethic” despite “limited talent.”

Many Bonds haters justify their stance by saying they are only out to defend baseball’s supposedly sacred statistics and records. If that is their real concern, let me suggest the most important thing they could do would be to expunge all the records and statistics set in the decade’s long white’s only era. (Or they might include Josh Gibson’s Negro League record of 84 home runs in one season and 962 lifetime.)

Who deserves the asterisk more—Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds?

Bob Wing is an Oakland Bay Area-based writer and activist.

Immigration compromise bill is a fraud

Fri, 12 May 2006 04:47:00 +0000

When the Senate adjourned without acting on immigration legislation on April 7, the so-called Hagel-Martinez compromise bill was left hanging. Some supporters of immigrant rights saw this as a setback.

But today many say the provisions of Hagel-Martinez, now incorporated into Sen. Arlen Specter’s bill, S 2611, will do much more harm than good if they are passed into law. The bill, which is likely to come to the Senate floor as early as May 15, should be stopped if it cannot be radically amended.

Groups such as the AFL-CIO, the National Organization for Women, the New American Opportunity Campaign, the Rights Working Group, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the ACLU and the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law are pointing out key flaws in Hagel-Martinez and calling for them to be remedied in whatever bill the Senate eventually passes.

The first problem is that the bill divides the undocumented into three groups.

People who have been here illegally for five years or more could apply for a special status that would, after six years, make it possible for them to become legal residents and therefore eventually get citizenship. However, the process is arduous and contains many pitfalls that could end up disqualifying the person.

Those who have been here more than two years but less than five would have to return to their country of origin, but then would be able to immediately come back as guest workers.

Those who have been here less than two years would have to leave. The only benefit they get is that they would not be barred from coming back if they could find some other basis on which to do so.

Second, the bill could disqualify several million of the 12 million undocumented immigrants from legalization because of a prohibition on people who have committed “document fraud,” including the use of a false Social Security number. A large proportion of undocumented workers pay taxes, but to do this they provide their employers with invented Social Security numbers, as there is no other way.

Third, the bill restricts “voluntary departure.” Up to now, undocumented immigrants not suspected of any other illegal activity have been able to sign a paper saying that they are leaving of their own accord, avoiding a full deportation proceeding. If, on the other hand, one has been deported, one is blocked from returning legally, and if one returns illegally, one could get felony jail time. So reducing voluntary departure is a serious matter.

Many analysts see the Hagel-Martinez compromise as making full legalization available to at most 3-4 million of the 12 million undocumented. The rest will probably not leave, but will stay, working under even more marginal conditions. And its repressive dimensions, many of them similar to those in the Sensenbrenner bill, HR 4437, will create huge problems not just for the undocumented but for thousands of legal permanent residents and asylum seekers as well.

Thus, immigrant rights advocates are concluding, if Hagel-Martinez cannot be radically changed, a total impasse on comprehensive immigration reform legislation would be preferable.

This does not mean that nothing can be accomplished, however. For example, Rep. Jose Serrano’s bill, HR 5035, which would restore to immigration judges their right to stop deportation of parents with U.S. citizen children, would help many families and should be fought for.

The key problem is that the Republican Party controls the White House and Congress. The moneyed interests to whom President Bush is closest mainly want a guest worker bill as well as repressive measures to keep workers subservient. However, the most fired-up social base of the GOP consists of extremists who want to see all undocumented immigrants deported without exception and the border shut down tight.

In the short term there is no readily visible opening in this dismal panorama for advancing more pro-immigrant, pro-worker comprehensive legislation. But the divisions within the Republican ranks may produce a stalemate, which may be the best result that can be hoped for at this time.

The struggle for pro-immigrant, pro-worker immigration reform will continue by many means, but without a change in Congress in November, it is going to be very difficult. For this reason, immigrant rights activists all over the country are stepping up promotion of voter registration so that the energy seen in the recent marches can have an electoral impact in November.

