People Before Profit blog

Cuba appeals to United Nations on U.S. blockade

Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:34:00 +0000

Every year in September, the Cuban Foreign ministry releases a report on the U.S. anti- Cuban blockade directed to member states of the United Nations. Available here.

The purpose is to persuade General Assembly delegates to vote "yes" on a Cuban resolution entitled: "Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba."

Deputy Foreign Minister Abelardo Moreno released this year's report at a press conference on September 10. The vote takes place within a few weeks. Large majorities have voted every year for 22 years to end the blockade, in recent years overwhelmingly so. Last year 188 nations favored the resolution, two were against (The United States and Israel), and three abstained.

The report's authors invoke considerations of international law, justice, morality, and human decency to bolster their argument. Most of the 35-page report consists of a detailed cataloguing of specific adverse effects cropping up during the past year. They are categorized under the headings of health care, education, provision of food, sports, and culture.

Although these examples result from only one year of blockade, they fill page after page of the report. That a similarly long list could have been devised every year for 55 years of the blockade is daunting. An accounting of the entire half-century experience would fill volumes.

Foreign trade and investments

One large section on the "foreign sector" deals with "foreign trade and investments," reactions by foreign banks and lenders to U.S. pressure, and stealing of patents and trademarks. In fact, since 2009 the U.S. government "has forced 36 U.S. and international entities to pay almost 2.6 billion dollars" in fines for dealing with Cuba. As a result, "Cuba's access to international loans is still diminished and many banks are refusing to handle dollars on Cuba's behalf. [And] harassment of banking-financial activity [means that] normal progress in all spheres of economic, social, cultural and political life continues to be seriously blocked."

Another major section focuses on U.S. violations of international law, especially those involving individuals, organizations, and agencies of third countries. These are the so-called "extra-territorial" effects of the blockade. U. S. policies impinge on travel, educational, and financial projects Cubans share with other countries. They damage Cuba's partnership relationships in pursuing humanitarian or cultural activities. Problems with international banking and loan availability are by far the most serious extra-territorial manifestation of the blockade.

The document concludes with a listing of individuals and organizations throughout the world who weighed in against the blockade during the past year. The listing of those in the United States exceeds that of past years.

The strength of the Report is most evident in its introductory section, which is noteworthy for clarity, the perspective it provides, and even eloquence. It communicates a multifaceted argument calculated to reach member states of the United Nations and peoples of the world. A few quotes make this point:

"The period being dealt with by this report was marked by a toughening of the genocidal blockade policy."

"To bring about 'hunger, desperation and overthrow of [the Cuban] Government' continues to be the declared purpose of the United States Government." (The citation is from a memo State Department official Lester D. Mallory wrote to a counterpart in 1960.)

"The blockade qualifies as an act of genocide by virtue of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and as an act of economic warfare according to the declaration regarding the laws of naval war adopted by the Naval Conference of London of 1909.

"The blockade inflicts important adverse effects on the material, psychological and spiritual wellbeing of the Cuban people and it imposes serious obstacles on its economic, cultural and social development."

The United States wants to "isolate a small country because it defends its sovereignty and its right to freely choose its future."

"The economic damage caused on the Cuban people ... considering the depreciation of the dollar ... totals 1,112,534,000,000 dollars."

The segment recounting adverse blockade effects on health care is striking. Cuba has "the need of acquiring medicines, reagents, spare parts for diagnostic and treatment equipment, instruments and other supplies in distant markets, making it necessary to often resort to intermediaries in distant markets and thereby unnecessarily increasing costs for the sector." Extra healthcare costs for one year amounted to $66.5 million.

Implications for Cuba solidarity

Presentation of the report has serious implications for Cuba solidarity activists in the United States. The report does not cover blockade mechanisms leading to shortages. The implication is that Cuba cannot change them, that the U.S. government can, and that the responsibility for changing dreadful policies lies with its own citizens.

