People Before Profit blog

Is Ukraine one “regime change” too many?

Mon, 03 Mar 2014 16:37:00 +0000

Is "regime change" in Ukraine the bridge too far for the neoconservative "regime changers" of Official Washington and their sophomoric "responsibility-to-protect" (R2P) allies in the Obama administration? Have they dangerously over-reached by pushing the putsch that removed duly-elected Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has given an unmistakable "yes" to those questions - in deeds, not words. His message is clear: "Back off our near-frontier!"

Moscow announced on Saturday that Russia's parliament has approved Putin's request for permission to use Russia's armed forces "on the territory of the Ukraine pending the normalization of the socio-political situation in that country."

Putin described this move as necessary to protect ethnic Russians and military personnel stationed in Crimea in southern Ukraine, where the Russian Black Sea Fleet and other key military installations are located. But there is no indication that the Russian parliament has restricted the use of Russian armed forces to the Crimea.

Unless Obama is completely bereft of advisers who know something about Russia, it should have been a "known-known" (pardon the Rumsfeldian mal mot) that the Russians would react this way to a putsch removing Yanukovych. It would have been a no-brainer that Russia would use military force, if necessary, to counter attempts to use economic enticement and subversive incitement to slide Ukraine into the orbit of the West and eventually NATO.

This was all the more predictable in the case of Ukraine, where Putin - although the bête noire in corporate Western media - holds very high strategic cards geographically, militarily, economically and politically.

Unlike "Prague Spring" 1968

Moscow's advantage was not nearly as clear during the short-lived "Prague Spring" of 1968 when knee-jerk, non-thinking euphoria reigned in Washington and West European capitals. The cognoscenti were, by and large, smugly convinced that reformer Alexander Dubcek could break Czechoslovakia away from the USSR's embrace and still keep the Russian bear at bay.

My CIA analyst portfolio at the time included Soviet policy toward Eastern Europe, and I was amazed to see analysts of Eastern Europe caught up in the euphoria that typically ended with, "And the Soviets can't do a damned thing about it!"

That summer a new posting found me advising Radio Free Europe Director Ralph Walter who, virtually alone among his similarly euphoric colleagues, shared my view that Russian tanks would inevitably roll onto Prague's Wenceslaus Square, which they did in late August.

Past is not always prologue. But it is easy for me to imagine the Russian Army cartographic agency busily preparing maps of the best routes for tanks into Independence Square in Kiev, and that before too many months have gone by, Russian tank commanders may be given orders to invade, if those stoking the fires of violent dissent in the western parts of Ukraine keep pushing too far.

That said, Putin has many other cards to play and time to play them. These include sitting back and doing nothing, cutting off Russia's subsidies to Ukraine, making it ever more difficult for Yanukovich's successors to cope with the harsh realities. And Moscow has ways to remind the rest of Europe of its dependence on Russian oil and gas.

Another interference

There is one huge difference between Prague in 1968 and Kiev 2014. The "Prague Spring" revolution led by Dubcek enjoyed such widespread spontaneous popular support that it was difficult for Russian leaders Leonid Brezhnev and Aleksey Kosygin to argue plausibly that it was spurred by subversion from the West.

Not so 45-plus years later. In early February, as violent protests raged in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev and the White House professed neutrality, U.S. State Department officials were, in the words of NYU professor emeritus of Russian studies Stephen Cohen, "plotting a coup d'état against the elected president of Ukraine."

We know that thanks to neocon prima donna Victoria Nuland, now assistant secretary of state for European affairs, who seemed intent on giving new dimension to the "cookie-pushing" role of U.S. diplomats. Recall the photo showing Nuland in a metaphor of over-reach, as she reached deep into a large plastic bag to give each anti-government demonstrator on the square a cookie before the putsch.

More important, recall her amateurish, boorish use of an open telephone to plot regime change in Ukraine with a fellow neocon, U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. Crass U.S. interference in Ukrainian affairs can be seen (actually, better, heard) in an intercepted conversation posted on YouTube in early February.

Yikes! It's Yats!

Nuland was recorded as saying: "Yats is the guy. He's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the guy you know. ... Yats will need all the help he can get to stave off collapse in the ex-Soviet state. He has warned there is an urgent need for unpopular cutting of subsidies and social payments before Ukraine can improve."

And guess what. The stopgap government formed after the coup designated Nuland's guy Yats, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, prime minister! What luck! Yats is 39 and has served as head of the central bank, foreign minister and economic minister. And, as designated pinch-hitter-prime-minister, he has already talked about the overriding need for "responsible government," one willing to commit "political suicide," as he put it, by taking unpopular social measures.

U.S. meddling has been so obvious that at President Barack Obama's hastily scheduled Friday press conference on Ukraine, Yats's name seemed to get stuck in Obama's throat. Toward the end of his scripted remarks, which he read verbatim, the President said: "Vice President Biden just spoke with Prime Minister [pause] - the prime minister of Ukraine to assure him that in this difficult moment the United States supports his government's efforts and stands for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic future of Ukraine."

Obama doesn't usually stumble like that - especially when reading a text, and is normally quite good at pronouncing foreign names. Perhaps he worried that one of the White House stenographic corps might shout out, "You mean our man, Yats?" Obama departed right after reading his prepared remarks, leaving no opportunity for such an outburst.

Western media was abuzz with the big question: Will the Russians apply military force? The answer came quickly, though President Obama chose the subjunctive mood in addressing the question on Friday.

Throwing down a hanky

There was a surreal quality to President Obama's remarks, several hours after Russian (or pro-Russian) troops took control of key airports and other key installations in the Crimea, which is part of Ukraine, and home to a large Russian naval base and other key Russian military installations.

Obama referred merely to "reports of military movements taken by the Russian Federation inside of Ukraine" and warned piously that "any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing."

That Obama chose the subjunctive mood - when the indicative was, well, indicated - will not be lost on the Russians. Here was Obama, in his typically lawyerly way, trying to square the circle, giving a sop to his administration's neocon holdovers and R2P courtiers, with a Milquetoasty expression of support for the new-Nuland-approved government (citing Biden's assurances to old whatshisname/yatshisname).

While Obama stuck to the subjunctive tense, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk appealed to Russia to recall its forces and "stop provoking civil and military resistance in Ukraine."

Obama's comments seemed almost designed to sound condescending - paternalistic, even - to the Russians. Already into his second paragraph of his scripted remarks, the President took a line larded with words likely to be regarded as a gratuitous insult by Moscow, post-putsch.

"We've made clear that they [Russian officials] can be part of an international community's effort to support the stability of a united Ukraine going forward, which is not only in the interest of the people of Ukraine and the international community, but also in Russia's interest."

By now, Russian President Vladimir Putin is accustomed to Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, et al. telling the Kremlin where its interests lie, and I am sure he is appropriately grateful. Putin is likely to read more significance into these words of Obama:

"The United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine ... and we will continue to coordinate closely with our European allies."

Fissures in Atlantic alliance

There are bound to be fissures in the international community and in the Western alliance on whether further provocation in Ukraine is advisable. Many countries have much to lose if Moscow uses its considerable economic leverage over natural gas supplies, for example.

And, aspiring diplomat though she may be, Victoria Nuland presumably has not endeared herself to the EC by her expressed "Fuck the EC" attitude.

Aside from the most servile allies of the U.S. there may be a growing caucus of Europeans who would like to return the compliment to Nuland. After all does anyone other than the most extreme neocon ideologue think that instigating a civil war on the border of nuclear-armed Russia is a good idea? Or that it makes sense to dump another economic basket case, which Ukraine surely is, on the EU's doorstep while it's still struggling to get its own economic house in order?

Europe has other reasons to feel annoyed about the overreach of U.S. power and arrogance. The NSA spying revelations - that continue, just like the eavesdropping itself does - seem to have done some permanent damage to transatlantic relationships.

In any case, Obama presumably knows by now that he pleased no one on Friday by reading that flaccid statement on Ukraine. And, more generally, the sooner he realizes that - without doing dumb and costly things - he can placate neither the neocons nor the R2P folks (naively well meaning though the latter may be), the better for everyone.

In sum, the Nulands of this world have bit off far more than they can chew; they need to be reined in before they cause even more dangerous harm. Broader issues than Ukraine are at stake. Like it or not, the United States can benefit from a cooperative relationship with Putin's Russia - the kind of relationship that caused Putin to see merit last summer in pulling Obama's chestnuts out of the fire on Syria, for example, and in helping address thorny issues with Iran.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His academic degrees are in Russian and he was an analyst of Russian foreign policy for the first decade of his 27-year career with the CIA. He is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This article originally appeared at consortiumnews.com and is reposted with permission of the author.

Photo: President Obama discusses Ukraine during a meeting with members of his National Security Staff in the Oval Office, Feb. 28, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

“Giant” Fernando Gonzalez, Cuban Five prisoner, is home

Mon, 03 Mar 2014 16:05:00 +0000

Returning to Havana on Feb. 28 after being released from a U.S. prison in Arizona the day before, Fernando Gonzalez wore handcuffs until his airplane landed. He had served a 19-year prison term, with time reduced through appeal and for good behavior.

Gonzalez and four other past or present Cuban Five prisoners are heroes in Cuba. Arrested in 1998, they had been monitoring U.S. - based anti-Cuban terrorists. Bias permeated their Miami trial.

At the airport, Gonzalez' wife Rosa Aurora, his mother Magali Llort, and two sisters were the first to greet him. Cuban Five prisoner Rene Gonzalez, in Cuba since 2013, was there, as were top Cuban leaders, headed by President Raul Castro. Family members of the other prisoners were on hand.

Speaking to the press, Gonzalez began: "There are three people not here who are the first I want to thank, my brothers Gerardo [Hernandez], Ramón [Labiñino], and Tony [Guerrero] ... and this includes also Rene. They don't know how much force, how much energy we derived from each other." His "happiness is immense, but has a missing piece. That's the piece reserved for when Ramón, Gerardo and Tony are in this same place. Then happiness will be complete." Gonzalez thanked the Cuban people, letter writers, Cuban government officials, and the Cuban press.

