People Before Profit blog

Iran and the pitfalls of detente

Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:51:00 +0000

So Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has officially declared the end of the reckless round of adventurous rhetoric and foreign policy pursued by his country's Islamist regime in recent years.

Citing a mandate to "create a new era of relations between the people of Iran and the rest of the world," Rouhani revealed that the conservative religious leadership had given him "complete authority" to do a deal with the U.S.

That country's President Obama's reproachment with Rouhani was in stark contrast to the rhetoric of his 2012 election campaign, when he competed with his Republican rival to threaten Iran with attack.

Both Rouhani and Obama represent a departure from the aggressive approach of their predecessors, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W Bush.

Analysts have rushed to celebrate the dawn of a "new era" in Iran.

But they ignore the fact that the main driver for change is located elsewhere. The fact is that for almost two years the Islamic Republic has found itself in a dangerously tight corner - courtesy of eight years of disastrous policy-making by Ahmadinejad.

This has isolated the country internationally, devastated the economy and brought Iran to the brink of a catastrophic conflict with the U.S. and its Nato allies.

The theocratic regime has had to endure intense economic and diplomatic pressure exerted by the U.S. and E.U.

This proved a poisoned chalice, in particular for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In the face of the real possibility of a ruinous conflict with the U.S. and its allies the regime was forced to change tack.

Easing international tension is a welcome change for the Iranian people, especially if last week's events bring about a lifting of economic sanctions.

And the communist Tudeh Party of Iran also sees it as providing space for the left and progressive forces to further expand the campaign for peace and human and democratic rights in the country.

Iran has a dollar-based "import-led" economy relying on the export of crude oil. This makes it an easy target for the US as far as sanctions are concerned.

Structural distortions in the economy make it hostage to parasitical speculators in finance and property. Their destructive, non-productive activities are powered by the export of crude in return for the import of vast quantities of consumer and agricultural goods.

An unholy alliance between the powerful bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the merchant capitalists has ensured the continuation of this system.

And - with the support and encouragement of the IMF - Iran has undergone two decades of neoliberal economic restructuring.

Mass privatisation and the removal of energy subsidies under Ahmadinejad have put enormous downward pressure on working people's living standards.

Over the last two years this sick economy has created huge resentment and prepared the ground for mass uprisings.

In the past 24 months there have been hundreds of strikes and industrial protests in the country.

But because of the shackles placed by the regime on trade unions these have remained isolated and are easily brought under control.

The main contradiction in Iran is between the people and the interests of the political elite and economic oligarchy - custodians of a lucrative, unjust and corrupt economic system.

It's a contradiction that cannot be resolved and poses a growing threat to the survival of the regime.

The power structure in Iran is complex, accommodating various competing factions which are interdependent. The key factions frequently confront each other - but they quickly close rank under the cloak of the Supreme Leader when faced by any serious challenge.

They know that the danger of "regime change" does not come from the West. It comes from the Iranian people seeking fundamental socioeconomic change and democratisation.

That's why the regime attributes all its problems to forces beyond its borders and is now looking to the West as a potential ally, seeking a deal to shore up its position.

Far from being a breath of fresh air at home, Rouhani's economic plans are a continuation of a 25-year neoliberal trend.

Economic "restructuring" has already created a large and powerful private finance sector.

Rouhani's cabinet is composed of neoliberal right-wing reformers. And a book co-written by him and his advisers advocates the "free market" as the solution to Iran's difficulties.

The new president prioritised meeting the head of the IMF during the U.N. general assembly in New York - a strong pointer as to where Iran is heading as it "comes in from the cold."

His government is working on a strict monetarist programme with plans to extend the "flexible labour market" by diluting and removing workers' rights.

Attacks on workers will build on the systematic suppression of independent trade union activity in Iran during recent years.

These measures are in line with the Washington Consensus and will be seen as positive signals by U.S. and global corporations.

Any rapprochement between Iran and the US will rest on economic interests - and Rouhani will have a hard time satisfying Iran's oligarchs that their own interests will be safe.

The senior commanders of the Revolutionary Guards in particular have built up a huge role in the economy and now comprise a "bureaucratic bourgeoisie" whose fears had to be managed by Khamenei himself in the run-up to Rouhani's speech.

The ayatollah called for "heroic flexibility" - that is, compromise.

But no compromise between the U.S. and Iran's corrupt elite is likely to prioritise working people's living standards.

Nor does Rouhani's cabinet offer much hope of democratisation. His Justice Minister Pour Mohamadi was a key figure in organising the execution of thousands of political prisoners in the 1980s.

Fundamental reform in Iran is barred since the ruling clergy will see any major democratic, social or economic change as a threat. The character of the regime remains anti-people despite the election of Rouhani.

The Tudeh Party of Iran supports any lowering of tension between the U.S. and Iran. It has called for years for all disputes to be resolved by negotiation in accordance with international law.

But all negotiations must be transparent and in the interests of Iran's people.

The theocratic regime has placed our country in a weak position. It has turned to the West to save itself.

The U.S. and its allies must be prevented from exploiting this opportunity to push forward their plans for a "new Middle East."

Navid Shomali is secretary of the Tudeh Party's international department. Reposted from Morning Star.

Photo: Richard Drew/AP

Sudanese rise up against massive price hikes, repression

Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:50:00 +0000

Sudan's capital, Khartoum, and neighboring Omdurman, as well as Port Sudan and other parts of the country, are being rocked by mass protests and government repression, with the loss of at least 70 lives so far in Khartoum alone. The immediate cause of the flare-up is a sharp increase in fuel prices, but the roots of the clashes go much deeper.

The Sudanese government of Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who seized power in a coup d'etat in 1989, has been locked in many-sided internal and external conflicts. In 2011, after a long civil war, Sudan was forced to relinquish control over its southernmost provinces, which split off to form the new independent nation of South Sudan. The potential for conflict between Sudan and South Sudan was immediately clear: South Sudan ended up with most of the two countries' oil reserves, while the pipeline needed to get oil from South Sudan to Port Sudan on the Red Sea coast, and thence to markets, runs for hundreds of miles through Sudan's territory.

To make up for the loss of those oil reserves, al-Bashir's government tried to charge exorbitant fees to South Sudan for use of the pipeline, leading to a brief war last year. South Sudan has also been talking to Uganda and Kenya to explore the possibility of building a new pipeline to cross these countries to the Kenyan port of Lamu, which would leave Sudan cut out completely.

Furthermore, some forces which had been fighting against al-Bashir's regime ended up within the territory of Sudan, and have continued to clash with Sudanese troops in the South Kurdufan and Blue Nile provinces. Also, there is a long-running armed conflict in Sudan's Western province of Darfur; the cruelty of militias affiliated with the Bashir government in that conflict has caused the Sudanese president to become a wanted man in the eyes of the International Criminal Court.

Within Sudan today, there have been frequent but relatively small-scale protests against basic economic inequities in this rather poor country (per capita Gross Domestic Product is stalled at $2,400) and the authoritarian nature of al-Bashir's "Islamic" regime. Protests have been organized by a variety of political parties, some of them grouped into the National Consensus Forces. On the left, the Sudanese Communist Party is the most considerable.

Back in the 1960s, the Sudanese Communist Party was one of the largest communist parties in Africa. It was part of the ruling alliance of President Gaafar Nimeiry, but in 1976 Nimeiry moved to suppress the Communist Party, accusing it of being behind a coup against his regime. Nimeiry then moved in a direction friendlier to the United States and Western Europe, while at the same time declaring his government to be Islamic.

Since then, the Communist Party has sometimes been able to function openly, sometimes not. In recent years, it has returned to a position of prominence in Sudanese politics, as an implacable foe of the al-Bashir regime.

The current disturbances began with a government announcement on Sept.17 that it would remove its subsidies on gasoline, diesel fuel, cooking oil and wheat. The action was spurred by pressure from the International Monetary Fund, which is demanding neoliberal reforms in exchange for extending credit.

Objections arose immediately from the people and from opposition parties. The Communist Party questioned whether the subsidies actually ever existed, the implications being that the government had been using the money for other purposes, and that it was simply jacking up the prices. Al-Bashir and his ministers bizarrely claimed that they were benefactors of the Sudanese people because under their regime, people got to taste hot dogs and pizza for the first time. The government also claimed that raising money in this way was not going to hurt the poor, who it said do not have cars and therefore have no need to buy gasoline.

When the government refused to roll back the price increases, demonstrations began in Khartoum on Sept. 23, and spread to Khartoum where it was reported that the headquarters of al-Bashir's National Congress Party was burned. The government response was repression, but some reports indicate that police refused to fire on the protesters. So the government deployed its "Al-Bashir Pioneers" militia. At writing, there have been at least 70 deaths, as well as injuries arrests. Entire issues of opposition newspapers have been confiscated, and the press has been told it may only publish information provided by the police. Two members of the leadership of the Sudanese Communist Party, 79-year-old Sidig Yousif and prominent trade unionist Mirghany Atta Alaman, were among those arrested.

The demands have expanded beyond the protests about the price increases to calls for a halt to repression, the end of al-Bashir's regime, and a constituent assembly to restructure the Sudanese state and deal comprehensively with all of its problems, including the fighting in Darfur.