For example, many items Cuba needs are available in third countries. But in a world of multinational corporations, a small component of an item, or some of its financing, may have derived from the United States. And according to the "Cuba Democracy Act" of 1992, still in effect, the item is thus off limits. The Report, in effect, is saying that it's up to justice-seeking, political opposition forces in the United States to fix such things.

Photo: Deputy Foreign Minister Abelardo Moreno. Granma.

Ukraine: Knocking down the Lenin statues

Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:02:00 +0000

The fighting has more or less died down between the right wing Ukrainian government forces and the militias of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions which have been resisting Kiev's control. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko agreed to a deal which supposedly will allow legislative elections to go ahead while also promising extensive autonomy to the dissident provinces in the East. Moscow and Kiev are now negotiating the basis on which Ukraine can, before the winter starts, be assured of Russian coal and gas supplies. Ukraine's economy is, at present, a disaster, and facing winter without being able to heat homes and buildings is something that Poroshenko has to avoid at all costs.

But for people in Ukraine, and not only in the East, who don't agree with the right wing policies of Kiev, the situation is still ominous. The Communist Party of Ukraine is still banned from participating in the national legislature, or RADA, even though it has quite a few elected representatives there. Members of the Communist Party and others seen as not supporting the right are still being subjected to violence and death threats by ultra-right wing hooligans.

And it is almost certain that communists, and perhaps others on the center and left, will not be allowed to run in the elections. This is the goal of the Kiev government's current "lustration" campaign, by which whole political groups would be prohibited from holding government jobs. The lustration law may turn out to be unconstitutional, but it is a safe bet that the government will find another way to achieve the same objective. It is ironic that "lustration" in Europe is a practice designed to keep Nazis and fascists from controlling government institutions; now it is being used by Ukrainian neo-Nazis and fascists to purge the anti-fascists, including of course communists.

The most extreme right wing activists do not approve of the peace deal with the East and are threatening to march on Kiev to oust Poroshenko and his colleagues.

Meanwhile, these bravos have declared war on statues of Lenin all over the country. Lenin statues and monuments have been removed or destroyed in many communities. On Sept. 28, over the objections of the city's mayor, a right wing mob tore down one of the tallest Lenin statues, in the city of Kharkiv.

Why did the vandals attack the Lenin statues? Perhaps because Lenin was Russian and a communist? Ironically, Lenin was particularly friendly to the idea of Ukrainian autonomy within the U.S.S.R. and opposed to heavy handed rule over minority nations by the Russian center. His government encouraged a flowering of Ukrainian language and culture ("Ukrainianization"). As a symbol of that, in 1918, when he surely had a lot of other issues to deal with, Lenin had ordered the construction of a statue of Ukraine's most beloved literary figure, Taras Schevchenko, in St. Petersburg (then Petrograd, later Leningrad, now St.Petersburg again). There are other status of him in Moscow and elsewhere.

Lenin died in January 1924 after a series of strokes left him unable to participate politically for many months. The encouragement of Ukrainian national culture and language was not curtailed until Stalin came into full power.

Lenin had some Jewish ancestry and was a firm enemy of anti-Semitism; possibly the anti-Semitism of the Ukrainian ultra-right could have played a role.

But most probably the destruction of the Lenin statues is meant by ultra right Ukrainian nationalists as a warning to their more left-leaning opponents not to put their heads above the parapet in the future, lest they meet the same fate as the statues-decapitation!

The mayor of Kharkiv promised to restore the statue.

Photo: Protester smashes satue of Lenin after it was knocked down.

U.S. steps up dangerous bombing campaign in Syria

Wed, 01 Oct 2014 11:58:00 +0000

Thousands more are likely to die and millions of additional refugees are likely to join those already camped out all over the Middle East because of the continuing U.S. bombing campaign against Syria and because of policies that peace forces say have been wrongheaded from the start.

Already Reuters has reported that U.S. missiles destroyed grain silos in a northern Syrian town, killing civilians but not ISIS fighters. The bombs destroyed mills and grain facilities in the town of Kfar Derian. The U.S. military has countered the reports by saying ISIS vehicles were adjacent to the silos and that there is no evidence civilians were killed.