Gerardo Hernandez, serving two life sentences in California, sent a message: "When we were arrested, Fernando had several extra reasons to feel anguish." One was that when he was arrested, Gonzalez was providing temporary relief for another agent on leave. And Gonzalez' lawyer advised that because "of the lower seriousness of the charges against him [he should] opt out and be tried separately from the others... The response from Fernando, as well as René who received a similar suggestion, was emphatic and unequivocal no."

Because of the "professional custom of avoiding names, The Five themselves referred to Gonzalez as "the small one," Now Hernandez "remembers so many signs of greatness inherent in our brother" that he uses "Fernando the Giant" as title for his homage.

On Feb.14 an interviewer asked Gonzalez, "What five words were most in your mind?" He replied, "Cuba, family, gratitude, struggle, and liberty." "What would you tell President Barack Obama about your case?" Answer: "I would ask him as a former community activist to try to look at the Cuban reality in an unbiased way. [He would] find solutions there for many of the problems he worked to solve in the streets of Chicago ... He would see the efforts of our people to have a just society and that's what we the Five were defending."

Gonzalez believes fellow prisoners respected him because he confronted "hate that the U.S. government uses to abuse those it regards as political enemies" and because "Cuba stands up to and has resisted the power of the U.S. government."

Asked about his generation's role in Cuban history, Gonzalez expressed "satisfaction in fulfilling what I consider my duty and doing so with dignity and honor. I am conscious of the historical reason why I [was] a prisoner: it's a matter of punishing Cuba. "That's where the serious injustices committed in our case come from."

From the federal prison in Ashland, Kentucky, Ramon Labiñino, serving 30 years, saluted "Freedom [for] our brother Fernando Gonzalez.

"We, the Five, live his experience as our own." He recalled the "happy day we decided to join ourselves together to never let them defeat us. The fight gains strength, triumph is certain," Labiñino concludes.

From prison in Florida, Cuban Five prisoner Antonio Guerrero, with a 22- year sentence, spoke by telephone with his mother Mirta Rodriguez. She was at the airport.

"I told her, 'Tell Alarcon, [former National Assembly head who was speaking with Gonzalez], to give me a chance.' [So,] we spoke of many things," [even about] my flower [painting] project. [I told Gonzalez] I was going to need his and Rene's help.'Forget it!' was the answer. That's Fernando, 100 percent Cuban and faithful still."

Lest warm feelings for things Cuban turn viral, media misrepresentations crop up to cool down enthusiasms. True to form, Reuters claimed Fernando Gonzalez was imprisoned "for spying on Cuban-American exile groups in Miami." In truth, none of the Five spied. Conspiracy to commit espionage did put three of them in jail.

Reuters supposes the Cuban Five "attempted to spy on U.S. military installations." In fact, only Antonio Guerrero monitored official U.S. operations. He worked as a janitor at a Key West Air Force base and reported on airplane traffic. Reuters trivializes the Five by noting they had "little success."

Photo: Signs in support of the Cuban Five are common in Havana. In English, the sign says, "They will return." Now, Fernando Gonzalez is one of those who have, indeed, returned. Carlos ten Brink // CC 2.0

Ukrainian ultra-rightists given major cabinet posts in government

Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:31:00 +0000

The ultra-right Svoboda Party has scored six major cabinet ministries in the government of Arseniy Yatsenyuk approved by the Ukrainian parliament on Thursday. Svoboda is an ultra-right, anti-Semitic, Russophobic party with its base of support in the Western Ukraine.

The most important post was claimed by a co-founder of Svoboda, Andriy Parubiy. He was named Secretary of the Security and National Defense Committee, which supervises the defense ministry and the armed forces.

The Parubiy appointment to such an important post should, alone, be cause for international outrage. He led the masked Svoboda and Right Sector thugs who battled riot police in the Independence Maidan in Kiev.

The Right Sector is an openly fascist, anti-Semitic and anti-Russian organization. Most of the snipers and bomb throwers in the crowds were connected with this group.

Right Sector members have been participating in military training camps for the last two years or more in preparation for street activity of the kind witnessed in the Ukraine over the last few months.

The Right Sector, as can be seen by the appointment of Parubiy, is now in a position to control major appointments to the provisional government and has succeeded in achieving its long time goal of legalizing discrimination against Russians. The new parliament has passed legislation that declares Russian speakers no longer have equal rights with Ukrainians. Svoboda and the Right Sector, as can be seen by the appointment of Parubiy, are now in a position to control major appointments to the provisional government and have succeeded in achieving their long-time goal of legalizing discrimination against Russians.

Parubiy is also associated with Prime Minister Yatsenyuk's Fatherland Party. Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector delegation in parliament, was named Parubiy's deputy. These appointments of open fascists to control of the armed forces are particularly alarming given the possibility of provocations against the Russian naval base in Sevastopol.

Oleksandr Sych, a Svoboda parliamentarian from Ivano-Frankivsk best known for his attempts to ban all abortions in Ukraine, including those resulting from rape, was named deputy prime minister for economic affairs. Svoboda was also rewarded with the Education Ministry under Serhiy Kvit, as well as the Ecology Ministry and the Agriculture Ministry under Andriy Makhnyk and Ihor Shvaiko, respectively.

Earlier in the week Svoboda member of parliament Oleh Makhnitsky was named prosecutor-general of the Ukraine.

Others with ultra-right associations with the Ukrainian National Assembly - Ukrainian National Self Defense (UNA-UNSO) also received cabinet posts. Tetyana Chernovol, portrayed in the Western press as a crusading investigative journalist without reference to her past involvement in the anti-Semitic UNA-UNSO, was named chair of the government's anti-corruption committee. Dmytro Bulatov, known for his alleged kidnapping by police, but also with UNA-UNSO connections, was appointed minister of youth and sports.

Yatsenuyk's Fatherland Party, and figures close to it, obtained 10 cabinet posts, including deputy prime minister for EU integration, interior, justice, energy, infrastructure, defense, culture, social issues, and a minister without portfolio. Yegor Sobolev, leader of a civic group in Independence Maidan and politically close to Yatsenyuk, was appointed chair of the Lustration Committee, charged with purging followers of President Yanukovych from government and public life.

In a society where oligarchs play such an important political and economic role it is unsurprising that Volodymyr Groysman, mayor of Vinnytsa and close associate of oligarch Petro Poroshenko, was chosen as deputy prime minister for regional affairs. Groysman was also close to former President Viktor Yushchenko. The new finance minister, Oleksander Shlapak, is a representative of oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskiy, the second wealthiest man in the Ukraine.

The remaining cabinet posts went to technocrats, a doctor who organized medical services for the Maidan protestors, and a retired police general.

The interim cabinet matches exactly the government which U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland recommended in her intercepted call with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev where she revealed the U.S. plan for a coup in Ukraine.

Vitali Klitschko and his UDAR party are excluded, likely because of their close relationship with German chancellor Angela Merkel. Yatsenuyk's Fatherland Party receives the majority of portfolios. And as Nuland demanded, so long as Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok did not receive a major cabinet post, Svoboda could receive several ministries.

In the eyes of many these facts are indicative of U.S. involvement in what has essentially been a coup against the elected government of the Ukraine.

In other developments in Ukraine, President Viktor Yanukovych was reported to be in Moscow, where it was announced that he was receiving protection from the Russian security service because of threats on his life by political "extremists."

He will reportedly appear at a press conference in Rostov-on-Don later today. Clashes between the Crimean Tartar minority and ethnic Russians occurred outside the Crimean parliament building in Simferopol, while armed pro-Russian demonstrators continued to hold the parliament building itself.

Photo: Russian-speaking demonstrators in Crimea protest the decision by the Ukrainian coup "government" to remove rights of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Darko Vojinovic/AP

Ukrainian Communists: Defend constitution vs. ultra-right, privatizers

Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:05:00 +0000

After months of increasingly violent protests, demonstrators in Kiev and other areas of Ukraine have apparently succeeded in ousting President Victor Yanukovych from the presidential mansion. Yanukovych, from the Party of Regions, was elected in 2010. He and others are calling this a coup, and it is not clear that he will cede power.

The events that brought the Ukraine situation to this point include the armed overthrow of the oblast (provincial) and city governments in Lviv in the far west of Ukraine, and the seizure of armaments from the arsenal there by members of the far-right Svoboda Party. That area is a hotbed of extreme right-wing politics, having been the base of the Stepan Bandera fascist group that fought against the Soviet government during and after World War II. The ultra-right, anti-Semitic, Russophobic and anti-Polish Svoboda Party has been at the center of political violence since the demonstrations against the Yanukovych government began last November.

The level of bloodshed in Kiev, the capital, rose sharply with a confirmed total of 83 deaths. This occurred after former boxer and head of the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform Party Vitali Klitschko and right-wing Fatherland Party leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin. The two returned to Kiev and repudiated a truce that had been negotiated by President Yanukovych, sparking more violent clashes. The Russian press reports that more than 5,000 armed members of the Svoboda Party militia were trucked to Kiev from Lviv. The 83 confirmed deaths included not only protesters, but numerous members of the riot police attempting to clear Independence Square.

President Yanukovych abandoned Kiev on Feb. 22. A special session of parliament was called, mostly at the instigation of the ultra-right Svoboda Party. Many parliamentarians from Yanukovych's Party of Regions were prevented from voting. The legality of the vote to strip Yanukovych of his presidency and replace him on an interim basis with Oleksandr Turchynov of the Fatherland Party is being called into question as possibly unconstitutional. Turchynov is a close ally of former President Yulia Tymoshenko and a fundamentalist Baptist pastor.

An early action of this "interim" government was to release Tymoshenko, also of the Fatherland Party, from prison. Her jailing in 2011, on grounds of having been involved in corrupt dealings with Russian tycoons, has been used by some in Ukraine but especially the West as a club to pressure Yanukovych. After her release, when she spoke to the protesters in the Independence Square she was obviously in poor health.

Yanukovych appears to have headed eastward to his own base of mass support in the Kharkov region in eastern Ukraine, where the population feels much closer to Russia than to the European Union. The new regime in Kiev has called for his arrest, and has revoked Yanukovych's legislation that gave equal status to Russian residents of the Ukraine and ethnic Ukrainians. This revocation is sure to be resented in the east where people may consider themselves Ukrainians but the majority speaks Russian. Yanukovych was last reported in the Crimean region of eastern Ukraine.