Photo: Clashes this week in Sudan. Via Sudanese Communist Party

Iraqi Social Forum could be eye-opener for Americans

Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:24:00 +0000

The first Iraqi Social Forum, which opens Thursday in Baghdad, could be an eye-opener for Americans, who will be able to participate online. Running from Sept. 26-28, the grassroots event is expected to involve more than 150 organizations and more than 1,000 participants. "Iraq is not only violence," the organizers say. "Iraq does not surrender to violence." Their vision is to "bring back, through this event, the image of civic peace and activism in a city that once upon a time was known as Dar Al-Salam (City of Peace)." The forum, they say, will be "an expression of the desire of the Iraqi people for a civil, democratic society and State, based on respect for different cultures."

In a public statement, the organizers, from a range of Iraqi organizations including labor, women's and youth groups, point to the tragic results of the U.S. war and occupation:

"The loss of the lives of over one million people, the destruction of infrastructure, fatal and debilitating effects of depleted uranium and chemical weaponry used by the occupation forces cannot be forgotten, neither by the Iraqi people nor by the international movements who have been mobilizing against the war and the occupation," they say.

"The withdrawal of the US and occupation troops has opened the way to complete the struggle of Iraqi people for democracy and social justice. But heavy military spending by the State and the actual security policies are making Iraqi people more vulnerable rather than safer."

They continue:

"We believe another Iraq is possible! Our vision is to support civil society in shaping alternatives and rebuilding Iraq into a nation that respects people of all religious, sectarian, ethnic and national affiliations, a nation that promotes equal rights for all its citizens. To demonstrate our commitment to making the struggle against corruption a reality and not a mere slogan, we organized ourselves with full transparency and shared all information concerning the creation of the Forum, the first of its kind in Iraq. We believe that social services to create employment opportunities and eradicate poverty are powerful means for social transformation."

The event is part of the World Social Forum movement, which began in 2001 with the theme "Another world is possible."

At this week's Iraq Social Forum, workshops, panels and tele-exchanges will focus on:

• Building a civic, democratic country

• International solidarity campaigns, including the Freedom of Speech campaign, the Save the Tigris and the Iraqi Marshes campaign, and campaigns to control private military companies

• Challenges faced by minorities

• Equitable distribution of wealth and social justice

• Labor unions, trade unions and peasant associations

• The rights of women, youth and children

• Economic, social, and cultural issues

• Nonviolence as a way of social, cultural, and economic change in Iraq

The forum will be kicked off by a Sports Against Violence event on the opening day at Baghdad University. There will also be arts performances. The events will be held in a historic cultural center in the heart of Baghdad

It has not been easy to organize this event. Activists had to struggle to get government approval. And organizing in the midst of a new wave of violence has been a challenge. Nevertheless, some 130 young volunteers have stepped up to help organize the forum. Training sessions were held for them on organizing skills, including use of social media and translation to and from a variety of languages.

On Sept. 21, more than a thousand people gathered in a public park in Baghdad for a celebration of World Peace Day organized by the forum

Americans have a unique opportunity to watch and participate in the Iraqi Social Forum over the next few days, either by Skype or via live-streaming online.

To connect with Iraqi activists at the forum through Skype, contact: isf.extensionteam

For live-streaming online, look for the streaming window at the Iraqi Social Forum website.

More information is available here.

Photo: Iraqi youth volunteers get ready to host the Sept. 26-28 Iraqi Social Forum. IraqCivilSociety.org

Merkel victory in Germany: Was it really so big?

Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:57:00 +0000

BERLIN - What rejoicing! What a triumph for Angela Merkel ("Mutti" or "Angie" as she is so often called), the East German girl who, as head of state, has really made it to the top.

All the world is congratulating her, and she did indeed succeed in winning an awful lot of votes in the German elections last week. Yes, personalities do count, and the combination of an administration unplagued by tumult or any recent economic crashes plus her homey, unexcited, down-to-earth way of speaking made for her big success.

But was it really such a big win? The collapse of the junior partners in her government, the Free Democrats, left them out of the Bundestag and her out of a majority! Her 42 percent vote, impressive as it was with many parties contesting, left her with the biggest bloc of 311 seats in the 630-seat Bundestag, but five seats short of a needed majority. So instead of the previous more-or-less like-minded partner, further to the right on most issues, she must try to forge an alliance with her main election opponents, the Social Democrats.

In a way, this was a Pyrrhic victory; her new Social Democratic partners will, even more than the Free Democrats, try to get into the act, stymying every move they disapprove of and always geared to winning points with the public.

But if we are to judge by the four years (2005-2009) when the last such Christian Democratic-Social Democratic coalition, their differences may not be on principle. In the election campaign the Social Democrats tried to sound very socially conscious. But some recalled that the two biggest parties, ruling together, had in 2007 raised the value-added tax from 16 to 19 percent on virtually all purchases - for most people a hard blow to the solar plexus.

And since the Social Democrats have also supported virtually the Merkel government's entire foreign policy no great changes can be expected. Indeed, campaign foe Steinbrück once served happily as Finance Minister with Merkel as her chancellor.

Merkel might try to win those majority-necessary votes in the Bundestag not with the Social Democrats but from the Greens. For years, most Greens would have considered the whisper of such a move the worst kind of blasphemy; after all, they were founded as a protest party. But somehow its leaders have not only grayed physically but also in the vigor of their principles. They hammered away against atomic and coal energy and thus gained popularity especially after the Fukushima catastrophe, but otherwise they have moved more and more to what is euphemistically called "the center." Their ecological demands often lacked regard for the welfare of those less prosperous - or less educated.

On foreign policy they were often rabid - denouncing Merkel's government for not joining in the war against Libya while approving, except for some brave mavericks, involvement in Afghanistan.

Some right-wing Greens have been bold enough to support a deal with Merkel, which could also put her over the top in her hunt for a majority.

There is actually one other possibility. If Social Democrats and Greens would join with the Left Party they would have 319 seats, four more than required, and they could govern. Or could they?

During the entire election campaign right-wingers warned of just this danger, sounding as if the three parties were conspiring to rebuild the Berlin Wall or reconstitute the Stasi. (The state security organization of the dismantled German Democratic Republic.)

The Social Democrats swore repeatedly that they would never, ever even think of joining those far left bad boys and girls and the Greens chimed in, if not quite so loudly.

Within the Left Party there was also much debate, indeed controversy, as to whether joining in such a government coalition might head them down a fatal rightward ramp. Now the possibility has finally arrived - but it seems likely that, as so often in the past, Social Democrats (and Greens as well) would prefer to team up with Merkel on the right rather than with a party which, despite all its inner conflicts and disagreements, is the only real force opposing painful, unnecessary cuts on the domestic scene and more and more involvement on the international stage - brutal economically and often militarily as well.

So what about the Left? How did it manage in an election often labeled dull, unexciting, and boring. The reason for these labels flows from the media's focus on the two main candidates, whose personalities differed far more sharply than their views or plans.

It was actually the Left Party which provided the suspense! Foreign media almost universally missed this, whether on purpose or due to ingrained prejudices. The International Herald Tribune (run by the New York Times), reporting on the elections in the days before and after the vote, had plenty on Merkel and Steinbrück and a whole page on the new anti-Euro party (which then failed to make it into the Bundestag), but only a tiny handful of lines barely mentioning the Left Party and even then getting facts and even dates wrong.

Many German media reported that the party, with fewer votes, was thus a loser. But the triumphant spirit at party headquarters in Berlin seemed to cancel out this judgment.

True enough, the Left Party received nearly four percent points less than in its glorious, nearly 12 percent vote of 2009 - which was in many ways exceptional, following as it did four years of Merkel-Social Democratic coalition. But members of the party recall that outside pressure and especially inner dispute hit so hard that until last June it seemed doubtful whether it could even get the needed five percent to stay in the Bundestag.

Then, after an armistice within the party and a consistent position against involvement in Syria and on social issues, the poll results inched upward, straggling during the summer from six to eight, then more recently creeping up to nine and even ten. A two digit result as goal, first uttered as a joke with a dreamy smile, gained vigor and became more realistic. In this sense the final 8.6 percent result was a disappointment. But the Left was definitely still in play and, with the Free Democrats out and the Greens in a nose-dive, it found itself in third place.

Gregor Gysi, fraction chairperson and by far the party's main election speaker, was jubilant: "If I had said in 1990 that our party would one day become the third strongest party in Germany I might have wound up in psychiatric treatment." Now, if Merkel joins with the Social Democrats, which seems most likely, the Left Party will lead the opposition, ahead of the weakened Greens.

There was one more slim triumph for the Left Party. Aside from the main vote there was one state election on Sunday, in Hesse. There, too, while Social Democrats and Christian Democrats were billed as main opponents, four smaller parties yearned to cross that five percent line. The Free Democrats, while failing on the federal level, managed to just barely scrape through with five percent, a very tiny consolation for their historic loss. The new right-wing Alternative for Germany party, basing itself largely on opposition to the euro currency, got lots of votes for a new party but missed the hurdle both nationally and in Hesse. And the young Pirates party, which garnered so much publicity in past years, got marooned on both levels at around two percent.

And the Left Party? Up until the end the polls gave it a bitter four percent; it looked as if it would lose its hold in one of the last states in former West Germany. But, after some teetering close to that fatal line, it finally emerged with 5.4 percent and will be right in there, embarrassing the other Hessians in the state legislature. There, too, as on the national level, it will now be necessary to move pieces like Lego bricks in an attempt to somehow form a government without those accursed lefties. They cannot be ignored; in other words, this too was a victory for the Left Party - if a slim one!