In the coming week or weeks the most important task will be to pressure senators to positively amend S 2611 or to stop it, and to build a pro-immigrant constituency with labor and others in citizenship, voter registration, education and voter turnout campaigns.

Causes of the current oil price shocks

Fri, 05 May 2006 06:41:00 +0000

Economists attending an April energy conference sponsored by Johns Hopkins University were in general agreement that a “slow-motion supply shock amounting now to a 2 million barrel per day aggregate disruption” was the chief cause of the current spike in prices at U.S. and world gas pumps. The Washington meeting was headlined by top economists from the Federal Reserve and Daniel Yergin of the Cambridge Energy Research Association (CERA).

The following factors were identified as the principal sources of actual supply shortages:

• The war in Iraq: Iraq is 900,000 barrels per day below pre-war levels of production.

• Nigeria: Production is down 500,000 barrels per day as a result of the insurgency aimed at curtailing Shell’s control of that country’s vast natural resources.

• Venezuela: Speakers said that production is still 400,000 barrels per day below pre-2002-2003 levels, in part as a result of the CIA-backed employer lockout or “strike” in the oil industry in 2002. (The Venezuelan government, however, says normal production resumed by mid-2003.)

• Gulf of Mexico: Today’s production by U.S. firms is 330,000 barrels per day less than before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

So the imperial policies and relationships of the U.S. and British governments and the blatant incompetence of the Bush Department of Homeland Security account for the lion’s share of shortages. Stopping the war in Iraq, supporting instead of suppressing the Nigerian insurgency, and ending the boycotts and hostility to the Venezuelan democratic revolution are the quickest ways to restore oil supplies.

While growing demand from Asian economies is a strong underlying current in oil markets, the sharp increase in Asian consumption that drove the market in previous years is not a similar factor currently, according to CERA. China’s 2004 increase of 16 percent dropped to 1.7 percent in 2005, and is expected to be about 6 percent (400,000 barrels per day) this year. U.S. oil consumption, by comparison, is 10 times the Chinese per capita volume, and growing at nearly 1 percent a year.

Speculative shortages

In addition to real shortages, however, there are related speculative shortages. U.S. threats to Iran (which produces 5 percent of the world’s best grade of crude oil) top the list. Speculators in oil futures have already factored in the effects of a possible Iranian boycott of the West in response to attacks.

EU and U.S. interference in the elections in former Soviet republics led to an actual shutoff of Russia’s principal pipeline to Europe last month. Russia is the world’s second largest producer after Saudi Arabia.

The oil companies

Exxon and other oil companies are gaining tremendous cash flows from the current spike, much of which they are not investing in new refining capacity. While there are serious environmental, technical and public policy obstacles to building new refining plants in the U.S., many observers think the oil giants are withholding investment to deliberately protect short supply, and thus higher prices. They point to very slow or non-existent activities to modernize existing refineries — steps which could significantly boost supply and improve environmental safety. Most expanded capacity in recent years was in the Gulf, or in purchasing “offshore,” i.e. imperial investments which are now also under assault by democratic movements.

The solutions

• Defeat Bush. Take back Congress in November. Clearly there can be no solution from a government as tied to the oil industry as is the Bush administration. This is plain from the increasingly absurd proposals by their political flunkies to drill in Alaska, remove existing environmental protections and launch another catastrophic adventure in Iran.

• Comprehensive and global alternative energy and conservation strategies are critical to world economic stability. There are many promising technologies that the right public investments and private incentives can bring to fruition. Comprehensive is the key. For example, alternative fuels research investments in the past have had little impact as automakers have been permitted to throw fuel efficiency to the wind in their obsession with the SUV market.

Clearly, the first step for any real solution is to break the grip of the oil companies on the U.S. political structure.

Senate Republicans feel street heat

Fri, 05 May 2006 05:44:00 +0000

The massive immigrant rights demonstrations, work stoppages, boycotts and voter registration efforts, embraced by millions of immigrants and their supporters from coast to coast May 1, have sent a powerful message to Congress: We are Americans who deserve rights and respect, not repression!