The rise of the ultra-right has set off alarm bells in Ukraine's Jewish community. The Chabad chief rabbi of the Ukraine, Moshe Reuven Asman, called on all Jews to leave Kiev and if possible the Ukraine, after two rabbinical students were attacked by right-wing nationalist thugs during the Kiev uprising.

In the eastern Ukraine there are also two major flashpoints. The city of. Odessa, on the Black Sea, is a major strongpoint of the Communist Party of the Ukraine. The party, though also highly critical of Yanukovych, has denounced the events in Kiev and warned its members to expect violent repression.

The Crimean peninsula, also on the Black Sea, was not historically part of Ukraine but was transferred to Ukrainian administration by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. The population is majority Russian, with minorities of Ukrainians and Tatars who have trickled back there after being expelled eastwards during World War II. The Crimea is an autonomous republic within Ukraine, but Russia retains a very important naval base in Sevastopol on a long-term lease. The base is of vital geopolitical and military importance to Russia. There are reports in the Russian and Western press of the recruitment of militias in both Odessa and the Crimea to resist anti-Russian measures by the new Ukrainian government.

Interim President Turchynov called for Russia to respect Ukraine's choice to orient itself toward the West and integrate itself with European institutions. But many say the Ukrainians are going to find out that this will entail the same brutal austerity programs that are being imposed on poorer nations in the European Union such as Greece, Portugal and Ireland. They may regret missing out on more generous trade and aid terms Russian President Vladimir Putin was offering them.

The U.S. ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a former Bush administration official, have not only meddled in the Ukraine but are directly implicated in the overthrow of a legally elected government. An intercepted telephone conversation between the two, which has gained notoriety in the West because of Nuland's reported observation "Fuck the EU," revealed the existence of American and EU support for a coup against Yanukovych. This is important because there is a real danger of further armed clashes between the new U.S.- and German-supported regime in Kiev and not only what is left of the Yanukovych government in eastern Ukraine, but perhaps Russia as well.

A statement by the presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Ukraine (CPU) on Feb. 25 blamed both the "arrogant, self-confident, bankrupt" Yanukovych government and "foreign emissaries behaving as if the Ukraine were a mandated territory" for precipitating a crisis which has unleashed a terror campaign by the neo-Nazi ultra-right in Ukraine. The party expressed "deep concern over ... the stirring up of anti-Communist hysteria, ... bandit attacks on the offices of our party in Kiev and other cities, moral and physical terror against Communists."

The Communist Party of the Ukraine also called for restoration of "normal operation of all authorities and government, to stop any manifestation of lawlessness and tyranny, to prevent persecution of people for their political beliefs and ideological views, and to defend the Constitution of the Ukraine and the rights and freedoms of citizens."

The CPU characterized the current crisis as "a relentless struggle within the ruling class - the various factions of oligarchic capital." It called for reform of government at all levels and the return of privatized firms "to the ownership of the people," as necessary steps for resolving the economic crisis, and demanded a national referendum on ties to the European Union and the Eurasian Union.

Photo: A scene in Kiev, Ukraine, Jan. 22, 2014. tandalov.com CC 2.0

EU promises loans to Ukraine for Greek-style austerity

Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:36:00 +0000

Faced with the country's enormous economic problems, several European foreign affairs ministers are promising to help Ukraine obtain a loan from the International Monetary Fund.

The European Union has tried to support the demonstrators demanding change in Ukraine. But will it keep its promises in the months to come? The question is urgent.

On Nov. 21, when President Viktor Yanukovich turned his back on the European Union in order to join the Russian customs union, it was no great secret that his choice was driven by the catastrophic condition of his country's finances. On Dec. 17, Russia offered a lifeline: a loan of $15 billion and a reduction in gas prices. Three billion dollars were disbursed at the end of December. A further $2 billion should have been given out in January, but Moscow preferred to await a return to calm.

In this area, what does Brussels propose? Nothing, unless you count 610 million euros planned since at least 2012, conditional on Kiev's signing an association agreement with the EU. For the emergency, Europeans seem to have in store the same fate as Greece for the Ukrainians, summoning the IMF.

On Saturday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague revealed an agreement with his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeister to "press for vital financial assistance from the IMF."

On Feb. 21, Standard & Poor's downgraded Ukraine's credit rating to triple C, a score close to default. Kiev must repay $13 billion in 2014. Without Russian help, this is an impossible task. Short-term bonds are being traded at a prohibitive rate of 34.5 percent, compared with 5 percent five months ago. And that is without taking into account the currency, the hryvnia, which has lost 10 per cent of its value. Ukraine's currency reserves will last only two months, according to Thomas Baumann of the German Association of Chambers of Commerce. If the IMF offers Ukraine a loan, it will be at the price of neoliberal structural reforms (austerity).

In the long term, EU countries hope to take advantage of Ukraine's current weak situation in order to impose the EU association agreement that Yanukovich refused to sign in November.

"I believe that, yes, they're going to sign this agreement," the EU's Trade Commissioner, Karel De Gucht, said happily yesterday - while Lithuania sought "a signature without delay."

However, this agreement could well accelerate Ukraine's disintegration. It is essentially a free-trade treaty, which pushes Kiev to take on large amounts of EU law. Once Ukraine has adopted European directives, 99 percent of customs tariffs will fall away. This model had a catastrophic effect for countries such as Tunisia before the Arab Spring.

In order to survive, Ukrainian industry would have to become just as competitive as that of the EU. This is far from being the case. The country's industry is situated for the most part in the Russian-speaking east of the country and is oriented towards Moscow. Since 2004, exports to Russia have leapt by 58 percent, notes the economist Jacques Sapri on his blog. Ukraine needs to orient itself equally westwards and eastwards in order to develop its economy - a fact that European leaders should not forget, or else they risk playing with fire.

This article was reposted from L'Humanité and translated by Richard Pond.

Photo: L'Humanité

Canadian right trying to copycat U.S.-style voter suppression

Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:26:00 +0000

VANCOUVER, Canada - The right-wing Conservative Party government of Stephen Harper is trying to push through U.S. Republican-style voter suppression legislation in Canada.

Christened by the conservatives the "Fair Election Act," Bill C-23 will require Canadians who want to vote to produce at least one piece of ID, either a health insurance card, bank card or phone bill. It will abolish the rule that currently allows one voter to vouch for another voter who lacks Identification. According to the Conservatives, the legislation, necessary to deter people from voting more than once, will strengthen democracy.

For tackling voter fraud allegations, a new elections commissioner will be hired whose office will be separated from Elections Canada, Canada's electoral agency, which is currently in charge of investigating election fraud. Instead, the new office will be moved into the federal prosecutor's office. Elections Canada will be barred from campaigning to encourage people to vote or doing research.

The bill will also increase allowable individual political donations from $1,200 to $1,500 (Canadian dollars) and permit candidates to donate $5,000 (Canadian) to their own campaigns. Canadian laws forbid corporations and unions to donate money to parties.

Instead of deterring fraud, critics charge that Bill C-23 is designed to deny thousands of people voting rights. Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand, who heads Elections Canada, has denounced the bill as anti-democratic and said that the end of allowing voters to vouch for others and the enactment of mandatory ID requirements will adversely affect more than 100,000 voters. "Many electors still have a challenge producing proper Identifications documents at the polls - especially certain groups that come to mind are aboriginals, young people, even seniors that are increasing in terms of population and have increasing difficulty producing proper identification documents," Mayrand said.

The new elections commissioner, according to Maynard, will have no powers to act. "What worries me is whether the Commissioner will get the toolbox he needs to do his job and l'm afraid l don't see it in the act as it is currently written. There is no enhancement about transparency of political parties in that new legislation, l believe the Commissioner doesn't get the authority to compel witnesses", said Mynard. "There are few measures in the bill that are essential to make the toolbox effective and ensuring that investigations are (conducted) in a timely manner."

Maynard also said the bill will limit what he can say. "If l understand correctly, l can no longer talk about any other subject other than to know where, when and how to vote." He also made it clear that the Conservative government never consulted with him over the bill, as they claim to have.

The chief electoral officer believes the Harper government is retaliating against Elections Canada for past conflicts it has had with the Conservative Party, some of which have spilled into court.

Instead of democratic reform, the bill "would weaken democracy, and further reduce voter turnout," Green Party leader Elizabeth May told Parliament. While she supports the appointment of an elections commissioner to investigate fraud and irregularities, she said, "the problem is the government has not given that office any tools. It has not given that officer subpoena powers."

"The Conservative members of the House and the minister have utterly failed to provide any evidentiary background for the notion that we have a crisis of voter fraud in this country," May said. "There is no evidence for the notion that Canadians are covering themselves up through creating false IDs and voting more than once. The crisis in Canadian democracy is not that Canadians are voting more than once, it is that they are voting less than once, and this bill would worsen Canada's trust in the system and increase cynicism."

New Democratic Party parliamentary reform critic Craig Scott charged that, "iinstead of going after electoral fraud, the Conservatives introduced a bill that will attack democracy. Once again, the Conservatives have shown that they cannot be trusted when it comes to making our election laws better. The bill will muzzle Elections Canada and give the Conservative Party an unfair advantage."

"Bill C-23 is absolutely about the Conservative Party's personal issues with Elections Canada," stated Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux. "They have a vested interest to minimize the effectiveness of Elections Canada."

Communist Party of Canada leader Miguel Figueroa blasted Bill C-23 as "an attempt to steal the 2015 election right before our eyes. The Unfair Elections Act (Bill C-23) is intended to facilitate the Conservative 'voter suppression' strategy borrowed directly from the U.S. Republican Party. Bill C-23 will make it more difficult for hundreds of thousands of Canadians to cast a ballot, especially aboriginal people, students, low income seniors, and others who often lack all the valid ID required to vote. The legislation gives the Tories an extra edge in fundraising, raising the maximum individual donation limits by another $300."