Elsewhere there were ups and downs. The Christian Democrats, building on the "Angela image" and hopefully continued economic stability, moved ahead almost everywhere. In four of the five former East German states the Left Party came in second, in East Berlin (but only there) four candidates won seats directly in their districts (among them Gregor Gysi and former party co-president Gesine Loetzsch) They regained some of their former strength in East Berlin, always in first place and almost 35 percent in one borough, and even did well in West Berlin, with nearly 15 percent in one borough. It will now send 64 delegates to the Bundestag, 34 women and 30 men, twelve less than in 2009.

All in all, the elections produced a hodge-podge of results; it may take weeks or months to agree on a new government - under the scepter of "Mutti" Angela. It is way too early, however, to celebrate too much about Left Party gains. With no more need to placate voters, and with possible weak resistance from the Social Democratic partners, Germany could now lurch further to the right, at home and in foreign policy. Mass resistance is the thing that will be required to perevent this from happening.

Photo: Members of the Left Party delegation in the Bundestag pose for a photo on the steps of the German Parliament. Die Linke/Flickr (CC)

Japan's seniors call for communities to prevent loneliness

Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:58:00 +0000

A total of 5,300 elderly people, in the 27^th National Conference of Elderly held in Tsu City in Mie Prefecture, on September 13 affirmed that they will start a movement to create communities to help prevent lonely seniors.

The two-day conference adopted a resolution calling for the cancellation of an adverse revision of medical care services and the pension program which the Abe Cabinet is seeking to go ahead with.

On the first day, about 40 workshops and related events took place.

At a symposium on solitary deaths among the aged, Shinozaki Tsuguo serving as a coordinator of the symposium pointed out that lonely seniors are not only those who live alone but those who have little or no social connections.

Shinozaki stressed the importance of a movement to build communities to help each other in dealing with difficulties facing the elderly people on a daily basis.

Participants talked about their various experiences and activities. People from health co-operatives reported on their efforts in cooperation with fire companies, municipal offices, temples, local social welfare councils, and neighborhood associations to prevent elderly people from being left alone and isolated from the community. A woman from Tokyo's Shibuya Ward reported that her group now holds a monthly lunch gathering with neighboring elderly people after discovering that many of them had trouble preparing their meals because local supermarkets or shops disappeared.

At a workshop on pensions, Moriguchi Fujiko of the Japan Pensioners' Union said that the government is intending to further cut its payments for pension benefits and increase the consumption tax rate although about 12 million people live on less than 100,000 yen a month, and that the Abenomics economic policy is causing the increase in the price of food and utility charges. She said that these facts violate the right to minimum quality of living guaranteed by the Constitution.

At a discussion workshop, a 61-year-old female home-care worker said, "Helping elderly people who are forced to live on very little money, I often agonize about how I can have their voices heard by administrations. Listening to other people's stories and opinions today, I now understand that we all have to stand up to work together for their betterment."

Reposted from Japan Press Weekly

Photo: Aaron Shumaker CC BY NC 2.0

Kenya carnage will beef up African anti-terror efforts

Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:02:00 +0000

PRETORIA, South Africa - Officials in Kenya reported the release of all hostages and other civilians trapped in Nairobi's Westgate Mall following the terrorist assault that left scores of shoppers dead and at least 180 injured.

The Kenya Defense Force said early Tuesday that "one or two" of the terrorists, linked to the Somalia-based al'Shabaab, remained holed up in the building. A fierce gun battle had been raging since Sunday, punctuated by loud explosions, as troops tried to take control of the mall.

About a dozen militants had stormed the mall on Saturday. Eyewitnesses who escaped the carnage said that they shot people at random or executed those believed not to be Muslims. Six are confirmed dead, and some have been caught.

Details have still to emerge about the precise identity of the attackers, the course of the assault, and the total number of civilians murdered.

The killings come after al'Shabaab made several threats against Kenya for its intervention in Somalia in October 2011.

About 4000 Kenyan troops remain in Somalia, part of an African Union (AU) force working with Somali government forces to counter an estimated 5000 al'Shabaab fighters, now mainly confined to rural areas of the country.

Before the Westgate attack, Kenya had successfully thwarted a number of terrorist plots.

Kenya's strong support for the AU's mission, which aims to stabilize the situation in Somalia, was prompted after of a spate of cross-border hostage taking, and small-scale attacks on restaurants and Christian churches on Kenyan soil by al'Shabaab.

The Westgate attack has sparked concerted condemnation by governments and civil society across Africa. The coming days and weeks are likely to see more beefed up, continent-wide efforts to counter terrorism.

African countries and the continent as a whole generally lack the sophisticated anti-terrorism capacity of richer regions of the world.

Their sense of shared vulnerability is underscored by their common concern to tackle terrorism in unison, and to do so in ways that do not incite spirals of violence or outside intervention.

The South African-based Institute of Security Studies (ISS), which runs counter-terrorism training Kenya, has stressed the need to prosecute the Westgate attackers, al'Shabaab and other such transnational groups through criminal justice systems.

Also, the International Criminal Court, to which Kenya is a signatory, has said that those behind Westgate attack could be prosecuted by the ICC, as attacks on civilians by armed groups violate international law.

"It is essential to guard against emotional retaliation, as that would play directly into the hands of al'Shabaab," said Anneli Botha, senior researcher at the ISS Transnational Threats and International Crime Division.

Photo: Paramedics and police officers run outside the Westgate Mall in Nairobi after heavy shooting started Sept. 23. Sayyid Azim/AP

Iranian gesture causes cautious optimism

Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:10:00 +0000

Iran's new President, Hassan Rouhani, has initiated a possibly constructive dialogue with President Obama. Rouhani's release of 11 political prisoners, his office's sending of an unprecedented Rosh Hashana greeting to the world's Jewish community, his renunciation of any desire to produce nuclear weapons, and his suggestion that he and President Obama might talk one on one during the opening sessions of the United Nations General Assembly this week, do indeed seem promising. The White House has signaled that it is interested, though at writing the specifics are not yet clear.

Rouhani was elected on June 14 of this year in an election in which no women, and nobody critical of the political system and especially the controlling role of the senior Shiite clergy, was even allowed to run. Even the preferred candidate of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was eliminated from the race by clerical authorities led by Supreme Religious Leader Ali Khamenei.

Iran is being badly damaged by a ferocious regime of international sanctions and by internal policies that are less and less popular. Particularly hard-hitting are prohibitions on U.S. and European banks doing business with their Iranian counterparts. Within Iran, "neo-liberal" privatization policies that favor business over ordinary workers and poorer people are a source of increasing dissention.

Progressive Iranians warn that it is a mistake to consider Rouhani to be a full fledged reformer, but nevertheless welcome, especially, the freeing of political prisoners, including civil rights attorney Nasrin Sotoudeh. However, they warn that there are many more innocent people still incarcerated, including bus drivers' union leader Reza Shahabi and other labor, student and human rights activists, and call for their release also.

After the overthrow of Shah Reza Palevi in 1979, which was carried out by an alliance of leftists (including the Tudeh, Iran's communist party), the Shia Muslim mosques and others, the theologically dominated regime which came out on top turned on its former allies and carried out mass executions. Almost the whole of the Tudeh leadership was arrested and most were killed. It would appear that President Rouhani was implicated in those acts. In 1999 he had called for a sharp crackdown on student protests.

Other left-wing activists as well as members of the Bahai, Sunni and Sufi religious communities came in for similar rough treatment.

More recently, Rouhani was Iran's chief negotiator on the issue of its development of nuclear power capability, and at the time of his election was the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, a post he had held for 16 years.

The current civil war in Syria is a source of worry for the Iranian leadership. The conservative theocratic government of Saudi Arabia is Sunni and not Shiite like Iran, and also sees Iran as a commercial rival in the oil and natural gas business. Wealthy Saudis and the Saudi government have been open handed in their financial support for rebels who are trying to oust president Basher Assad of Syria, and this generosity has been extended to extremist "Salafi" elements connected to Al Qaeda. Iran has been supporting Assad, but it is in the interests of both the Syrian and Iranian people (and for that matter, of the people of the whole world, including the United States) to deescalate the Syria conflict and promote a negotiated solution.

For a couple of years, right wing politicians in Israel have been pushing for the U.S. to take, or at least threaten, military action against Iran for that country's supposed plans to develop atomic weapons. Although the claim that Iran has been developing such weapons (as opposed to peaceful generation of nuclear power) is questionable, and also hypocritical considering the Israeli and U.S. nuclear arsenals, it has been used to bolster the argument that underlies the tough sanctions imposed on Iran by the United States and the European Union. So it was predictable that major figures in Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netenyahu's government would pooh pooh the Iranian peace feeler. The Israelis also complain about the link between Iran and the militant Hizbolla organization in Southern Lebanon, with which they have had armed clashes.

Photo: AP

What does the UN Syria report really say?

Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:07:00 +0000

United Nations weapons inspectors, in their long-awaited report on the alleged Aug. 21 chemical weapons attacks in the Damascus area, did not determine who perpetrated the attacks. The team, headed by Ake Sellstrom of Sweden, will return to Syria soon, possibly next week, to continue their investigations, including at other sites where chemical weapons were allegedly used.