On Sept. 10, President Obama announced the bombing campaign, which will cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars, against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). ISIS' militant forces had routed Iraqi army forces and captured a wide swathe of Northwestern Iraq, including the important city of Mosul, the site of as a major hydroelectric dam. Initially, the idea was to rescue members of the minority Yazidi religious community, who were fleeing from the ISIS onslaught. Most of the refugees escaped with the help of militia from the autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq.

But we were later told that U.S. bombing would be targeted also at a shadowy organization called the Khorasan group, which supposedly was planning terrorist attacks against European and U.S. civilian aviation. Since nobody had ever heard of this group (Khorasan is the name of an ancient kingdom), suspicions were raised as to whether it existed or not. It turns out that it is not substantially different from the Al Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda offshoot that has been fighting to overthrow President Bashir al Assad of Syria. How serious the threat against the United States really is remains an unanswered question, but the bombs are falling anyway, with the noted civilian casualties already reported.

The new Iraqi prime minister, Haider al Abadi, is supposedly trying to correct the sectarian mistakes of his predecessor, Nuri al Maliki, whose pro-Shiite partisanship is widely blamed for the inroads made by ISIS. However, reports do not suggest immediate success.

In Syria, for several years the Obama administration has held to the line that it is supporting moderate, non-jihadi armed groups to overthrow Mr. Assad's regime in Syria. But both the Assad government and others express great doubt that there is such a thing as a moderate opposition that can simultaneously fight against both the Assad government and the radical Islamist forces. Any accretion of strength on the part of the opposition has appeared to be on the part of Al Nusra and other radical forces. The sudden eruption of ISIS seems to vindicate that perception.

There are also questions about the role Turkey, under the leadership of newly-elected President and former Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The left in Turkey suspects him of collusion with ISIS, in part because of the suspicious ease with which that organization just released some Turkish citizens they had captured. The suggestion by the US that a buffer zone be carved out in Syria, to be administered by Turkey, is, besides being a violation of international law and Syrian sovereignty, likely to exacerbate tensions.

More confusion was created by statements of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who has promoted the breaking up of Iraq into three states based on ethnicity and religion, a plan strongly opposed by the Communist Party of Iraq and others. The Republican Party and the U.S. military brass are poking at the situation from another angle, namely to promote "boots on the ground": The return of U.S. ground troops to the Iraq-Syria area, in a full fledged war that would take years and cost many billions of dollars.

On Tuesday, September 30, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al Moallem announced that his government is basically in support of the Obama administration's bombing campaign. After all, he said, the Al Qaeda-Al Nusra-ISIS forces are the enemy of all, as demonstrated by the brutality of ISIS in the areas they have overrun.

In other words, the Syrian government sees, in the rise of ISIS, and the US decision to undertake armed action, as a means to achieve a political realignment and neutralize the threat from the U.S., allied with right wing monarchies in the Arabian Gulf region, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are participating in the U.S. effort.

For decades, both British and now U.S. imperialism have seen the secular left wing forces in the Middle East as the main enemy to be eliminated, and have been willing to foster right-wing political Islam to that end. From Yemen to Palestine, Iraq and Iran and southward to Sudan. Communists, socialists, and other leftists have been repressed, allowing reactionary political Islam to move forward.

Secondly, the United States and its allies have bypassed United Nations mechanisms for resolving international disputes and have intervened unilaterally to achieve "regime change" first in Iraq, then Libya, now Syria. This has weakened international institutions while destabilizing the whole region.

In the United States, Congress is supposed to have a role to play but all it has done in recent years has been to "play possum." Now some members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are trying to make sure that there is a full congressional debate. They include Congresspersons Barbara Lee, D-Calif., Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., Keith Ellison, D-Minn., Alan Grayson, D-Fla., and several others. Their vehicle for pressing for a full debate is House Con. Resolution 114. Moveon.org and Just Foreign Policy are circulating an online petition to gather support for this resolution.