Leadnow, an online campaign group, is collecting 25,000 signatures on a petition to deliver to a parliamentary committee examining the bill. The petition says, "Independent reports have confirmed that fraud by individual voters is so rare that it basically doesn't happen. In turn, 120,000 Canadians voted by being vouched for in the last election, and voter ID changes will hurt people who have a hard time establishing their address at election time the most.We've seen a similar strategy used by US Republicans to disenfranchise people who they know are less likely to vote for them. Thirty-seven state legislatures have enacted voter ID laws that mostly hurt the poor, people of colour, and women."

Witold Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Pennsylvania, helped defeat his state's Republican-pushed voter ID legislation that restricted voting. Walczak told reporters that Bill C-23 will de-franchise Canadian voters. "They're going to show up on election day - having every right to vote, meeting all of your constitutional requirements, but not knowing that they have to bring an ID," he said. "They show up, they wait in line, they get to the front and hear, 'sorry you can't vote, you've gotta go home.' And then that person says, 'Ah screw it, l don't have time.'"

What has also alarmed critics is the haste in which the Harper Conservatives are pushing though the 242-page bill. One day after introducing Bill C-23 to Parliament, the Conservatives - who control 54% of seats - moved a motion to limit debate in Parliament. The Conservatives then refused opposition requests to hold public hearings on the bill, saying it would create a circus-like atmosphere.

Opposition forces have vowed to defeat efforts to pass Bill C-23.

Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin noted the bill comes, "interestingly enough, as Elections Canada is moving to conclude its investigation of electoral fraud in the 2011 campaign."

In 2011, opposition parties accused the Conservatives of sending tens of thousands of automated phone calls to opposition voters across Canada directing them to non-existent polling stations, and altering voting results to favor Conservative Party candidates. Elections Canada traced some of those automated phone calls to the telecommunications company Racknine in Alberta that does election work for the Conservative Party.

Opposition leaders say the voter suppression scheme could not have been carried out without callers having access to the Conservative Party database on voters' intentions. The Conservatives are widely acknowledged to have the largest and most developed database on voters in Canada, identifying not only its own voters, but those of rival parties.

Photo: QUOI Media Group CC 2.0

Ukraine: Arrest warrant issued for fugitive President Yanukovych

Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:40:00 +0000

Ukraine's coup government issued an arrest warrant for deposed President Viktor Yanukovych yesterday, holding him responsible for the deadly clampdown on fascist violence in Kiev.

Mr Yanukovych has gone to ground after fleeing the capital on Saturday, with rumours yesterday suggesting he was holed up in the Crimea, a pro-Russian area of Ukraine.

Meanwhile Russia blasted the new government in Kiev.

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said it had come to power as a result of an "armed mutiny" and there were therefore "big doubts" over its legitimacy.

Acting interior minister Arsen Avakhov wrote on his Facebook page that the warrant had been issued for the president and several other officials for the "mass killing of civilians."

At least 82 people - police and protesters - were killed by clashes in Kiev last week.

The EU has strongly backed the protests as it tries to draw Ukraine away from its historical links with Russia.

European Commission spokesman Olivier Bailly referred to parliament speaker Oleksandr Turchinov as the "interim president" yesterday, adding that meetings were planned between him and visiting EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

German government spokesman Steffan Seibert said yesterday that the EU association agreement, rejected at the 11th hour by Mr Yanukovych, was still on the table.

The EU has also maintained a telling silence on laws being mooted in Ukraine's rump parliament that would ban the Communist Party.

Ukrainian communists accused Ms Ashton and other European leaders of not wanting to upset their potential allies in the coup government or protest movement.

The right-wing protesters have pledged to stay on the streets until new elections are held.

Outside Kiev, activists have had to take to the streets to defend themselves from marauding nazi hordes.

Residents of Novoazovsk in the Donetsk region announced yesterday that they'd formed a citizens' militia to prevent attacks by radical nationalists.

And hundreds have rallied in Kharkov, staging a round-the-clock watch on a statue of Russian revolutionary hero Lenin so that it does not suffer the same fate as 25 others that have been battered by fascists.

They put up signs against vandalism, destruction, and looting.

This article was reposted from Morning Star.

Photo:Viktor Yanukovych. AP

Germany: Scandal, pornography, and naked truths

Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:21:00 +0000

Gossip and scandal are part of politics; the German media is currently overflowing with these commodities. Both a leading feminist and the man in charge of spending on theaters and museums in Berlin were caught stashing their fortunes illegally (and untaxed) outside Germany; the latter case briefly threatened to cost Mayor Wowereit his job, since he had hush-hushed the matter for a year.

Then, a raid in Toronto found that an up-and-coming Social Democratic deputy in the German Bundestag had collected Internet photos of nude boys. Last fall, just when the major parties were forming their "grand coalition," a cabinet minister from Merkel's sister party in Bavaria (the CSU) tipped off the top Social Democrat, Sigmar Gabriel, warning him not to give the man an important job. Gabriel denies it, but someone seems to have passed the info on, the man was warned, and his hard disks were smashed just before a police raid. The CSU man, taking the blame, resigned as Minister of Agriculture, but he and the Social Democrats are all blaming each other while the three coalition leaders are trying to plaster over the first crack in a coalition that is only two months old.

This second item is no gossip; it may be a scandal, however. On Feb. 12, Martin Schulz, still president of the European Parliament with its 28 member-nations (and himself a Social Democrat), made what was expected to be just another friendly speech to the Israeli Knesset. After apologizing for speaking German and recalling past German guilt he said the usual words supporting Israel's basic positions. Then, unexpectedly, he turned a wee bit critical, urging that the blockade of Gaza be eased, since it increased Palestinian frustration and thus made Israelis less secure. He then dared to break another taboo - and quoted a young Palestinian who had asked him: "How can it be that Israelis are allowed to use 70 liters of water per day and Palestinians only 17?"

This resulted in pandemonium! A few deputies stormed out, Minister Naftali Bennett demanded an apology for "two lies" that the Palestinians "fed him." He said, "I will not accept false moralizing against the people of Israel, in Israel's Knesset. Certainly not in German." Netanyahu indignantly challenged the statistics - but not their basic nature. So there were new cracks in a once untroubled relationship between Germany, much of Europe and Netanyahu. The episode has since been smoothed over - and I have heard no new charges that Schulz, too, is an anti-Semite!

But back to the German government. Aside from a little scandal or two, the big parties are getting along fine. They rejected objections by the minority Left Party and Greens and enacted a 10 percent salary increase for Bundestag deputies, while Economics Minister Gabriel warned labor unions against overly high wage demands when bargaining with their bosses. Yes, he's the leading Social Democrat in the government; that's the party still backed by most union leaders.

The leaders were also in agreement on a matter of far greater significance, almost a tectonic drift in European and world political geography. According to President Joachim Gauck, German reticence on the world stage is out-of-date. At the recent 50th Security Conference in Munich, choosing his words with care, he stated, "We should not use our troops too quickly, but we must not let reservations based on Germany's past history stop us, together with the European Union, NATO, and the UN, from sending them in whenever necessary to maintain a world order which permits Germany to coordinate its interests with its basic values."

In GDR days his church, like most dissidents, demanded disarmament. This has since been forgotten, or discarded. In 2012, soon after becoming president, he proudly told German officers, "Germany has taken this road since reunification ... step by step changing from a beneficiary to a guarantor of international security and order ... In the Balkans, along the Hindu Kush Mountains and the Horn of Africa, the Bundeswehr is engaged in confronting terror and pirates. Who would have thought that possible twenty years ago?"

In 2010, Horst Koehler had to abdicate as president after spilling the beans on German use of its troops to secure international order and guard transport routes. Now, with a caveat or two, a successor announced just that in a loud voice. Those plates have been moving!

The new Defense Minister, Ursula von der Leyen, echoed his words: "In recent years and decades, the fall of the Berlin Wall, digitalization and the integration of the financial markets have illustrated the dramatic consequences of the world growing closer together. Now we have to realize that globalization also includes completely new challenges for defense and security policy. Europe must speak with a single voice in the future when it comes to security policy. But that only works if the responsibilities and risks are divided fairly among the partner countries... Europe will not make progress in the global power game if one country always daintily stays away from military operations while another country storms forward without consulting others. We have a curious situation at the moment: Germany is currently engaged in a dozen missions around the world, demanding an enormous military and financial effort. But our allies continue to remember our reluctance, the product of our restraint."

Of course, both stressed that Germany should move only with her allies, especially within the European Union. When asked whether her goal was a joint European army, she answered: "There are many interim steps to be taken before getting to that point... But I believe that joint armed forces would be a logical consequence of an increasingly close military cooperation in Europe."

What they glossed over: The dominant country within the European Union is far and away Germany, which would whistle the loudest in any such decisions.

To illustrate her projects, von der Leyen inspected German troops now in Mali, expressed interest in humanitarian aid (in uniform) for the Central African Republic, and paid a surprise visit to Senegal - as yet unblessed by German troops. She made clear that Germany was increasingly interested in that region, so close to Europe. Primarily for humanitarian reasons, of course. But why leave such a vast and rich continent entirely to the French, Americans, Chinese or anyone else? Send our guys in!

Her possible soprano in this growing chorus found happy harmony in the deeper voice of Frank-Walter Steinmeier, now foreign minister - and a Social Democrat. At the Munich conference he explained: "Germany is really too large to restrict contributing to world politics only to the sidelines ... As a good partner it should get involved earlier, more decisively and more substantially ...and if necessary, as a last resort, military deployment must be possible."

Yes, there were always those restrictive little "last resort" clauses. Somehow they recalled the words, so common in recent years: "All options are on the table." To recall the metaphor with the tectonic underground thrust - one might worry about tectonic thrusts often result geologically in unexpected earthquakes or volcanic outbursts.

Aside from expansion into Afghanistan and Africa, it was difficult to forget that manned German Patriot missiles, like those of the U.S., stand oiled and ready on the Turkish border to Syria. Or to forget that in the terrible turmoil in Ukrainian Kiev, German politicians have played a key role. Despite the slightly obscene jab at the European Union by assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland, who was angered by European trespassing on presumed U.S. turf, that tough, tall boxer-hero of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko, was built up and supported all the way by the Adenauer-Stiftung in Germany, an adjunct of Merkel's party. She just welcomed him in Berlin for photo-ops and strategy talk - along with an ally from Kiev's city square. The third ally was evidently not invited, perhaps for being so blatantly anti-Semitic, with his Svoboda Party too close to its pro-Hitler antecedents. Maybe it was his gang which started up the most recent bloody renewal of hostilities.