But inside Washington’s Beltway, the Republican-dominated Congress continues to put top priority on passing anti-immigrant restrictions and punitive enforcement measures.

Senate Majority Leader Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who earlier said he might take the immigration issue back to the Senate floor by May 8, said on May 1, “I will bring back comprehensive reform in about two weeks, comprehensive reform that starts by tightening our borders — border security first and foremost.”

Increasing the drama on this and other congressional matters were the results of a USA Today/Gallup poll taken April 28-30 showing a 54-39 point preference for Democrats over Republicans among registered voters in this election year.

The immigration debate currently centers on negotiations around S 2611, the so-called Hagel-Martinez compromise bill. The bill stalled in committee on April 7, purportedly over a procedural issue.

The Bush administration’s “carrot and stick” approach of offering to broker such a compromise while carrying out nationwide immigration raids neither deterred the broadening and deepening immigrant rights movement nor improved Bush’s standing in the polls, which dropped further into the lower 30 percent range on May 1.

Within the immigrant rights movement there is broad agreement about the serious weaknesses of the Hagel-Martinez bill, especially on the issues of legalization and labor and civil rights protections. Some, however, believe it can be modified by pro-immigrant amendments, while others stress the dangers of attempting win a decent compromise in a right-wing, GOP-controlled political process.

The AFL-CIO, ACLU, NOW, and many Latino and civil rights organizations have sharply criticized the compromise bill as unacceptable, and have urged their members to communicate as much to their senators and representatives.

The National Network on Immigrant and Refugee Rights has won some support with a call to oppose the compromise approach, including from the AFL-CIO, although most major labor, civil rights, church and Latino groups are not taking such a position at this time.

The Catholic Conference of Bishops and the Service Employees International Union have placed their main emphasis on negotiating a bipartisan compromise with a tradeoff that they say would be beneficial, overall, to the immigrant communities.

Immigrant rights advocates indicate that pro-civil-rights and legalization amendments are being prepared for possible presentation by one or more leading Democrats when the Senate debate resumes.

Many of the immigrant rights demonstrations called for full legalization in any bill.

Public opinion polls show a strong and growing majority of voters rejecting the harshly restrictive and punitive approach of HR 4437, the so-called Sensenbrenner bill, which was rammed through the House by the Republican leadership with the support of the White House. The polls show a fluid consensus for a combination of legalization for large numbers of undocumented workers with some restrictive measures.

There is growing popular support for the calls for acceptance of, and solidarity with, immigrant communities. This was evident in the widespread support for the April 10 and May 1 events.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney expressed this growing solidarity in a May 1 message greeting the protests. “Immigrant workers are our sisters and brothers, and every person who works in this country is entitled to the full range of rights and opportunities America provides,” he said. “We support immigrant workers because supporting all working people is the core of our labor movement. We are always stronger together than when we allow ruthless employers and the politicians they own to drive wedges between us.”

The May 1 economic protest, whether it took the form of not going to work, boycotting retail stores, not going to school or closing down businesses for a day, also increased awareness about the importance of immigrants to the overall economy.

A Los Angeles Times article on the May 1 boycott activities said the economic message was emphatic and unmistakable. “This was a reality check,” said Economic Roundtable President Daniel Flaming. “You can’t wish away these workers. They are rooted in the community. Not everyone realized that before.”

Sen. Frist’s emphasis on “enforcement first” is under growing pressure from many sides, as his decision to delay debate for “about two weeks” suggests. Increased pressure on senators, indicating that the Hagel-Martinez bill, S 2611, is unacceptable without major pro-immigrant amendments, may bottle up the right-wing drive for more restrictive and repressive immigration laws.

Military intervention is no answer for Darfur

Fri, 05 May 2006 05:41:00 +0000

After a lull lasting more than a year, the corporate press is, once again, zeroing in on the situation in Sudan’s Darfur region. This sudden attention corresponds with a drive to build a national political movement against the Sudanese government and in favor of U.S. military intervention in Africa’s biggest country.