Contrary to what headlines in major U.S. media have implied, the UN inspectors made no mention or suggestion of who might have carried out the Aug. 21 attacks. What they said was this: "the conclusion is that chemical weapons were used" in the Ghouta area of Damascus "against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale."

They also said they had found "clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin were used." (According to Wikipedia, surface-to-surface rockets may be fired from hand-held or vehicle-mounted devices, or from fixed installations.)

What some U.S. media have done is state a conclusion that they, or certain people they have consulted, have drawn about who the guilty party is. For example, the New York Times headlined a Sept. 17 article: "U.N. Data on Gas Attack Point to Assad's Top Forces." However the article itself deals solely with conjecture about rocket trajectories at two out of the five sites the weapons inspectors visited.

It may well be that further investigation finds definitive evidence the Syrian government indeed carried out the attacks. But as of now, the case is not closed.

Nick Brown, editor-in-chief of the British IHS Jane's International Defense Review, said that though the UN report appears to prove that sarin was used in significant quantities in Syria, "I have not personally seen any compelling data that proves beyond doubt who the weapons were used by."

He added: "There is a degree of circumstantial evidence that appears to point to the attack originating with the Assad forces, but the exact forensic detail of who prepared and then triggered the weapons remains unclear and was beyond the scope of the UN investigation."

Security analyst Anthony Cordesman, no leftist, in a detailed commentary calls the UN report "one third of the story that needs to be told." Although clearly inclined to the view that the Assad regime was the perpetrator, Cordesman points to a number of limitations to the report. These include the fact that the UN team's investigations were rushed and very brief, and that the sites the team visited had been previously "disturbed for days." As he puts it, "The inspectors had little time and the sites that they went to show that much of the evidence has already been disturbed or removed."

He also notes, "They examined only a limited number of survivors and did not examine the dead at all. ... The inspectors did not have the kind of access that allowed them to determine the number of dead and wounded, determine whether the attack left persons who were permanently injured, or assess the lethality of the chemical attacks versus reports of artillery shelling of the site with conventional weapons." In other words, it's not clear whether the deaths and injuries can be conclusively tied to chemical weapons rather than ordinary weapons such as mortar shells.

Also, the UN team was not able to confirm the actual death toll, for which widely varying numbers have been reported. More work is needed, he says, to get an accurate assessment of the total casualties, "clarifying the total mess the conflicting British-U.S. estimates have made."

In Cordesman's view the data in the UN report are not adequate to "tie them firmly to the Assad regime."

Russian officials, from a different viewpoint, also say the UN report is based on insufficient information. They cite evidence given to them by the Syrian government that implicates rebels in the Aug. 21 attacks.

It is important to note that this is not the only new UN report on violations of international law in the Syria conflict. UN human rights investigators, in a Sept. 11 report, found that war crimes are being committed by both sides in Syria.

Photo: Somewhere in Syria, Sept. 9, 2013. Wikimedia Commons

Teachers in crosshairs on Mexico’s 203rd birthday

Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:33:00 +0000

As Mexico celebrated its 203rd independence day this past weekend, teachers found themselves in the crosshairs of reactionary politicians.

In Mexico City on Sept. 13, heavily armed police drove protesting teachers out of the Zocalo, the massive public square in front of the National Palace, in part to make sure there was no disruption of the president's traditional September 15 independence message from the palace balcony. The teachers have been protesting in unprecedented numbers against the passage by the Mexican Congress (now done) of a so called "educational reform" bill which they claim will strip them of labor rights while also damaging the education of children in poor and minority (indigenous) communities.

The reform is a pet project of President Enrique Peña Nieto of the Revolutionary Institutional Party (PRI). It provides for a national system of evaluation of teachers, and permits schools to do their own fundraising from private sources.

The teachers, who are from Section 22 of the National Coordinator of Educational Workers (CNTE), say that they don't mind being evaluated, but that a one-size-fits-all system of testing as the centerpiece of Peña Nieto's evaluation will not take into account huge differences among schools, communities and regions, for example between urban schools with entirely Spanish speaking students, and some very poor rural schools where none of the students speak Spanish when they first enroll. To allow schools to do their own private fundraising, instead of making sure that all schools get the government funding they need, opens the door to privatization, according to the teachers.

Anti-teacher propaganda in the media has tried to connect the protesting teachers with the former head of the National Education Workers Union, Elba Ester Gordillo, a political manipulator who was arrested for corruption earlier this year. But the protesters come from a dissident sector of the unionized teaching profession, that has a history of militant participation in social struggles in Oaxaca and elsewhere.

The ideal of free, universal and secular education is one of the triumphs of the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920. During the "Cristero Wars" of the 1920s, many idealistic young teachers were shot or hanged by armed bands who considered secular education to be "communistic." In many rural communities, including those where the majority of the population does not speak Spanish at home, government teachers have thrust upon them roles of social and political leadership because they are the only educated and bilingual people who are not part of the ruling cliques. There is a suspicion that the government's plan to "upgrade" the teaching profession might have a hidden agenda of going after teachers who have been active in people's struggles.

This may explain the strange case of Alberto Patishtán Gómez, who, by virtue of a judicial decision last week, is looking at serving another 47 years in prison for a crime, which almost nobody believes he committed.

Patishtán is a member of the Tzotzil Maya ethnic group, and comes from the small town of El Bosque in the Chiapas highlands, where he was a teacher. After the Zapatista insurrection of January 1, 1994, Patishtán was active in a struggle against the mayor of El Bosque, who was accused of corrupt practices. In 2000, there was an ambush between El Bosque and nearby Simojovel, in which seven police officers were killed by unknown assailants firing AK 47 and R-15 rifles. One policeman and the driver survived. The driver, who just happens to be the son of the mayor of El Bosque against whom Patishtán had made accusations, claimed he heard Patishtán's voice among the assailants, though he did not see him. Numerous people in El Bosque say they saw Patishtán in the town, miles away, teaching at the school as usual. The Zaptista command stated that it believed that the attack against the police was a provocation designed to discredit and incriminate the government's opponents.

But Patishtán was convicted and sentenced to 60 years in prison. He has become a leader of the prisoners and a prominent martyr of the cause of social justice for indigenous people in Mexico. Due to his efforts, numerous prisoners have gained their freedom, but not him.

Patishtán's supporters have not given up. Basing themselves on the concept of "presumption of innocence", they took the case to the Supreme Court, but were turned down in March of this year.

They then took the case to an appeals court in Tuxtla Gutierrez, capital of Chiapas, but last week lost the case in that court also, on the grounds that they did not present adequate new evidence, though the whole problem is that no valid evidence against Patishtán was presented to begin with.

So now Patishtán's freedom depends on a pressure campaign in Mexico and internationally. Amnesty International has taken up the cause, as have public figures such as Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, founder of the left-center Democratic Revolutionary Party. Patishtán's supporters are appealing for more to join in.

Photo: Protesting teachers chant slogans at the Zocalo, Mexico City's main plaza, on Sept. 13. (Eduardo Verdugo/AP)

Will the left return to power in Honduras?

Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:53:00 +0000

Amid declining living standards and a terrible security situation, Hondurans go to the polls on Nov. 24 to elect a new president, national legislature, and local officials, plus representatives to the Central American Parliament (PARLACEN). So far, Xiomara Castro de Zelaya, wife of former President Manuel Zelaya, is leading the presidential polls.

Manuel Zelaya was elected as the Liberal Party's candidate in 2005. During his administration, Honduras became part of the DR-CAFTA, a free trade bloc that ties small Central American countries (Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica) plus the Dominican Republic to the United States in a manner favorable the interests of multinational corporations. However, Zelaya had his country also join PETROCARIBE, a regional petroleum market that greatly advantages the poorer countries of the Caribbean and Central America, and ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for Our America), in which Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador and Bolivia are the leading states.

Zelaya carried out internal economic reforms including raising the minimum wage and implementing land reform. When he tried to carry out a referendum on holding a mass-participation constituent assembly to debate constitutional changes, he was overthrown by the military and sent into exile, on June 28, 2009. Businessman Roberto Micheletti was installed as interim president, and there followed a long conflict between Zelaya's working class and low-income support base and the military and police. In November 2009, with police and soldiers in the streets repressing Zelaya supporters, an election of shaky validity was carried out, bringing to the presidency Porfirio Lobo, of the right wing National Party.

Although President Obama originally denounced the coup, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strove to legitimize the electoral farce. The new government pulled Honduras out of ALBA and PETROCARIBE (though Honduras rejoined PETROCARIBE in May 2013).

Honduras under Lobo has known neither prosperity nor peace. It has the highest murder rate in the world. Many of the killings are political. Peasant leaders, activist women, journalists, attorneys and youth activists have been subject to threats, attacks and murder, sometimes involving security personnel. In the Bajo Aguan region, local farmers have been locked in a conflict with the wealthy and powerful Facussé family, who uses the land to grow African palms for the international market. President Zelaya had promised a new land distribution, which his successors blocked. Since the coup, 89 poor farmers have been murdered in the course of the dispute.

Persecution of Honduras' Native American, Afro-Honduran and Garífuna communities is also intense. Currently, there is a major movement to defend Berta Cáceres, a leader of the Lenca indigenous people and coordinator of COPINH (Civil Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras) who is facing prison on trumped up charges because of her role in opposing a dam project which will harm the economy of her people. The gay-lesbian-transgendered community has been especially impacted.