The Greens are not in the government. Sadly, they demonstrate little of their one-time anti-war fervor. Marieluise Beck, their "East Europe expert," also visited Kiev, then aroused any sleepers in the Bundestag with her bombastic tones: "There, where we have awakened hopes and assumed responsibilities, we must also be ready to fulfill our obligations. This also means making no secret concessions to the Kremlin." In a different connection, but just as alarmingly, the Greens' foreign policy spokesman jumped on the bandwagon with the same meaningless qualification; military deployment of the Bundeswehr maybe, but of course only as "a last resort."

Thus, in the Bundestag it was only the Left Party which recalled constitutional restrictions on using the Bundeswehr for anything but self-defense. It was also alone in noting that well over half the German population want no more military deployment anywhere. Its Co-Chairperson Berndt Riexinger said: "Gauck does not speak for everyone. He is not our president." Katja Kipping, the other chairperson, added: "The culture of military restraint is part of the basic consensus of the Federal Republic. Whoever attacks it wants a different republic."

How much could or should this Left Party principle be maintained? At its Hamburg Congress this past weekend - to work out a program and a list of candidates for elections to the European Union on May 25 - the often hard lines between the two main wings of the party were painfully visible. In part they involved the view of the EU, its role and how much it deserved support or condemnation. A compromise was worked out on this issue. Then came the choice of candidates. Since a previous bonus in voting weight granted the smaller party organizations in West Germany no longer applies, the largely East German "reformers," with much larger membership numbers, now have a louder voice, although their five states have hardly a quarter the population of the western states.

One eastern reformer expressed their differences: The others "see resistance as their only political concept" whereas we "believe in the possibility, by cooperation and joining in government, of changing basic structures." This latter view might require compromises required for joining a coalition government - possibly including an acceptance of military deployment of the Bundeswehr in other countries. This is viewed as a crucial issue - and danger - by the non-reformers. Since some Social Democrats now flirt with the idea of finally accepting the Left as partners - if they agree to such compromises - this issue is burning hot.

Yet at this Hamburg congress the candidates chosen for the May election were fairly even in their distribution, male-female, East-West, reform-anti-reform. There was no split, and all sides resolved to work hard to win at least 10 percent at the May election. And then see how the earth moves.

Photo: German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the lookout for scandals and tectonic movements, at the chancellery in Berlin. (AP/Markus Schreiber)

Powerful interests mobilize to end U.S. anti-Cuban blockade

Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:19:00 +0000

The U.S. economic blockade of Cuba, cruel and reviled across the globe, has persisted for as long as the period between the U.S. Civil War and World War I. But it may not last forever. Just recently, stirrings of disenchantment among powerful forces have cropped up nationally and in Florida, epicenter of Cuban émigré opposition to Cuba's revolutionary government.

On Feb. 11 the Atlantic Council released its poll on attitudes toward the blockade expressed during January. The Council surveyed 1000 people nationwide plus 617 Florida residents and 525 Latinos, all by telephone. The report became a main focus of news stories on blockade dissent appearing simultaneously.

Of those surveyed nationally, 56 percent - Latinos, 62 percent - want normalization of relations, 61 percent oppose travel restrictions, 62 percent okayed U.S. business dealings with Cuba, and 61 percent oppose Cuba being designated a terrorist nation. Among Floridians offering opinions, 63 percent call for normal relations and 67 percent oppose both travel restrictions and the terrorist label. And 52 percent of Republicans want normalization, as do 64 percent of Miami-Dade County residents in Florida.

"The majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle are ready for a policy shift," concludes the Atlantic Council. "Most surprisingly, Floridians are even more supportive ...This is a key change from the past." And "Economic arguments prove to be most convincing for normalization."

The splash from this survey report coincided with other ripples. The Washington Post interviewed Cuban exile Alfonso Fanjul, "one of the principal funders of the U.S. anti-Castro movement" and someone, who with his brother, "amass[ed] one of North America's great fortunes." Fanjul discussed trips to Cuba in 2012 and 2013.

"I'd like to see our family back in Cuba," he said, and "if there's an arrangement within Cuba and the United States, and legally it can be done and there's a proper framework set up and in place, then we will look at that possibility." Cuban American businessman Paul Cejas traveled with Fanjul: "The embargo is really an embargo against America ourselves, because Americans cannot do business with Cuba, where there are incredible opportunities for growth."

Ex-Florida governor and former blockade apologist Charlie Crist, Democratic candidate to be Florida's next governor, announced a change of heart. Lifting the blockade, he said, "could help the Florida economy, creating more jobs in the state and allowing Florida businesses to sell goods and services to an island that has been largely closed to most commerce with the United States for more than 50 years.

On February 10 the Miami Herald published Senators Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) and Jeff Flake's (R-AZ) op-ed piece "Time for a new Policy on Cuba." Citing survey results a day before their release, they note that, "A majority of Americans, including Cuban-Americans, wants to change course," and "so do we."

While dismissing Cuba as repressive and failing economically, the senators argue that "Trade with Latin America is the fastest growing part of our international commerce... Rather than isolate Cuba with outdated policies, we have isolated ourselves ...Current policy boxes U.S. entrepreneurs and companies out of taking part in any of this burgeoning Cuban private sector."

Remarkably, news in November, 2013 that President Obama was questioning U.S. Cuban policies quickly became old news. At a Miami political fundraiser he had suggested that "in the age of the Internet, Google and world travel," old policies "don't make sense."

This time, news of the survey triggered real discussion even though, significantly, its findings were not new. In fact, annual Gallup polling on Cuba since 1999 has consistently demonstrated nationwide majorities in favor of "re-establishing U.S. diplomatic relations" and ending the blockade. Other surveys yielded similar results. A Florida International University opinion poll in 2008 showed that "a majority of Cuban-Americans now favor ending the ... economic embargo and restoring diplomatic relations" with Cuba, 55 percent and 65 percent, respectively.

In releasing its report, the Atlantic Council attached a remarkably forthright advocacy statement to its recitation of data. The report may be useful for having updated long established trends, but why did it command so much attention?

The Council is no bit player in establishment circles. Former Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and Christian Herter founded it in 1961 as a support mechanism for NATO. It maintains close ties with prominent U.S. and European NGO's involved with diplomatic and security issues. Weapons manufacturers are corporate members. Directors, some honorary, include diplomatic, defense, and intelligence honchos like Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, Wesley Clark, Michael Hayden, and Robert Gates.

Perhaps now, with movers and shakers taking things in hand, change really is on the way. But a thorny detail may need attending to: Cuban leaders are unlikely to discuss big changes with U.S. leaders without, first, the Cuban Five political prisoners having been sent home. That's the opinion of Stephen Kimber, author of the only English language book ("What Lies across the Water") on the case of the Five.

Some of the recent stories on changed attitudes allude to Cuban imprisonment of U.S. contractor Alan Gross - he violated Cuban laws - as accounting for U.S. intransigence on the blockade. Thus the scenario comes into view, maybe, of an exchange of prisoners ushering in talks on re-establishing relations.

Venezuela's Bolivarian government defends against rightist violence

Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:47:00 +0000

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government is facing its biggest challenge since his electoral victory on April 14, 2013 - still unrecognized by the U.S. government. Nationwide street protests coinciding with Venezuela's "Youth Day" turned violent on February 10. Disruptions continued and two days later in Caracas swarms of masked demonstrators taunted police, ringed public buildings, destroyed official vehicles, and set fires. Gunfire left three people dead and over 70 wounded. Dozens were imprisoned.

Serious confrontations erupted in Tachira and Merida states, well known for harboring anti-government paramilitaries from nearby Colombia. Official spokespersons characterized the killings of two victims in Caracas with single shots from one gun as assassinations and, as such, provocations.

Disturbances emerging immediately after Maduro's slim election victory caused 11 deaths. Uprisings then and now, observers say, followed a single script, that of casting Venezuela's Bolivarian government as precarious, now because charismatic leader Hugo Chavez, who preceded Maduro, is gone. Power brokers within Venezuela's still thriving capitalist sector aim at destabilization. The current turmoil has parallels with the failed, U.S. supported, anti-Chavez coup in 2002.

Washington officials, mindful of Monroe Doctrine traditions of dominating a continent, have little enthusiasm for the Bolivarian Revolution Maduro now heads. It is anti-imperialist, socialist, and -- for the region -- integrationist. And Venezuela has oil.

With student protesters and others in the streets, millions of U.S. dollars delivered over the past decade to groups aligned with Venezuela's traditional centers of power and influence seem to be bearing fruit. The National Education for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development served as conduits for funding, much of it directed at organizing students in private universities

Intermittently during the Chavez era and since, those students figured prominently in protests against inflation and shortages. Their demonstrations are big news for 85 percent of national media that is privately owned. Reports have surfaced that behind the scenes importers manipulate currencies and distributors hoard commodities.

Venezuela's Unified Socialist Party, led by Maduro, made big gains in municipal elections on December 8, 2013. Opposition strategists took the message that elections aren't helpful in their project of ousting the Bolivarians. Consequently, protesters' rhetoric within weeks turned to "regime change." Then violent confrontations materialized, spreading widely during the week of February 10. Whether thugs involved are students or infiltrators is unclear, but some admitted to payoffs.

The wealthy Henrique Capriles, the right-wing presidential candidate in elections won by Maduro, condemned the violence. One effect of his dividing opposition ranks was to spotlight veteran hardliners in charge of the current protests, two in particular.

National Assembly deputy Maria Corina Machado, born into wealth, urged protesters to remain in the streets, blaming the government for the killings. She faced allegations of involvement last year in another destabilizing plot. Machado once visited the office of President George W. Bush in connection with her leadership of the U.S. funded Sumate group, notable for propelling the anti-Chavez referendum of 2004. She became a "Yale World Fellow," according to Yale, partly because "Sumate's network of volunteers grew to include more than 30,000 members from all over Venezuela." Machado sent two sons to Yale, alma mater of both Bush presidents. In 2002 she signed a document expressing support for the coup government briefly in power then.