Photo: Map showing the location of some of the U.S. bombings in Syria this month, was released by the U.S. Defense Department.

Rethinking social antitheses: ISIS and the Islamic State

Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:16:00 +0000

Recent events cast an intriguing light on the notion of social antitheses within our world capitalist system. The previous notion that all forms of social resistance to capitalist hegemony are a good thing is no longer acceptable for the 21st century. Tolerant, rational, and scientific socialists can understand the desire to resist imperialist aggression; but they cannot necessarily condone an "any means necessary" approach to resistance. Such is the nature of social movements; the long-term goal cannot be sacrificed for short-term, emotionally-driven gains. I say this in consideration of ISIS and the supposed Islamic State that might result from their existence.

Ignoring the blatant war crimes of the Obama Administration, in part because this is not atypical of the United States' state-capitalist machine and in part because this is a topic that can be addressed better elsewhere, the conflict in Syria and Iraq demonstrates a new example of the dynamics of social development. Antithetical movements, sometimes called anti-systemic or revolutionary movements, are typically lumped together as playing for the same ball team; in the sense that their existences are dependent on some sort of antagonistic relationship with a dominant trait in society. Anti-racism, for example, coupled well with anti-war movements, pro-labor movements, and anti-fascist movements during the 1930s. And again, anti-racism coupled with anti-war during the Vietnam era. Even during the Bush administration, anti-war movements coupled with movements that sought to revitalize the image of Islam and push back against anti-Muslim discrimination. But 2014 brought us a new game, with a new set of players.

Throughout the Middle East and around the world, Arab nations along with Islamic leaders are condemning the actions of ISIS, the revolutionary movement in Iraq and Syria that seeks the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate. ISIS caught attention for its actions against Christians and Jews within regions it controlled as early as June 2014, and after the broadcast beheading of a British journalist. Slamet Effendy Yusuf, executive council chair of the Indonesian Islamic society Nahdlatul Ulama, condemned the ISIS "jihadists" as a "group working for its own cause and gains from a sectarian issue." The antithetical movement in Syria and Iraq can be best described as a chaotic and haphazard resistance effort waged by desperate and opportunist devotees. The United States' response to it can be best described as expected and predictable. What this means for the future of anti-systemic movements however, is revolutionary.

Previous antithetical movements had the flexibility of opportunism. If there was a way to challenge Hitler, it was an acceptable way. If there was a way to promote an end to Jim Crow, it was a way that was tolerable to the civil rights movement. ISIS however has clearly shown that there most certainly is a wrong way to resisting the encroachment of imperialism, the world-capitalist system, and western hegemony. The boundaries created in this age, by these conditions, are revolutionary for future movements; they show us the limits, in both the positive and the negative, of resistance efforts around the world. It gives voice to the voiceless by showing us what means the voiceless have at their disposal, and which of those means is preferable and acceptable to the masses.

We should learn from ISIS' existence and consider their actions to be an example of the limitations of antithetical, or anti-systemic, movements within our society. They stand as a testament to everything that can be wrong about an approach, and how the utilization of an idea, be it religious or political, can be wielded for any purpose, good or bad.

Photo: ISIS fighters use captured U.S. military eqipment and guns. AP

Iraq’s Communist Party condemns ISIS

Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:47:00 +0000

The Communist Party of Iraq has issued the following statement, dated September 2014, regarding the recent barbaric attacks launched in that country by ISIS:

On the 10th of June, 2014, the terrorist organization known as ISIS, and its allies including remnants and supporters of Saddam Hussein's fascist dictatorship, launched an attack on Mosul, seizing control of Iraq's second largest city and unleashing a wave of barbaric crimes against tens of thousands of innocent civilians. In the days and weeks that followed, the whole world witnessed crimes against humanity being committed against innocent Iraqi civilians. Religious and ethnic minorities were targeted, especially Christians, Yazidis, Turkmen, and Shabak, with the aim of uprooting indigenous communities that have peacefully lived and coexisted in Iraq for over two thousand years. Atrocities were committed against Yazidis, including the abduction of hundreds of young women and children, and tens of thousands were forced to seek refuge on Mount Sinjar, where they were besieged and faced a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions.