The neoliberal policy of production for export based on rock-bottom cheap labor has been a godsend for transnational corporations, but has been hard on workers. Last month it was revealed by their union that workers in one manufacturing plant of the Kyungshin-Lear corporation are denied adequate bathroom breaks and thus have to wear diapers on the job.

Xiomara Castro de Zelaya is the presidential candidate of the LIBRE (Freedom and Renovation) Party, which grew out of the resistance to the coup that ousted her husband. She promises, if elected, to return to his progressive policies. Social welfare projects that he started, and which the Micheletti and Lobo governments stopped, will be re-initiated. Honduras will return to ALBA. And she will renew push for a constituent assembly.

President Lobo's National Party has nominated Juan Orlando Hernandez, the president of the Honduran Congress. The Liberal Party, which was badly split by the 2009 coup, has nominated Mauricio Villeda Bermudez, son of a former president. But both these traditional old Honduran parties are running behind Xiomara Castro and also Salvador Nasralla of the brand new Anti-Corruption Party. Nasralla, a TV personality, may end up in second place after Castro. General Romeo Vazquez Velazquez, the military officer who overthrow Zelaya, is running as the candidate of the Patriotic Party, also on the right. Three other parties are also running candidates.

Honduras does not have a run-off system for presidential elections, so the best bet is that Xiomara Castro, whose polling has been about 28 percent, will win. The National and Liberal Parties will likely be severely punished for their role in the coup and its aftermath.

Candidates and campaign workers for LIBRE are facing harassment and violence. The military is a very visible presence. If Xiomara Castro's lead continues, the same forces which overthrew her husband will try to stop her by fair means or foul.

Progressives say Americans should insist that the U.S. government and political leadership of both major parties keep their hands off the Honduran election.

Photo: Xiomara Castro de Zelaya speaks with reporters. honduraselogoali.blogspot.com

Saul Landau told truth about Cuba

Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:31:00 +0000

Saul Landau - reporter, author of 14 books, filmmaker (45 of them), poet, college professor, and determined foe of U.S. assaults on Cuba - died Sept. 9 in Alameda, Calif., at the age of 77.

Landau served as senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. At one time or another, he taught at California Polytechnic University in Pomona, the University of California-Santa Cruz, and American University in Washington. But his main vocation was that of agitator and political educator.

That bent emerged in Madison, Wis., where, as a student, Landau organized a "Joe Must Go" group aimed at the red-baiting Wisconsin senator, Joseph McCarthy. Later, Landau was a researcher for anti-imperialist sociologist C. Wright Mills and helped found Ramparts and Mother Jones magazines in San Francisco. He was a public television reporter there and also joined a mime troupe.

The breadth of Saul Landau's interests shows in themes he pursued in books and especially films. Often in collaboration with others, he wrote about "The New Radicals" (1966), "National Security and U.S. Foreign Policy" (1988), guerrilla insurgencies in Central America (1993), George W. Bush's "Preemptive Empire (2003), and U.S. culture ("Bush and the Botox World" - 2007).

Landau's documentary films explored Syria (2004), Iraq (2002), the U.S.-Mexican border (1999), Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico (1966), Iraq (1999), Nicaragua (1983), Beirut, Lebanon (1982), Jamaican President Michael Manley in 1976 and 1980 - and much more. Landau's highly regarded film "Paul Jacobs and the Nuclear Gang" (1980) documented the cover-up of terrible health effects from U.S. atomic bomb testing in the 1950s.

Notably, Landau produced films covering the rise of Chilean President Salvador Allende, later overthrown in the U.S.-assisted military coup in 1973. Orlando Letelier, foreign minister in the Allende government, was one of thousands who ended up being tortured and incarcerated. Landau helped spearhead a worldwide campaign for his release. Yet Chilean agents killed Letelier in 1976 in Washington. Landau and co-author John Dinges' book on the case, "Assassination on Embassy Row," alleged FBI involvement. Declassified U.S. intelligence material subsequently released by Washington's National Security Archives provided confirmation.

Ultimately, Saul Landau's signal contribution may have been that he told the truth about Cuba and 50 years of U.S. siege. He made six Cuba-related films. The most remarkable were "Fidel," a report of Landau's week-long jeep trip across the island with the Cuban leader in 1968, and his 2012 film "Will Real Terrorist Please Stand Up." There, Landau documented the falsehoods and violence marking the notorious anti-Cuban terror campaign emanating from the United States. He showed how the Cubans Gerardo Hernandez, Ramon Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, René Gonzalez, and Fernando Gonzalez came to Florida to defend against the terror and why four of them remain in U.S. prisons after 15 years. Through that film and in other ways Saul Landau contributed mightily to the cause of the Cuban Five.

During the last three years of Saul Landau's life, he and actor Danny Glover visited and became friends with prisoner Gerardo Hernandez, who is serving two life terms. Landau issued down-to-earth, intimate reports after each visit. They circulated widely.

A month before Landau's expected death, Hernandez wrote him: "It is just a journey, Saul, the other is not true ... How could it be true, with so many people who admire you and love you? A trip where? ...You'll be here whenever Danny visits me, and in Cuba when the Five are reunited." In August, Saul Landau received Cuba's Medal of Friendship, issued by the Cuban Council of State.

Photo: Saul Landau, right, with actor Danny Glover, left, visits Cuban Five prisoner Gerardo Hernandez. cubadebate.cu

Forty years after fascist coup, Chile may elect socialist, again

Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:45:00 +0000

Today, September 11, is the 40th anniversary of the bloody military coup that ended the life of Chile's socialist president, Salvador Allende, and began the long dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet. Two months from now, on November 17, another socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, is likely to be elected with the support of the same left-wing forces that brought Allende to power in 1970.

Allende, from the Chilean Socialist Party, implemented progressive policies that threatened the interests of U.S. based transnational corporations in the fields of copper mines, which were nationalized, and communications. These corporations, aided by the Nixon administration, worked hard to destabilize his government and the Chilean economy. Finally, on Sept. 11, 1973, a military coup ousted Allende, who died in the fighting.

Subsequently, at least 3,000 left wing Chileans were murdered, tens of thousands tortured and many more driven into exile. The Pinochet regime, working with other South American dictatorships and the United States through "Operation Condor," sent its assassins to kill exiled Chilean political figures such as army leader General Carlos Prats, murdered in Argentina in 1974, and Allende's foreign minister, Orlando Letelier, murdered along with American colleague Ronni Moffit in the middle of Washington D.C., on Sept. 21, 1976.

Among those murdered was Bachelet's father, an air force brigadier general, who was tortured to death by Pinochet's henchmen. Michelle Bachelet was also imprisoned and tortured.

Pinochet stepped down in 1988, after negotiating a deal he thought would protect himself and his family from prosecution. Elections followed in 1989.

The initial elected governments after Pinochet's resignation were those of the centrist "Concertación" which included the Socialist Party, the Christian Democratic Party, the Party for Democracy and the Social Democratic Radical Party, but not the Communist Party. The communists felt that the ideologically heterogeneous makeup of the Concertación, and the concessions it made to Pinochet in exchange for restoring elections, made it necessary for communists to act in opposition and run separate candidacies.

The Concertación's candidates won the elections of 1989, 1993, 1996 and 2000 and 2005. The president elected in 2000 was the Socialist Party's Michelle Bachelet. In that election, the Communist Party supported an independent dissident socialist candidate, Tomas Hirsch Goldschmidt, while the right-wing candidate was Sebastian Piñera of the National Alliance, who has connections with the Pinochet regime. Bachelet narrowly won the runoff.

Bachelet ran a popular center-left administration, in spite of protests by students, indigenous people and others over policies left over from the Pinochet days. She made headway on issues of labor and women's rights. However, the Chilean constitution does not permit reelection for consecutive terms. In the elections of 2009, the Concertación candidate was Christian Democrat Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, and Piñera ran again as the right wing candidate. The Communist Party nominated Jorge Arrate. Piñera and Frei Ruiz-Tagle made it into the runoff, which Piñera won by a small margin.

Piñera's term has been wracked by massive demonstrations of students, workers, indigenous Mapuche people and environmentalists, all of whom object strongly to the president's right-wing policies that are seen as having roots in the Pinochet dictatorship. Students, supported by labor, have protested against privatization of education, and for quality schools for all. Environmental protests have taken aim at water privatization schemes that threaten to harm the environment. The Mapuche indigenous group, fighting to recover lost lands, has been subjected to repressive Pinochet-era "anti-terrorism" legislation.

The Socialist Party is running former President Bachelet as its candidate (the ban on reelection only applies to consecutive terms). This time, the Communist Party has decided to support her candidacy. The main right-wing candidate is Evelyn Rose Matthei Fornet, Piñera's former secretary of Labor and Social Security, running under the banner of the Independent Democratic Union. There are several other smaller-scale candidacies. At writing, polls are showing Bachelet far ahead.