Leopoldo López, another elite, heads the rightist Popular Will Party. Facing an arrest warrant as intellectual author of the February 12 disturbances, López tried unsuccessfully to exit Venezuela. He graduated from Kenyon College in Ohio, a nursery for future CIA operatives, says Canadian-Cuban political writer Jean-Guy Allard. He attended Harvard's Kennedy School. Working for the International Republican Institute in 2002 he led the coup plotters' march on the presidential residence.

But now is not 2002: dissident military and police are not involved, security forces control the streets, and by the week's end anti-government protests were losing steam. Government supporters marched by the thousands in Caracas on February 15.

The night before, President Maduro presented a multi-faceted program outlining plans for "a secure country;" demobilization of armed gangs; a "Movement for Peace and Living Together" in each state; nationwide sport, cultural, and musical tours; a "new communications (meaning TV) culture;" "maximum social discipline" in prisons; and action against "drug traffickers and paramilitaries entering the country."

While the United Nations, Organization of American States, and European Union denounced violence and called for dialogue, the U.S. State Department condemned "weakening of democratic institutions in Venezuela." U.S. Senator Marco Rubio accused the Maduro government of creating "an unprecedented wave of repression." Secretary of State Kerry on February 15 threatened "serious negative consequences" should Venezuela's government succeed in arresting Lopez.

Foreign Minister Elías Jaua told reporters on February 17 that his government "confronts a fascist attack at the hands of groups trained specifically to cause violence"

Venezuela expelled three U.S. Embassy officials on February 16^th for reaching out to the university students.

Photo: Caracas desborda alegría por la paz y contra el fascismo [Caracas overflows with joy for peace and against fascism ]. Granma.

World communist parties debate strategy for the road ahead

Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:44:00 +0000

Are there stages between capitalism and socialism? Should communists be part of broad coalitions with non-communists? Should communists ever cooperate with capitalists? Can countries like Brazil play a progressive role in the world even though they are capitalist? These are some of the questions debated at a recent meeting of communist and workers' parties from around the world.

Since 1999 communist parties from countries around the globe have been meeting together annually to exchange experiences and insights, and promote cooperation on issues like solidarity, social justice, worker rights and peace. Originally convened by the Communist Party of Greece and held in Athens, these meetings are now organized by a working group composed of roughly 11 parties, and are hosted in rotation by different parties. The most recent one, the 15th International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, was held in Lisbon, Portugal, hosted by the Communist Party of Portugal. I represented the Communist Party USA at this meeting. (See my presentation here.)

Attended by representatives of 75 parties in 63 countries (some countries have more than one communist party), this meeting featured vigorous discussion about the role and policies of communist parties in today's world.

These are parties that trace their history back to the communist parties founded around the world in the early decades of the 20th century. Part of their history was participation in the international formation that existed in the 1920s and '30s, the Communist International, and the Prague-based publication World Marxist Review, which was published from 1958 to 1990. Of course much has changed since those early years, including the emergence and subsequent decline of Maoism and, most notably, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European socialist governments, but also profound changes in the world economy, and the rise of new left-wing coalition governments in Latin America, to name a few transformative developments. In addition, climate change, brought to crisis levels by capitalism's reliance on fossil fuels to drive its growth, has emerged as a global problem that has to be addressed in the construction of socialism.

Over the years some of the parties have undergone severe repression, and some have changed their names, or experienced splits or mergers, due to a variety of historical circumstances. In some countries there are more than one such party, stemming from past political divisions. In some of those cases, for example the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India Marxist, the two parties now cooperate on many actions. Not all have the word "communist" in their names: for example, the Progressive Party of Working People (AKEL) in Cyprus, the Workers Party of Belgium, the Palestinian People's Party, and the People's Progressive Party in Guyana.

Today, communist parties lead governments in China, Cuba, Guyana, Laos, Nepal and Vietnam. In Cyprus, AKEL led the government from 2008 to 2013. A number of other parties are part of governing coalitions - in South Africa, Brazil, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and some other countries. And communist parties hold seats in parliament - and often constitute significant voting blocks, either by themselves or in coalition with others - in most countries that have a parliamentary system. In country after country they have played legendary roles in the struggles of their people (for example, here in the U.S., in the fight to form industrial unions), and today in many countries they are leading mass movements.

So is communism dead?

No! But is it monolithic, as used to be claimed by its opponents? Definitely not. It stands to reason. Marx, Engels, Lenin and other thinkers on whom these parties base their politics all emphasize carefully studying reality and its ever-changing evolution, and grounding ideas in that unfolding reality. These parties work amidst very differing conditions, cultures, and histories.

The international meetings of communist and workers parties since 1999 have been based on the concept that, as Lenin himself said, every country has to find a path to socialism in its own way, based on its own conditions.

However, at the meeting last November, the Communist Party of Greece, supported by a few others, took sharp issue with the policies of a wide range of other parties, arguing that they diverged from Marxism and represented opportunism. The Greek party's criticisms were so strong that it rejected and blocked issuance of any consensual final statement summarizing the thinking of the conference. In doing so, the Greek party and its supporters from a few other countries clearly went up against the thinking and policies of the overwhelming majority of parties represented at the meeting.

What were the points that the Greek party and a few others argued for?

1. There are no intermediate stages between capitalism and socialism. There is no basis for reform coalitions - these simply "manage" capitalism. Communists should not engage in alliances with sectors of capitalists - for example non-monopoly capital. Broad anti-fascist fronts are to be rejected. The only way to proceed is to struggle to overthrow capitalism.

2. Fighting for national sovereignty - for example in a capitalist country facing IMF dictates - is not a legitimate communist activity; it represents an alliance with capitalist elements.

3. The idea of a multipolar world is rejected. The concept of the BRICS countries - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - or others, such as in Latin America, emerging as challenges to Western imperialism is rejected - these are simply all bourgeois capitalist countries.

4. Identifying financialization as a particular feature of today's capitalism is a hoax, a diversion. Capitalism is capitalism.

5. "Market socialism," which has been or is being adopted by several parties that lead governments (including China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba), is rejected.

These points are discussed more fully in a statement issued by the Greek Communist Party after the conference.

The Greek Communist Party's criticisms are aimed in part at European communist parties who in one way or another associate themselves with the European Left Party, something the Greek party strongly opposes. But the sharpest criticisms seem directed at the many Latin American parties that participate in left coalition governments.

In its statement after the meeting, the Greek party speaks of "the necessity of a single revolutionary strategy" for all countries, one that complies with that party's interpretation of the works of Marx and Lenin.

However Lenin had a different take

Lenin himself had a different take on this. He spoke of the "variety ... in the path mankind will follow" from imperialism to socialism. Each country, he wrote, "will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy, ... to the varying rates of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social life." ("A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism," 1916)

"We do not regard Marx's theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the foundation stone of the science which socialists must develop in all directions if they wish to keep pace with life," Lenin wrote ("Our Programme"). "[T]his theory provides only general guiding principles, which ... are applied differently in England than in France, in France differently than in Germany, and in Germany differently than in Russia."

Mainstream of today's world communist movement

It was evident at the Lisbon meeting that the arguments put forward by the Greek Communist Party are increasingly far out of the mainstream of today's world communist movement. In country after country, communists are engaged in struggles for national sovereignty and democratic rights in alliance with others, sometimes as part of left coalition governments. Many pointed to the parasitic "financialization" of their countries' economies as a current feature of capitalism that has to be studied, understood, and fought against. The struggle against financialization was expressed in our country recently by the Occupy Wall Street movement. All of these struggles, the parties say, are part and parcel of the fight for socialism.

For example, the Communist Party of Brazil, which is part of that country's governing left coalition, describes its role in federal and state governments and in electoral politics as part of multidimensional party activity - the other dimensions being "the movement of workers and popular masses and the struggle of ideas" - aiming to "promote the accumulation of revolutionary forces."

In another example, the Communist Party of Portugal, which participates in an electoral alliance (Broad Democratic Coalition - CDU) with the Ecology Party (the "Greens") and a socialist group called Democratic Intervention, calls for "struggle for a fairer, developed and sovereign country ... to defeat the course of disaster imposed by a right-wing policy and which will open the prospects for an alternative, patriotic and left-wing policy." It advocates "the construction of a patriotic and left-wing policy, an essential condition to ensure the defence of the interests and rights of the workers and Portuguese people and to affirm national sovereignty and free the country from the present course of social regression, economic decline and dependence." Similar policies are followed by most communist parties around the world. Our party, the Communist Party USA, pursues a similar approach based on our own experiences and conditions of struggle. The outlook and policies of our party fit well into the mainstream of the world communist movement as expressed at the Lisbon meeting last November.

The formal presentations by each party at the Lisbon meeting, and a list of participating parties, are available online.

Go here to listen to a live interview with the author about the meeting and the issues.

A version of this article also appears at Political Affairs.

Photo: "Transform dreams into life" reads the banner at the rear, at a massive rally held by the Portuguese Communist Party after the 15th International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, Lisbon, Nov. 10, 2013. Portuguese Communist Party

Sudan: Colonialism's dead hand

Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:47:00 +0000

Hopefully the recent ceasefire agreement between the warring parties in South Sudan will halt that country's downward spiral into civil war. But if it does it will have to buck the convergence of two powerful historical streams: a legacy of colonial manipulation dating back more than a hundred years, and the current policies of the U.S. vis-à-vis the African continent.

South Sudan became a country in 2011 when its residents voted overwhelmingly to separate from the Sudan, at the time the largest country in Africa. But a falling out late last year between South Sudan President Salva Kiir, a member of the Dinka tribe, and Vice President Riek Machar, a member of the Nuer tribe, has plunged the country into war. Cities have been sacked, thousands killed, and almost 200,000 people turned into refugees.

Berlin 1884

The birth of continent's newest nation was largely an American endeavor, brought about by a polyglot coalition of Christian evangelicals, U.S. corporations, the Bush and Obama administrations, the Congressional Black Caucus, and human rights supporters.