The mass killing of around 1,700 unarmed young military recruits at Camp Speicher in Salahuddin province was another heinous war crime aimed at igniting sectarian strife. The terrorist onslaught has created a humanitarian catastrophe. More than 1.6 million people have been displaced this year by violence in Iraq, with 850,000 fleeing their homes in August, according to the UN.

These barbaric crimes and the perpetrators must be unequivocally condemned by all progressive forces, with effective support and solidarity extended to the Iraqi people.

The recent grave developments cannot be isolated from what Iraq has lived through in recent years. The country has been in a deep and total crisis caused by the legacy of long years of tyranny and dictatorship, the consequences of the U.S. occupation and the interference of regional powers. Its roots lie in the sectarian-ethnic power-sharing system that has existed since 2003. The crisis has also exposed the agenda of the ruling political forces and their fighting to maintain positions in political power and privileges, while the people's suffering and anger intensify as a result of rampant unemployment, corruption, and poor public services, health and education, in addition to the deteriorating security situation.

The infighting among ruling groups, over power and privileges, has provided a fertile ground for extremist Islamist and shadowy groups to intensify acts of terrorism, carrying out heinous atrocities, with the aim of pushing Iraq into sectarian strife and civil war. More than 7,000 people were killed in 2013, by waves of car and suicide bombings. During the last two months, in July and August 2014, around 3,000 people were killed. The victims are mainly innocent civilians, including workers and the unemployed in poor districts.

The Iraqi Communist Party has repeatedly warned against the danger of the country sliding once again into sectarian strife, and called for urgent action by democratic forces, and for popular initiatives to safeguard Iraq's national unity.

It is also important to highlight briefly the socio-economic nature of the present political system in Iraq. The country has an economy that is heavily dependent on oil revenues, with marginalized productive sectors, and is highly consumerist, relying heavily on imports. As a result, there has been a growth of comprador and parasitic strata accumulating enormous wealth from public money grabbed through corruption, big contracts with the state, in collusion with influential officials, as well as speculation, smuggling of funds and other parasitic activities.

There is a tendency, which is becoming increasingly obvious, of the tangling of interests between influential political forces in power and the growing parasitic and comprador strata. These forces as whole, with support from international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, organizations of the UN and others, stand for transforming the Iraqi economy into a total market economy and breaking up what is left of the public sector through privatization and other measures that are inspired by the ideological arsenal of neo-liberalism. The Iraqi Communist Party firmly stands against these policies, puts forward its alternatives, and works to develop alignments bringing together those who have an interest in resisting this neo-liberal orientation.

The radical remedy for the problems of the country and its intractable crisis lies in getting rid of the sectarian-ethnic power-sharing system, commitment to the values of true democracy, with its political and social dimensions and institutions, and building the state in line with its principles. The means of administration and governance must ensure respect for human rights, politically and socially, to guarantee equal citizenship, social justice, independence and national sovereignty. This is the path for the establishment of a democratic civil state which provides all the necessary prerequisites for sustainable economic, social, political and cultural development, utilizing the abundant wealth of the people and country for the good of its citizens and their well-being, prosperity and social progress.

In response to the terrorist onslaught of ISIS and its allies, the Iraqi Communist Party has stressed the need for speeding up the formation of a broad national unity government on the basis of a comprehensive national program. This is needed to heal the national fabric, resolve the differences that have paralyzed the national effort, and adopt a host of political, economic and social measures that will strengthen the armed forces and enable them to regain control as soon as possible of the cities and towns that were ravaged by the terrorists.

The party has also called for convening a National Conference in order to review the political process and address the root cause of the ongoing crisis, by ridding it of sectarian-ethnic power-sharing and political sectarianism. This is the only path forward to build a unified democratic and federal Iraq.