The Chilean election is of great regional and international importance. There is a great struggle in Latin America and the Caribbean going on at present. On one side is the Bolivarian dynamic, which tries to build solidarity among the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean, reduce their domination of their, and find forms of internal development based on human solidarity and social justice, not neo-liberalism. Aligned with this position are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela and some of the small Caribbean states. On the other side is the Pacific Alliance, including countries with conservative governments dependent on the United States: Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Peru (Costa Rica and Panama are associate members). This alliance strongly supports neo-liberal, free trade policies and U.S. foreign policy. Geographically, the Pacific Alliance states are well positioned to be part of the Trans Pacific Partnership.

If Bachelet, with communist and socialist support, wins the election, she is likely to reorient Chile toward the Bolivarian dynamic and away from U.S. domination. There are powerful people who will want to try to prevent this.

Photo: On the 40th anniversary of the fascist coup, Juventudes Comunistas de Chile JJCC demand truth and justice for the dead whom they honor with a procession near the presidential palace La Moneda in Santiago, Chile. (Corrected caption, 9.16.13)

New Canadian "super union" aims for different kind of unionism

Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:11:00 +0000

TORONTO - The progressive movement in Canada just gained a giant new ally over Labor Day weekend. Thousands of delegates, representing more than 300,000 workers, convened here to found Unifor, a new union aimed at transforming the labor scene in this country.

Unifor is the result of a merger of two unions, the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) and the Communications, Energy, and Paperworkers (CEP). It is now the largest private sector union in the country and has within its ranks workers from more than twenty different industries. Activists and leaders of Unifor make clear, however, that this is no ordinary merger. Unifor is upfront about the dire straits that the labor movement finds itself in and about the severity of the challenges working people are facing.

Like in the United States, union density and membership in Canada have been on the decline for decades, down to just 17 percent in the private sector from a high of around 35 percent in the 1970s. Unifor is hoping to initiate struggles that can reverse the assaults of right-wing neoliberal governments and forge a new model of unionism that goes beyond the traditional concerns of safeguarding wages and conditions. While it will of course do all those things unions have always done, Unifor's founding documents also set out a vision for a more broad-based organization that is solidly integrated into communities and that will have the capacity to reach out to all segments of society.

The new organization is the product of a long discussion process kicked off in January 2012 by the CAW and CEP that analyzed the challenges facing workers and initiated conversations about what a new union might look like. Community chapters are envisioned, which will bring together unionized employees, non-unionized workers, contract employees, retirees, students, the self-employed, the underemployed, and unemployed workers all, as equal members. Outgoing CEP president Dave Coles said the goal is to open the doors of the union to everybody. He said, "We are going to offer membership to people in Canada who have never had the opportunity to be represented, or to have a voice, in labor before."

The name - Unifor - is intentionally meant to be ambiguous and to allow for a wide vision that can encompass all workers, unlike traditional union names, which list the industries in which their members are employed. It is also meant to be bilingual with the same name in French and English, given that it is to be a Canada-wide union. The name is said to reflect the "values of unity and solidarity, strength and determination, and a modern, forward-looking perspective", according to leaders. The union wants to become known for the positive and progressive ideas that it is "for" and not allow employers or anti-labor governments to always paint unions as being "against" innovation or efficiency.

Under attack since the 1980s, the labor movement is searching for ways to respond to neoliberal economic policies that have undercut and eliminated the industries where unions once thrived and have consistently attacked the rights of labor in those sectors where unions still survive. These challenges have only intensified in the austerity drives of the current economic crisis, with Conservative politicians in Canada promoting the introduction of U.S.-style 'right-to-work' laws and the elimination card-check certification.

With this in mind, Unifor has set expansion as its first priority. A full 10% of revenue, or approximately $10 million initially, will be devoted to organizing workers in non-unionized sectors and workplaces. Newly-elected Unifor President Jerry Dias announced to those gathered at the labor day march that, "Today is really about opportunity, it's about hope. It's about us saying we've had it and it's about us saying we're determined to change the direction of this country."

The founding document, "A New Union for a Challenging World: Unifor's Vision and Plan," and the new organizing policy are available at: http://www.newunionconvention.ca/convention-documents/

Photo: Members of Unifor march in the Labor Day parade (via Unifor Canada/Facebook).

Opposition grows against Syrian bombing as breakthrough emerges

Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:43:00 +0000

CHICAGO -- A steady blare of horns honking greeted dozens of demonstrators holding signs aloft opposing U.S. military action in Syria at a neighborhood vigil here Sept. 9.

The vigil was one of 160 organized by MoveOn.org activists along with about a dozen other groups, and represents a vast sentiment by the American people against military intervention.

A Credo Action online petition against bombing Syria has collected over 211,000 signatures.

Nearly 70 percent of the public is opposed to U.S. military action.

"We reject the false choice between bombing and no action," said Michelle Kelly, a Bridgeport resident. "We should be pursuing a diplomatic path. It takes time."

The outpouring of opposition occurs as a fast moving potential breakthrough emerged in the Syrian crisis. President Obama responded favorably to a proposal initially advanced by Russian Prime Minister Sergey Lavrov and supported by the Syria government, to place Syria's chemical weapons under the auspices of the UN.

Syria also announced it would sign the international Chemical Weapons Convention, an arms control agreement which outlaws the stockpiling, production and use of chemical weapons and its precursors.

The diplomatic initiative gained momentum on Capitol Hill just as support for military action was also ebbing. A bipartisan group of U.S. senators began drafting a resolution that would give the United Nations time to take control of the Syrian government's chemical weapons and ultimately destroy them.

Peace activists called for building up international law rather than actions that would undermine it.

A U.S. military strike "is an illegal action," said Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies. "International law, the UN Charter, allows military action only in two cases - immediate self-defense or authorization by the Security Council."

Just because some other countries support the action and it is deemed urgent, doesn't make it legal, she said.

Bennis also told a MoveOn Town Hall meeting there are numerous conflicts taking place in Syria: an internal civil war, competition for regional domination between Saudi Arabia and Iran, competition between the U.S. and Russia and competition between the U.S. and its allies and Russia and its allies. Military action could spin any of these conflicts out of control.

"Such an attack will not make Syrians any safer," said Bennis.

It was also reported in the Jerusalem Post that the military strike, which the Obama administration had described as "limited" would actually be far wider and involve firing over 200 Tomahawk missiles and a two day bombing campaign destruction of military units, and buildings involved the chemical weapons program.

"We must continue to call the White House and our elected representatives to let them know we oppose bombing Syria," said Kelly.

In addition to the MoveOn rallies yesterday, many cities held rallies on Sept. 7, including one of more than 130 in Jacksonville, Fla., urging Rep. Ander Crenshaw, a Republican, to vote no on any military action. M. Djordjevic reports that many Syrians attended and spoke of unity, claiming that Muslim or Christian, all Syrian were under "one hand." Speakers sought to illustrate the civilian causality in war, while others denounced war in more other ways, pointing out the waste of tax dollars or resistance to send youth to fight.

Protester Mike Stovall said military action affects the working class because money spent "for warfare" means "budgets can't sustain health care, schools, and public services, like police and libraries."

M. Djordjevic contributed to this story.

People's World photo

As elections loom in Germany, few support Obama on Syria

Mon, 09 Sep 2013 13:40:00 +0000

BERLIN - Although Germany has had a resurgence of neo-Nazi attacks on refugees, U.S.-Germany relations have garnered much media attention with a possible U.S. attack on Syria and the National Security Agency spying scandal.

Revelations about NSA spying on German mail, telephone and email connections galvanized protests and unleashed controversy between a double-talking chancellor, Angela Merkel, trying to avoid any position, and her very righteous-sounding Social-Democratic and Green opponents, who were themselves closely involved in German-U.S. agreements on the matter. In Berlin nearly 15,000 people demonstrated angrily against both German and U.S. spying.

But now for much of the media, the war in Syria has become dominant (though, for some, key events like the birth and name of the Windsor baby always took first place). More than two-thirds of all Germans opposed involvement in another war even before the troops came home from the one in Afghanistan.

The peace movement organized "No War against Syria" rallies in cities across Germany on September 1 - usually commemorated as Peace Day to mark the date when Germany invaded Poland and started World War II. In Berlin, at Brandenburg Gate, protesters gathered as close as permitted to the U.S. embassy. Partly because of haste in preparation, their numbers were limited to about 800 stalwarts from the Left Party, smaller parties further to the left, and some Syrians - with varying views on Assad but all opposed to Obama's threatened air attack.

Few candidates for the Bundestag election supported Obama on Syria - except for the most important one, Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was ambiguous at first but then moved toward support of Germany's Washington ally. She was evidently confident enough of her own personal popularity to swerve in this question, judging that the electorate's main interest again centered on the number of 100 euro bills in its wallet or digits in its bank account while apprehensive of worrying changes.

It is possible that the long-time stress of the Left on peace, also against an attack on Syrian targets, has led to its small but possibly vital increase in the polls.

September 22 elections

As usual most media tried to turn the election into a personal confrontation between Merkel, with her homespun oratorical style and a record of averting economic catastrophe, and the Social Democrat Peer Steinbrück, who kept trying to sound witty and twist a smile onto his lemon-sour lips. But somehow, in the one TV-debate with Steinbrück, her charm was not quite so convincing while he was well prepared with facts on jobless, part-time, low-wage blots on her rosy mural. By many accounts it ended in a draw, with her necklace -- gems in the national colors of red, black and gold -- drawing as much attention as anything else.