But in many ways the current crisis goes back to November 1884, when some 14 countries came together in Berlin and sliced up a continent. The players represented virtually the entire Western industrial world, although the key participants were Great Britain, France, Germany and Portugal. As South African geographer Matt Rosenberg notes, "At the time of the conference, 80 percent of Africa remained under traditional and local control." When the meeting ended a year later, the colonial powers had created 50 countries "superimposed over the 1,000 indigenous cultures and regions of Africa," thus setting the fuse for future wars and countless ethnic conflicts.

Rich in resources and people, Africa's encounter with the slave trade and colonialism strangled emerging economies, stripped the continent of a huge part of its labor force, and pitted religions and ethnicities against one another in a continent-wide strategy of divide and conquer.

That history laid the foundations for the current spasm of violence in South Sudan that threatens to spill over into several bordering countries.

Legacy of British colonialism

In 1886 the British divided Sudan between the largely Arab north and the mostly black south. There had long been tension between the two areas because the southern pastoral tribes-mainly the Dinka, Nuer and Shilluk peoples-had historically resisted slave traders from the North. There was intermittent warfare between the tribes over cattle and land, but they also intermarried and traded with each other.

Since the British did not have the forces to occupy the vast southern Sudan, they created a "Southern Policy" that pitted the tribes against one another in a classic divide and rule strategy. They also blocked economic development in order to "preserve [the] purely African way of life of the southern people."

In fact, preserving an "African way of life" meant deliberately suppressing the development of regional governmental institutions or creating an educated population. Instead, authority was vested in "tribal leaders," who had never wielded such power in the past. Colonial authorities deliberately banned contact with the more developed north, suppressed Islam and Arabic in the south, and fragmented the region into a bewildering tapestry of tribes and villages. The ultimate scheme was to integrate southern Sudan into British East Africa, but after World War II that was impossible.

So instead London double-crossed the southern Sudanese.

After essentially creating two countries, the British reversed their "Southern Policy" in 1946 and declared the south "inextricably bound, both geographically and economically, to the Arab north as far as future development was concerned." In practice this meant that when Sudan became independent in 1956, the north would dominate the south. "The post independence conflict in Sudan was largely caused by the ethnic division created by the British colonial administration between 1899 and 1956," argues historian Savo Heleta.

The artificiality of Sudan's initial creation, coupled with the colonial policies of the British, was a built-in disaster and ignited two civil wars-from 1955 to 1972 and from 1983 to 2005-that killed some 1.5 million people. The last one led to an eventual separation of the two regions, and the 2011 referendum created South Sudan.

Oil

Once again Sudan is at war, and current U.S. policies in Africa have not helped. For the past decade and a half, Washington has seemed more concerned with cornering resources than resolving problems and has been quick to choose military solutions over diplomatic ones.

Oil plays no small role in this. Sudan has one of the largest petroleum reserves on the continent, 75 percent of which are in the south. South Sudan pumps some 245,000 barrels a day, but both Sudans profit because it is shipped through northern pipelines to northern refineries on the Red Sea, mostly ending up in China.

The U.S. is in competition with China over oil and resources-China is Africa's number one trading partner-and by 2015 the continent will supply 25 percent of the U.S.'s energy needs. A number of U.S. firms are interested in elbowing their way into South Sudan, and Washington is always looking for ways to hem in China's growth.

Religion

The current fighting is not just about oil, however. Christian churches have long been interested in the region, and some of the more evangelical ones see South Sudan as a bulwark against Islam. Most South Sudanese follow traditional religions, but there is a sizable Christian minority.

The Congressional Black Caucus is involved because black southerners have been much oppressed by the Arab-dominated north. And the terrible civilian toll in the two civil wars has drawn support from human rights advocates.

U.S.military bases

Starting with the Trans Sahel Initiative in 2002, the U.S. has steady built up its military forces on the continent.

The U.S. now has troops in some 35 countries in Africa. Washington has deployed somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 troops in Djibouti on the horn of Africa and at least 100 Special Forces in Uganda and Niger. It is training Kenyans to fight the Shabab in Somalia, Ugandans to track the Lord's Resistance Army in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and it is building a drone base in Niger.

In 2006, the Bush administration created Africom, the first U.S. military command organization for the continent, whose coming out party was the overthrow of Libya's Mummer Khadafy in 2011. As the African Union predicted, Khadafy's fall spread a tidal wave of arms into the region that fueled civil wars in Mali, Niger and Central Africa.

Indeed, U.S. military adventures in Africa have generally ended badly. Washington aided Ethiopia's 2007 invasion of Somalia, which led to the rise of the extremist Shabab. The Shabab has not only devastated Somalia, but was behind last year's massacre at a Nairobi mall that killed 62 people and wounded more than 200.

While the U.S. has put only a modest number of troops into South Sudan, it has encouraged its regional allies to pitch in. Ethiopia is considering joining the fray, and the Ugandan army, was instrumental in retaking the city of Bor from the rebels. But, as a result, Uganda is now aligned with the mostly Dinka-led government against the mainly Nuer-led insurrection. That is hardly a formula for a peaceful resolution to the current fighting, particularly since the Kiir government is demanding that everyone but its own army disarm.

Non violent conflict resolution

In the long run disarmament is a good idea, but right now the demand will almost certainly be resisted. While American Ambassador Susan Page says the disarmament demand is "voluntary," those enforcing the government's policy don't see it that way. "If they refuse to give up their guns, we will take [them] by any means. Yes, of course by force" one government military commander told McClatchy Press.

The U.S. played a key role in the creation of South Sudan and poured billions of aid dollars into the country. But little of that aid went toward creating a governmental infrastructure or addressing ethnic unrest. Edmund Yakani, director of the Independent Community for Progress Organization in Juba, South Sudan's capitol, told the Guardian, "We travelled to New York and talked to UN ambassadors, including the US's Susan Rice. We told them, please don't ignore the frictions that were hidden due to the war for independence. But they thought about development and said, 'Let's just throw money at it.' The voices urging governance were in the minority and neglected and not heard."

A studied refusal to pay attention to the colonial history of the region helped ignite the current crisis. And encouraging Washington's allies to settle political and ethnic divisions with guns and armored personnel carriers is likely to not only fail, but make things worse.

Instead of using military proxies like Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda to enforce its policies on the continent, Washington should be working through the key regional group, the African Union. Had Washington done so in Libya, there would probably not have been a war in Mali and Central Africa.

What the Obama administration ought to do is shelve the guns and armed allies, and fulfill the UN's Millennium Development goals to reduce poverty. South Sudan would benefit from fewer guns, more economic engagement-without "free trade" strings attached-and a far greater sensitivity to history.

Originally posted at Conn Hallinan's blog, Dispatches From the Edge.

Photo: Women carry the body of a civilian killed in the center of Malakal, Upper Nile State, in South Sudan, Jan. 21. (Mackenzie Knowles-Coursin/AP)

IBEW member hits the ice in Sochi

Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:31:00 +0000

Ekaterina Pashkevitch is taking to the ice in Sochi, Russia, this week, playing center for the Russian women's Olympic hockey team.

And halfway across the world in central Massachusetts, her brothers and sisters from IBEW Local 96 in Worcester are tuning in to root her on.

When not in skates, Pashkevitch, known as Kat, works as a journeyman electrician. Born in Moscow, she moved to Massachusetts in 1994 after visiting the area during a North American tour with the Russian team.

She became a U.S. citizen soon after.

She began skating at the age of three, and soon became one of the best women players in Europe. Kat started competing at an international level in the mid-90s, leading Russia to two medals in International Ice Hockey Federation championships, and was named MVP multiple times. Sochi marks her third Olympic appearance.

After coming to the United States, she remained involved in women's hockey, coaching the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's women's team for two years.

Despite her hockey success and impressive educational background, Kat found it hard to make ends meet in America.

"When I got back after the 2006 Olympics I was broke, I had no money," she told the Worcester Telegram and Gazette. "I had to work minimum wage jobs."

She was doing maintenance work at a local motel, when her manager noticed she had a knack for electrical work. He suggested she check out the IBEW.

"Kat does a great job," said Local 96 Business Manager Leo E. Miller Jr. "She works very hard, and at the worksite she's just one of the guys."

She is one of the few women in the local, but Kat is experienced with knocking down gender barriers. Her parents were shocked when she told them she wanted to play on the boy's hockey team, as she told Women's Hockey Web in 1997.

"It was very weird for girls to play hockey, or play with boys at all," she said.

In 1993, she became a charter member of Russia's first-ever women's team.

Miller asked Kat why she didn't try getting a full-time coaching position. "She told me she loves the work and being outside," he said.

At 41, she's the oldest player to play women's Olympic hockey and admits competing against players half her age is a challenge.

"I don't have the energy and skill level I used to, but I used my experience and knowledge of the game," she told the Telegram and Gazette.

Russia beat the German team Feb. 9 and is scheduled to play Japan on Feb. 11.

The above article appeared in the Feb. 11 AFL-CIO Now Blog. It was a cross post the AFL-CIO received from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

In Mexico, independent glassworkers' union fights for members

Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:15:00 +0000

It takes courage and persistence to be a member of a democratic union in Mexico. Just how much of these qualities one needs to fend off exploitative bosses, repressive officials and corrupt labor "leaders" is shown by the struggle of the SUTEIVP (Sindicato Unico de la Empresa Industria Vidriera del Potosi, or Sole Union of the Glassworks Industry of Potosi), which has been fighting since 2008 to restore the jobs of 33 of its members.

The 33 glass workers are part of a group of 220 who were fired by Industria Vidriera de Potosi (the Glassworks Industry of Potosi) based in the city of San Luis Potosi, in Northeastern Mexico.

The fired workers included the entire executive committee of the union. The purpose of the firing was, the union charges, a matter of union busting: The company wanted to bring in a corrupt union belonging to the government controlled CROC labor federation (the anything but revolutionary Revolutionary Confederation of Workers and Peasants) to replace SUTEIVP. The CROC, founded in 1952, is very large, with 4.7 million workers in affiliated unions, but has a reputation for corrupt practices. It is considered a "protection union", one of the unions that participate in the "corporativist" arrangement whereby the government and the ruling Revolutionary Institutional Party exercise control. "Corporativist" or "protection" unions often present a united front, with the government and management, against independent, democratically run unions like the SUTEIVP.