Communists and their party organizations all over Iraq have been actively involved in the national effort to fight and defeat the ultra-reactionary terrorists and provide humanitarian support to the displaced communities. They are playing, along with other democratic forces, a vital role in combating sectarianism, chauvinism and nationalist bigotry, preserving national unity and upholding human and democratic rights.

Communists are also firmly opposed to the schemes that are aimed at dividing Iraq along sectarian lines. It is up to the Iraqi people to decide their own fate, democratically, with their own independent will, without interference by any outside powers, rejecting attempts to impose designs that serve imperialist agendas for hegemony and exploitation.

In this just struggle, international solidarity is indispensible. All forms of international support extended to Iraq in its battle against terrorism should be based on international legitimacy and within the framework of the UN. In this respect, it is of utmost importance to continue humanitarian help to the hundreds of thousands of displaced people. Effective measures are needed to cut off the funding from reactionary regional and Arab forces, as well as blocking all external human resources and material support flowing to ISIS and its allies.

We call on all peace-loving and progressive forces in the world to express support and solidarity with the Iraqi people and democratic movements in their fight against ultra-reactionary terrorism and political sectarianism, and for a unified, democratic and federal Iraq.

Photo: An ISIS fighter displays a missile. Fighters with this group have launched barbaric attacks on many groups in Iraq. AP

UN group condemns discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity

Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:38:00 +0000

On Friday, the 47-nation United Nations Human Rights Council passed, by a vote of 25 to 14, with 7 abstentions, a resolution condemning all discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The vote cut across some usual political fault lines. The resolution was presented by Chile, Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay. Voting in favor were Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Montenegro, Peru, Philippines, Romania, South Africa, Macedonia, South Korea, the United Kingdom, the USA, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

Colombia and Uruguay are not members of the Council this time around, though they cosponsored the measure, so they did not get to vote on it.

Votes against came from Algeria, Botswana, Cote D'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Gabon, Indonesia, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

The abstaining nations were Burkina Faso, China, Congo (the former French Colony), India, Kazakhstan, Namibia and Sierra Leone.

The vote was a numerical advance over a similar resolution in 2011, which had been presented by South Africa and had passed 23 to 19 with 3 abstentions.

This time, language which would have required a regular reporting system on violations of people's rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity was dropped during negotiations on the final text. However, the vote was still hailed by human rights organizations worldwide as a huge symbolic advance.

The text condemns violence and discrimination based on gender identity and welcomes advances in the protection of those rights, and calls for the collecting of date and general reporting on the subject.

Some countries, including ones who support gay and lesbian rights, had expressed fear that such a resolution would be used by wealthy developed countries for demonizing African and Muslim countries, so as to justify attacks against them or interference in their internal affairs. Not all countries that voted "no" have laws on the books that criminalize gay, lesbian and/or transgendered identity or activities; in some cases there is a worry about internal pressure groups that want harsher policies. And there are gray areas: For example homosexuality is not a criminal offense in Russia, but it is a punishable offense to carry out "homosexual propaganda" among youth, which provides a big opportunity for authorities to harass the gay community.

No countries which currently have socialist governments criminalize people for their gender identification or sexual orientation, and some have explicit anti-discrimination laws. After the Russian Revolution of October 1917, Lenin's government decriminalized same sex relations, which had been criminal offenses under the Russian Tsars. This was reversed by the Soviet government during the Stalin period. But by the 1970s a number of Eastern European socialist governments had dropped all criminal sanctions. Vietnam has never had laws on the books penalizing gays, lesbians or transgendered people.

In a number of countries that have enlightened policies on sexual orientation, such as South Africa and Chile, the local communist parties played an important role in the drive to decriminalize and protect people against discrimination and persecution based on sexual orientation or gender orientation. Most of the communist parties worldwide, including the Communist Party USA in our own country, call for an end to all such discrimination and positive actions to put a stop to persecution.