But elections here are not personal duels. Becoming chancellor means winning enough seats in the Bundestag to gain a majority and form a government. With one brief exception (1960-61) one party has never managed this alone; at least one partner is always needed. If Merkel's present partner, the big-business Free Democrats (FDP), fails to win the 5 percent of all votes needed to get into the Bundestag (it is now vacillating between 4 and 6 percent) it is then out in the cold while Merkel's "Christians" would be stuck with about 40 percent and need to choose another partner to stay in power. The only ones available are the Greens - highly improbable - or the Social Democrats - definitely possible.

But there is one other possibility. With the Social Democrats now at 25 percent, their friends and allies the Greens at 10 or 11 percent, they cannot win. But if you add on the Left (Die Linke), now at 9 percent, and maybe another point or two here or there, that might just add up to a winning combination. The Social Democrats and Greens still insist they would never, never, never join hands with the Left, but some think they are saying it less often and less vociferously, and victory, with cabinet seats in a nice new government could prove very tempting.

Would the Left agree if offered this chance - and a Cabinet seat or two? And what about not being in the coalition, but simply "tolerating" it - voting with it without joining it, which would give it the power of choosing thumbs up or down whenever it approves or disapproves?

These matters are being hotly debated - mostly behind closed doors. Some Left leaders say "maybe" - if certain principles are maintained - like better wages and pensions and no foreign engagements. All this has given the elections a certain element of suspense after all.

However, all summer the threat of violence was in the air in Hellersdorf. This borough on the outskirts of East Berlin, once a huge site of modern high-rise buildings aimed at solving East German housing problems, provided homes for nearly 130,000 people. After "the Wall went down" many high-rise buildings were cropped from eleven to five or six stories, renovated and given colorful new facades.

But with the new problem of joblessness (currently at 11.7 percent in Berlin), more and more people left to hunt work in other parts of Germany or elsewhere. Many buildings constructed in the 1980s emptied out. More recently, working class families, some with immigrant background, after being pushed out of central Berlin by high-priced gentrification, found that rents were not soaring quite so quickly in out-lying areas like Hellersdorf. A new mix, often featuring disintegration, defeatism, sometimes a lack of hope, offered just the ingredients neo-Nazis and their allies were looking for.

Since schools and kindergartens were still in oversupply the city decided to move about 200 asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Syria and other countries into one school in Hellersdorf, transforming it into a dormitory. But ultra-rightists, smelling a chance to win votes in the approaching German elections, quickly stepped up their normal campaign of fear about imminent dangers from "foreigners," adding the additional complaint that local residents had not been consulted in advance about the planned move.

When an open-air meeting was then arranged to explain the measure almost a thousand people showed up. But tough-looking men from the National Democratic Party (NPD) seized the microphone and soon created a truly pogrom-like atmosphere. They were joined by equally rough-looking adherents of the new Pro-Deutschland Party, whose main platform plank is bashing foreigners. All other parties spoke up against them, and soon there was a day-and-night vigil of people, mostly Left Party members and Autonomists (anarchistic-leaning anti-fascists), to oppose the fascists and protect and welcome the first few asylum-seekers, with the police trying to keep the two groups apart.

There was some minor violence, which became front-page news all over Germany, and some asylum-seekers, temporarily quartered elsewhere in the city, refused to move to Hellersdorf for fear of attacks. The situation slowly cooled down as it turned out that many or most of the local population were by no means so "anti-foreigner" as the neo-Nazis tried to portray.

Berlin's opposition parties - the Left, the Pirates and the Greens - demanded that immigrants no longer be placed in big dormitories but be scattered instead in normal apartments around the city. This subject was part of an on-going countrywide debate about and struggle against strict restrictions on asylum-seekers in terms of freedom of movement and the right to hold a job.

Regarding the far right and other minor parties, the Sept. 22 elections seem like a long shot. Like the neo-Nazis in the NPD, mentioned above - with little chance of getting more than 2 or 3 percent nationally, especially since their new anti-foreigner rivals, the Pro-Deutschland party will split their vote. Another new party, the Alternative for Deutschland, stresses its opposition to the euro. "Back to the German mark," it demands, with an undertone of disdain for those poor, bankrupt failure countries in southern Europe. It now stands at 2-3 percent but could show more strength when the chips - or ballots - are down. As for the Pirates, once exciting youthful fighters for Internet freedom and participation, their internecine quarrels have kept them down to a disappointing 3 percent. But who knows?

Actually there are 34 parties, far right, far left, religious, vegan and just plain nutty. Since the media, though full of commentaries, interviews and talk shows, do not permit paid campaign ads, they all make up for it by filling the streets with billboards and thousands of smaller posters attached to lampposts, often with the face of a candidate and a short slogan like Merkel's "Successful together - for Germany" or the Social Democrats' "The WE makes the difference." The Greens try to be very original; one sign has a face upside down and the words, also upside down, saying: "We see things differently. And You?" The NPD has kept to its racist traditions, this year mostly against Roma and Sinti ("Gypsies"), and have been legally challenged here and there. The Left posters are most demanding: "Enough blathering: 10 Euro Minimum Wage" - "Instead of Bottle Deposits, a 1050 Euro Pension" - "Divvying Up Is Fun; Tax the Millionaires" and "Forbid Weapons Export; End Military Deployments."

Germans will soon vote by marking their Xs by hand, never electronically, one vote for a local candidate, one vote for a preferred party. Until then nearly all decisions on domestic, European or world issues have been turned to "Wait." It is possible that a new right or center government could really get far tougher with its own working people and with those in the rest of the continent. September 22 could well be a very decisive date for many millions of people.

Photo: In this June 19, 2013, photo U.S. President Barack Obama addresses a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin. Merkel, publicly questioned the legitimacy of U.S. NSA surveillance programs, while standing next to Obama during his Berlin visit. European approval for his administration's international policies has dropped dramatically. (AP/Michael Sohn)

Turkey: "Do as I say, not as I do"

Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:30:00 +0000

Turkey has joined the U.S., Britain, and France in calling for military intervention in neighboring Syria, following the reported deployment of a chemical nerve agent against Syrian civilians. The perpetrator of the attack remains unknown; however, American and British intelligence agencies are claiming to have proof linking the Syrian government to the attack.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu called Syria's use of chemical warfare a "crime against humanity." Turkey's condemnation of the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons, which is still yet to be proven, is so hypocritical it borders on Machiavellian. Perhaps Minister Davutoglu should turn his attention to atrocities being committed within his own borders.

Beginning in late May, protests erupted across Turkey to challenge the authoritarian government of Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. Support for the protests spanned the entire political spectrum, involving activists on the right and the left. The protests became international news when videos of the brutal tactics used by police on peaceful demonstrators went viral. However, Turkey's most egregious act occurred when police employed chemical agents in their water cannons against civilian protestors.

The civil unrest in Turkey began as an environmental protest against the removal of Gezi Park, in Istanbul. On May 27, local protestors created an encampment in Gezi Park in order to halt bulldozing efforts. Local outrage over police brutality began to manifest itself after the police raided the Gezi encampment. Protests erupted in parks across Turkey and eventually culminated in demonstrations of solidarity with the environmentalists of Gezi Park. The response of Prime Minister Erdogan was a predictable one, to condemn and shame the protestors. In a speech on June 13, Erdogan called the demonstrations the work of "internal traitors and external collaborators" and vowed to strengthen police presence.

To quell the demonstrators the Turkish police turned to the perennial weapons of oppressive regimes, tear gas, riot batons, and water cannons. Turkish police escalated their riot control methods as the protests and demonstrations grew in size. As early as June 15 reports of police adding chemicals to the water in their riot vehicles emerged.

Pictures of police adding a chemical called Janix to the tanks of the water cannons appeared on the Internet. The effects of the chemical caused severe burns on the skin of protestors and irritation in their eyes. This resulted in contusions on protestors' necks, backs, and torsos. It has been reported that the effects of the water can last up to two days or more.

The use of chemicals against unarmed civilians in any situation is unjustifiable.

United Nations inspectors have yet to offer substantial evidence that links the Assad government to the chemical attacks in Syria. Yet the drums of intervention are being beaten and the groundwork for Syrian intervention is being laid. The Turkish government has ardently criticized the Syrian government for the use of chemical weapons, despite only having circumstantial evidence. Turkey's duplicity is displayed by its condemnation of the Assad regime while simultaneously showering its own citizens with toxic water.

Thus the old adage holds fast: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Photo: A water cannon sprays protesters in Gezi Park at Taksim Square, Istanbul, June 1, 2013. Protesters charged that toxic chemicals were added to the water, causing skin burns and eye irritation that lasted for days. Wikimedia Commons

Filipino workers urged to flee Syria, lawmaker condemns U.S. attack

Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:43:00 +0000

The Philippine Embassy in Damascus is urging Filipinos working overseas in Syria to either return home or seek refuge in neighboring countries due to increasing danger and possible U.S. intervention.

The Philippine government has been encouraging Filipinos to leave war-torn Syria since December 2011, when it established a Crisis Alert Level 4, which requires mandatory repatriation of overseas workers at the expense of the government. Roughly 4,500 Filipinos have left Syria since. Some have crossed the border into nearby Lebanon while others have managed to take flights back to the Philippines.