This company is owned by Grupo Modelo, the Mexican beer company that produces Corona beer and exports it to the United States and other countries. Last year, Anheuser-Busch, which produces Budweiser, and previously had a 50% stake in Grupo Modelo, acquired the whole Mexican company.

Industria Vidriera is one of three companies that provide bottles for Grupo Modelo. Before being acquired by Anheuser Busch, Grupo Modelo was owned by Maria Asuncion Aramburuzavala, the extremely wealthy wife of George W. Bush's ambassador to Mexico, Tony Garza.

The SUTEIVP, breaking away from the corporativist CTM (Mexican Labor Federation) gained recognition to represent the 800 workers in the plant in 2007. In Mexico, the government has the final authority to recognize or not recognize a union as representing the workers in a given plant (called "toma de nota" or "taking of note"). This has been frequently utilized by Mexican governments to control labor militancy and to try to marginalize unions that don't submit to the "corporativist" setup. Once recognized by the government, the SUTEIVP began to work toward increasing the wages of its members, which were much lower than those of other glassworkers in the Grupo Modelo complex. This led to action by management and its allies to get rid of the new union. The company announced cutbacks in production, which served as a pretext to fire 207 workers.

Although the company claimed that this retrenchment was necessary because the world financial crisis had led to a drop in exports to the United States, the union claims that this was not true and was a mere pretext to get rid of the union. The company then brought in a representative of the CROC to create confusion among the workers by pressuring them to sign blank sheets of paper that the company claimed were to authorize representation by the CROC.

Eventually Grupo Modelo worked to decertify the union, threatening to close the whole factory if necessary. To oust the independent union completely, the government complied by flooding the factory with federal, state and city police so as to control what the workers call a farce of a union election.

The SUTEIVP, with the support of international labor groups including the IndustriALL union, has been fighting since then to get its members' jobs restored.

The demands of the SUTEIVP members are as follows:

*The immediate reinstatement of the 33 workers who continue to resist.

*That Grupo Modelo-Anheuser Busch BV comply with international treaties including ILO Convention 87 (which guarantees workers' right to organize)

*Anheuser Busch BV, which now has total ownership of Grupo Modelo, should accept its responsibility for resolving the dispute.

*Recognition of the independent trade union SUTEIVP.

*An end to the harassment of workers inside the factory.

*Freedom of association.

*No to the protection union.

*No to mass dismissals at Vidriera del Potosi.

Photo: Suteivp San Luis Potosí Facebook page.

CELAC summit in Cuba reflects region’s altered power dynamics

Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:14:00 +0000

The II Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) opened in Cuba on January 28, 2014, birthday of Cuban national hero and Latin American integrationist Jose Marti. The 33 heads of states on hand represented all Western Hemisphere nations south of the Rio Grande River, the region Marti called "Our America."

United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States, attended as guests. The OAS, loyal to U.S. dictates, ejected revolutionary Cuba from its membership in 1963. By serving as CELAC president pro tem during 2013 and hosting this summit, Cuba made clear its return to the community of nations.

Cuban President Raul Castro opened the Summit and indirectly took note of OAS' altered status in the region: "Step by step we are creating a [CELAC] that is currently recognized in the world as the legitimate representative of the interests of Latin America and the Caribbean." CELAC has a "heritage of 2000 years of struggle for independence." Its "ultimate goal" is "development of a spirit of greater unity amid diversity."

Castro called for "creation of a common political space ... where we can exploit our resources in a sovereign way and for our common well being and utilize our scientific and technical knowledge in the interest of the progress of our peoples; where we can assert undeniable principles such as self-determination, sovereignty and sovereign equality of states."

Observing that Latin America and the Caribbean is the "is the most unequal region in the planet," he lamented that an overall 28.2 percent poverty rate co-exists with the "10 per cent richest in Latin American receiving 32 per cent of the total income." He detailed children's lack of schooling and health care. Castro highlighted the region's abundance of natural resources, fertile land, and water, pointing out that "all that wealth should become the driving force to eradicate inequalities."

Castro had asked for a minute of silence in honor of late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who convened the founding CELAC congress in Caracas in 2011. Chile hosted the first summit in early 2013 after a term as president pro tem. Costa Rica becomes CELAC president following this summit. Responsibility for ongoing CELAC affairs rests with a committee comprising the past, current, and upcoming CELAC presidents and a Caribbean-area president. Foreign ministers and their staffs perform administration.

At its conclusion on January 29, the CELAC Summit declared the region a "zone of peace" subject to international law and principles of the United Nations Charter. Member states vowed to "banish forever the use of force and to seek a peaceful solution to controversies," also "to respect the inalienable right of each state to choose its economic, political, social and cultural system." Interference in the internal affairs of another country is off limits, as are nuclear weapons.

The Summit issued a far-reaching, 83-point "Declaration of Havana." The document reviews purposes and precedents and ratifies measures supporting the sovereignty of states, food sovereignty, sustainable and coordinated regional development, and protection of civil society and private institutions. It calls for solutions to climate change, poverty and hunger, drug addiction, and flawed United Nations governance. CELAC backs Haiti reconstruction, Puerto Rican independence, streamlined foreign investment systems, and Great Britain's return of the Malvinas Islands to Argentina, The organization seeks rights for indigenous people and migrants and demands that the U. S. economic blockade of Cuba stop.

The U.S. government, on the outside, was not entirely silent. Diplomat Conrad Tribble tweeted from the U. S. Interests section in Havana asking, "Is any journalist here for CelacCuba going to look for independent voices on Cuba's reality? It would be worth the trouble."

The Continental Forum for Promotion of Democracy, a "counter summit," took place at Florida International University on January 25. Cuban exiles in the United States and opposition politicians and publicists from Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua attended. Journalist Jean-Guy Allard claims the group organizing the event, the Buenos Aires - based Center for Opening and Development of Latin America (CADAL), has CIA ties and is financed by the International Republican Institute. CADAL staged a summit-related forum in Havana on January 28 joined by leaders of domestic opposition groups.

Editorializing, Mexico's La Jornada news service judged that "CELAC's success in pulling off its summit shows, essentially, a political - diplomatic turnover in the continent...But governments have to work to consolidate this new deliberative political body for Latin America and the Caribbean and strengthen and maintain it, despite natural disagreements cropping up between governments and predictable attempts by U. S. diplomacy to distort this forum."

Left surges in Salvador presidential elections

Tue, 04 Feb 2014 13:50:00 +0000

Shocking pollsters and pundits, the left surged in the presidential elections in El Salvador on Sunday, giving a substantial plurality to the candidate of the left-wing FMLN (Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front), Salvador Sanchez Ceren. However, Sanchez Ceren's total was just under the 50 percent plus one vote needed to avoid a runoff.

Sanchez Ceren, the current vice president of El Salvador, was an FMLN guerrilla leader during the Salvadoran Civil War of 1979 to 1992. Thus he has a "harder" left-wing reputation than the current president, Mauricio Funes, a journalist who was never part of the guerrilla campaign.

Some people in and out of El Salvador therefore thought that the FMLN, which turned itself into a political party at the end of the war, was taking a risk by a perceived move to the left by slating Sanchez Ceren. Sanchez Ceren balanced his ticket by choosing as his vice presidential candidate the popular and respected mayor of Santa Tecla, Oscar Ortiz.

During the campaign, most polls predicted that Sanchez Ceren would do better than the other candidates. An exception was the January 13 Mitofsky poll, which was the only one whose results were picked up by Reuters and then highlighted in the U.S. press, creating the impression that the FMLN candidate was lagging.

After the dust settled, Sanchez Ceren had 48.93 percent of the vote. Next came Norman Quijano, candidate of the right-wing ARENA party and ex mayor of the capital, San Salvador, with 38.95 percent, and then former President Tony Saca, of the UNIDAD Alliance composed of the GANA (Grand Alliance for National Unity), the National Conciliation Party and the Christian Democratic Party, with only 11.4 percent of the vote.

So Sanchez Ceren and Quijano go into a runoff on March 9. In play are the votes of those who opted for Saca in the first round. Both Quijano and Saca are figures of the right, but Sanchez Ceren only has to keep his own vote and pick up a few Saca voters or people who did not vote the first time around to win. Nevertheless, the FMLN is taking nothing for granted.

Quijano had emphasized El Salvador's crime and personal security problems in his campaign. This problem has been growing due to El Salvador's position as a way station in the importation of drugs from South America to the United States.

It has helped to foster the growth of "maras" or criminal gangs, many of whose members are former residents of the United States who have been deported back to El Salvador, and much of the violence has been connected to wars between these groups. Under President Funes, the government supported a gang truce as a step toward reducing the violence. This worked well for a while, but has been opposed by the right who prefer the "mano dura" (heavy hand) approach.

Social programs to help the poor, initiated under Funes, are very popular, so right-wing candidates Quijano and Saca, have not threatened to end them. Quijano has touted his "pro business" credentials, but has had to contend with corruption scandals within his ARENA Party.

If Sanchez Ceren wins in the runoff, it will be an important reinforcement of the leftward movement of Latin American politics that has been going on for a decade and a half. However, as president, he will be hemmed in by U.S. dominated neighbors and institutions. El Salvador is a poor country.

It is part of the U.S. dominated CAFTA-DR "free" trade pact, the other members of which are Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. El Salvador is dependent on $4 billion per year of remittances from Salvadorans living and working in the United States, some without documents or under a special "Temporary Protected Status" that makes them vulnerable to U.S. government decisions. El Salvador also has relied on funds from the U.S. administered "Millennium Challenge" to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars of new investments per year. U.S. politicians have used the leverage of the Millennium Challenge to pressure the Salvadoran government on policy questions.

However, this time around, possibly acceding to a non-interference request by liberal members of the U.S. Congress, the U.S. administration promised not to interfere and to respect the results of the elections.

Nevertheless for El Salvador to do things such as pull out of CAFTA-DR or integrate itself into the most radical "Bolivarian" tendencies in Latin America entails risk of incurring the wrath of Uncle Sam, so if Sanchez Ceren is elected in March, he is likely to proceed with caution.

Photo: Salvador y Oscar billboard in midst of election night fireworks. FMLN website.