This movement, which has been spearheaded by a coalition of evangelical Christian and Jewish organizations, has had some success building a campus-based movement for divestment from companies doing business with Sudan. April 30 demonstrations in Washington and other cities urged the Bush administration to intervene in Darfur. President Bush personally met with and praised coalition leaders.

Why the renewed interest? Certainly some are drawn to this movement by the devastating humanitarian crisis. But what’s in it for U.S. imperialism? Might Sudan’s substantial oil reserves have anything to do with this? It’s clear that at least one powerful section of the U.S. ruling class is pushing for increased intervention in Sudan.

The corporate media portray the conflict in Darfur as a racial war between Arabs and Africans. The reality is that all Sudanese are African, all Darfuri people are dark-skinned, and two-thirds of the world’s Arabs live in Africa. Darfur’s many ethnic groups are overwhelmingly Muslim. They label themselves “African” or “Arab” based on what language they speak.

The media and right-wing groups sow confusion by fanning anti-Arab hysteria and playing on the sympathies of African Americans for the plight of Black Africans. The accusation that Sudan’s government also plays the race card only illustrates the similarities between its tactics and those of the right-wing Bush regime.

The war in Darfur began in 2003 with an uprising against the government. For the last 20 years, Sudan has been involved in a civil war pitting the Arabic-speaking Muslim north against the mostly non-Arab south. Arab nationalism has been often used by Sudan’s government, dominated by Islamic fundamentalists, to rally support for its ongoing wars.

Darfur provided the regime with a disproportionately large number of conscripted soldiers, but as the North-South civil war was winding down, the prospect of peace brought promise of newfound wealth from exploitation of oil and gas. The Darfuri rebels demanded an end to poverty and neglect, asking that some of the new wealth be spent in Darfur.

The government responded by whipping up Arab nationalism and encouraging Arab militias to attack the rebels and their civilian supporters. The ensuing bloodshed resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, ethnic cleansing, arson, rapes and an estimated 2.5 million refugees living in squalid camps, some in neighboring Chad.

That was the situation in January 2005 when the peace agreement was signed ending the civil war between North and South. Since then the African Union (AU) has sent 7,800 peacekeepers to Darfur, while it has brokered peace talks in the Nigerian capital, Abuja. European and Arab countries have sent humanitarian aid, and the UN and NATO have helped the AU peacekeepers with some logistical support.

Meanwhile, the situation in Darfur has deteriorated as the Arab militias have split into rival factions competing with Darfuri rebels, warlords and bandits. The AU peacekeeping force is too small to oversee a region the size of Darfur, food and humanitarian assistance convoys are routinely robbed, and most “Western” countries, including the U.S., have cut down on their assistance to Darfuri civilians.

Earlier this year Bush suggested an expanded international UN role in Darfur “with NATO stewardship.” U.S. imperialism is pushing for NATO intervention, or in lieu of NATO, a UN intervention with heavy NATO involvement. NATO, after all, is a tool for U.S. domination, so if imperialism can’t intervene directly it can come in by participating in a UN force. The U.S. already has military bases in this region from the Atlantic through Mauritania, Mali and Niger to Chad. Stationing NATO troops in Sudan will complete a deployment across the continent from ocean to ocean.

NATO intervention has not brought peace to Afghanistan, nor has U.S. intervention brought peace to Iraq. The solution for Darfur requires the same international effort that brought a peace agreement to end Sudan’s North-South civil war. The peace talks in Abuja have moved slowly, but appear to be on the brink of an agreement to resolve the crisis. The U.S. should be encouraging a comprehensive peace agreement, a beefed-up AU peacekeeping force and a huge increase in humanitarian aid.

Ending the war on Iraq would free up billions of dollars for humanitarian aid in Darfur. The upcoming U.S. elections provide an opportunity for Americans to reject policies of military intervention. What is needed is real humanitarian assistance to Africa and the Middle East, not U.S. or NATO armies.