In the Philippine House of Representatives, Rep. Walden Bello gave a speech on Monday arguing against a planned military strike on Syria by the United States. He explained that U.S. action without approval by the United Nations Security Council would be a deliberate violation of international law. He also expressed concern that a missile strike would not only worsen the situation for Syrian people, but would also put the lives of thousands of overseas Filipino workers who remain in Syria in danger.

"We are talking about adding fuel to an already combustible conflict with potentially unspeakable consequences," warned Rep. Bello.

"The Philippine government must add its voice to the multitudinous official voices that have expressed opposition to the planned U.S. strike," Bello declared. U.S. intervention "is not in the interest of the Philippines," he said.

The Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs says it believes there may be up to 3,000 Filipinos still in Syria, and is strengthening its efforts to bring overseas Filipino workers to safety.

The U.S. Congress is expected to take a vote on authorization of U.S. action in Syria next week.

Photo: Philippines Rep. Walden Bello, a world-renowned progressive scholar and activist. Walden Bello Facebook page

"Humanitarian intervention" in Syria is a hoax

Wed, 04 Sep 2013 11:40:00 +0000

The reasons given by President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and French President Francois Hollande for wanting to use air strikes to "punish" Syria for its alleged Aug. 21 chemical attack are not convincing. Even less convincing is the "humanitarian intervention" fig leaf.

To make the case for an armed attack on Syria, the Obama administration last week distributed a sketchy document that consists of assertions not backed up by any clue as to how they could be evaluated by anyone outside the magic circle of national security operatives.

Many reports are circulating in the media and online that cast doubt on the U.S. administration's version. One suggests that someone low in the Syrian Armed Forces chain of command may have used chemical weapons without orders from above. Another is that the rebels had received a shipment of chemical weapons from outside and had accidentally set them off. The administration's white paper too readily discounts these possibilities.

The language the administration is using to argue for an attack on Syria suggests that "we" must not allow Syria to get away with crossing an imaginary "red line," or other countries (Iran or even North Korea) will see the United States as weak and then feel free to act against our country. This is morally bankrupt power politics, not humanitarianism, and would violate international law.

The administration appears to be utilizing the doctrine of "humanitarian intervention" developed by, among others, Samantha Power, now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Bernard Kouchner, former French foreign minister and founder of "Medecins sans Frontieres" (Doctors Without Borders), which first broke the news of the chemical attack.

"Humanitarian intervention" is the notion that national sovereignty is limited, and the more powerful countries have a responsibility to intervene with military force in internal situations in less powerful countries, in order to prevent genocide or crimes against humanity. Samantha Power and others developed the idea based on shocking events such as the Rwanda genocide of 1994. The idea was further developed into United Nations policy guidelines as "Responsibility to Protect" or R2P at the UN World Summit in 2005, after the overthrow of the legally elected government of President Jean Bertrand Aristide in Haiti. Note these are guidelines, not yet part of international law.

"Responsibility to Protect" requires nations to protect their own peoples against "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity," and suggests that if a nation can't or won't do that, other nations can and should intervene. It does say that armed intervention should be the "last resort" and should not do more harm than good. But how can one tell in advance?

In the Haiti situation, the United States, France and Canada had been looking for a legalistic mechanism to justify their overthrow of Aristide, and to place Haiti under outside control so as to prevent him or his Lavalas Party from returning to power.

But this intervention did not bring either peace or security to Haiti, which has continued to be wracked by severe problems that the wealthy capitalist countries merely exploit and do nothing to solve. It came just after Aristide had annoyed France and frightened the U.S. by reviving demands that France pay reparations to Haiti for economic damage caused by France in the 19^th century. (France had insisted that Haiti reimburse the losses entailed by French citizens whose "property," including slaves, was lost with Haiti's independence.)

"R2P" is a classic case of the foxes being set to guard the chicken coop, a fig leaf for imperial intervention. It is impossible to imagine a situation in which poorer countries could use it to intervene against major powers, no matter how real the humanitarian crisis.

In the Syria crisis, there are also grubby material interests at work. There is a dispute about the route that pipelines going through Syria should take. According to environmental and international security scholar Nafeez Ahmad, Qatar wanted a pipeline to run from its own oilfields through Syria to the Mediterranean and European markets. Syria's promotion of a rival route more favorable to Russia and Iran may be related to this, as Qatar is one of the major funders of the rebels.

Escalating the Syria conflict will strengthen al-Qaeda, al-Nusra and other such groups, as happened with the overthrow of Libya's Gadaffi in 2011. The dispersal of Gadaffi's troops and arsenal had the result of destabilizing Mali and other countries in the region, costing many lives and creating hundreds of thousands of starving refugees. And the fighting and dying in Libya has not stopped.

The only route out of the Syria mess is a return to a negotiated settlement. That would be a genuine "humanitarian intervention." To make that happen, call the White House, the State Department and your congressional representatives now!

Photo: Syrian refugees on a bus in Turkey, September 2012. Wikimedia Commons

Agrarian strike in Colombia triggers repression, wider struggle

Tue, 03 Sep 2013 12:55:00 +0000

The current agrarian strike in Colombia follows one earlier in the Catatumbo region where small farmers mobilized for land and sustainable lives. Now angry small farmers are rejecting free trade agreements Colombia signed with the United States, Canada, and the European Union.

Indeed, rural people in Colombia are suffering. The rate of poverty is 80 percent, of extreme poverty, 25 percent. Eight million Colombians are hungry. Human rights abuses and killings are well known.

On August 8 outside the Agriculture Ministry in Bogota, leaders of the Table of Agrarian Discussion (MIA) issued demands and announced a strike. Death threats from paramilitaries showed up in their emails afterwards. MIA includes Patriotic March, a two-year-old amalgam of 1,500 social and political groups that organized 60 percent of the protest actions that followed.

Beginning on Aug. 19, 200,000 farmers, farm workers, truckers, and small miners have been demonstrating and blocking highways in most Colombian departments. Urban protesters joined in after Aug. 25. State repression at the hands of riot police and soldiers intensified the face-off. By Sept. 1, nine protesters were dead, 200 wounded, and hundreds detained. The turn to military intervention recalls the prevailing theme in Colombian history of struggle over land attended by violent conflict. That's the essence of negotiations now going on in Cuba between the Colombian government and FARC insurgents.

"The national strike as such does not exist," said President Juan Manuel Santos on Aug. 25. Four days later after demonstrations broke out in Bogota, Tolima, and elsewhere, Santos abandoned his presidential residence and settled into police headquarters. Bogota came under military rule, and 50,000 troops were deployed to keep highways open. The government offered pay for information leading to the arrests of protest leaders.

On Aug. 29 tear gas, clubs, helicopters, and armored vehicles blanketed Bogota. In Boyacá, police invaded homes and stole money and food. Torture and sexual abuse emerged, along with indiscriminate use of gas, explosives, and firearms. Videos circulated showing "the police urinating on demonstrators' food, breaking windows, destroying homes, hitting and humiliating people in their own houses, wounding children, women, and old people, and infiltrating marches." Spanish language abilities are not needed to understand the video: "Collection of videos: abuse by Colombian authorities."

The government began negotiations with regional groups of farmers, particularly those in Boyacá, Nariño, and Cundinamarca. Land is fertile there, and farmers produce vegetables, grains, meat, and dairy products for the domestic market. Free trade agreements have hurt them. Colombian food imports from the United States were up 81 percent in the first year under the Colombian-U.S. free trade agreement. Tunja archbishop Luis Augusto Castro condemned the agreements as "treason to the countr y."

But in other regions small farmers are asking for more: "They are demanding land and peasant reserve zones, indigenous peoples want reservations, and Afro-Colombians and [other] popular sectors want rights." As in Catatumbo, land they occupy is coveted for natural resources extraction, ranching, and industrial agriculture.

The government has used the "lack of centralization of the movement - which is its great weakness - to mount sectional and regional negotiations," reports one observer. Patriotic March leader Andrés Gil earned President Santos' ire by charging that regional negotiations were aimed at dividing the protest movement. These talks deal with subsidies, tariff adjustments, and lowered fertilizer and herbicide prices rather than structural changes.

The agrarian strike expanded after Aug. 25, with students, unionists, and human rights activists filling city streets. Speaking to a reporter, one student denounced "handing over our country and doing away with agriculture," but added: "No more privatized universities, no more fee increases." The Broadened National Student Federation launched demonstrations in several cities. The University Professors Union denounced free trade agreements and called for a national constituent assembly. The Workers' Labor Union (USO) and the Fensuagro agricultural workers union organized demonstrations.

Fensuagro Vice President Huber Ballesteros, spokesperson for the MIA, was jailed on Aug. 25, charged with "rebellion and terrorism." Authorities use that allegation to link opposition leaders to the FARC. Ballesteros is now a magnet for international solidarity.

The government is stymied. Committed to market ideology, the oligarchy cannot resolve agrarian conflict without resort to violence, one commentator says. "[W]ith giant steps they are getting close to a revolutionary type crisis. And social leadership of a new type has arrived."

Tolima hospital workers union President Nelsy Gómez Oliveros agrees: "President Santos ... We are here in the streets for health care, education, the environment, jobs, and dignity as Colombian people. No more attacks! No more violence! No more war! ... [T]oday we the Colombian people are showing we have blood in our veins and that we are inclined toward struggle, even to sacrifice."

Photo: Colombian farmers prepare land for a nursery. Trees ForTheFuture CC 2.0