Worldwide, there are still several score countries, mostly in Africa and the Muslim world, that criminalize homosexual behavior or identity at a national level. In Africa, one hears the idea expressed that there was no homosexuality there until missionaries and colonialists arrived. While the missionaries and colonialists undoubtedly brought in homophobia and punitive practices and while rightwing U.S. missionaries are behind persecution campaigns in some countries, some of the indigenous cultures were, of course quite homophobic on their own. Some indigenous cultures, however, were not homophobic before the arrival of Europeans and their missionaries. Some North American Native tribes, for example, accorded transgender individduals a place of honor in the community.

The death penalty for homosexual acts is still on the books in some countries, including key U.S. ally Saudi Arabia.

Criminal penalties are seldom enforced in most countries that still prescribe them; however vigilante actions, including murders, are much more common, as is discrimination in jobs, housing, public accommodation, education and other things. The UN resolution is helpful in this regard, because it does not confine itself to the formal policies of governments.

Photo: Riot police guard gay rights activists who have been beaten by anti-gay protesters during an authorized gay rights rally in St.Petersburg, Russia, June 29, 2013. Police detained several gay activists, who were outnumbered by the protesters. Dozens of gay activists had to be protected by police as they gathered for the parade, which proceeded with official approval despite recently passed legislation targeting gays. Dmitry Lovetsky/AP

Losing the plot: Israel’s premier to face new Gaza reality

Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:53:00 +0000

Netanyahu's war-turned-genocide in Gaza has backfired badly - his strategy has helped resurrect Hamas, the very movement he tried desperately to crush.

Aside from being a major military setback, Israel's war on Gaza has also disoriented the policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as never before. Since the announcement of a ceasefire on August 26, his statements appear erratic and particularly uncertain, an expected outcome of the Gaza war.

Since his first term as prime minister (1996-99), Netanyahu has showed particular savviness at fashioning political and military events to neatly suit his declared policies. He fabricated imminent threats that were neither imminent nor threats, for example, Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Later, he took on Iran.

He created too many conditions and laid numerous obstacles for a peace settlement to ever be realized. The late Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, labored for years to meet Israel's conditions, and failed. Abbas has taken the same futile road. But Netanyahu's conditions are specifically designed to be unattainable.

For example, Netanyahu insists that the Palestinian leadership must accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, despite the fact that up to a couple of million Palestinian Muslims and Christians are citizens of that country, situated in a locale which has for centuries constituted the land of historic Palestine. Signing off the rights of non-Jews is not only undemocratic, but also tantamount to clearing the way for another campaign of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

But in actuality, none of this truly matters to Netanyahu. For him, protracted "peace talks" are a smokescreen for his illegal settlement construction project, which remains as ravenous as ever. He is confiscating occupied Palestinian land with impunity, while insisting that Israel's intentions have always been, and remain peaceful.

Political survival

For nearly two decades, Netanyahu negotiated his political survival based on that very strategy, skillfully, although underhandedly playing on existing fears and engineering security threats. For him, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic State (IS), al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Syria and other entities, are essentially one and the same. Of course, they are not, and he knows it well.

If one skims through his speeches and media interviews throughout the years, one can easily spot the oddly fashioned discourse. No threat, however, was as consistently exaggerated and misleadingly presented as that of Hamas. Whenever the Iran discourse grew too redundant and unconvincing, and when Hezbollah (especially in the last three years) grew irrelevant, he infused Hamas. Many in the media, willingly or out of sheer ignorance, played into Netanyahu's hand, presenting the Palestinian political movement with a military wing as a menace that has "sworn" to destroy Israel.

That demonization of Palestinians was an essential component in Israel's military strategies for years, starting with the fidayeen, then the socialists, the PLO and so on. It made the political price for war relatively easy. And, for Israel, war is a primary pillar of their policies in the region, where land is confiscated, Israel's enemies are reminded of their place, and "taught a lesson" whenever such instruction is needed.

War for Israel is also important as a tool to distract from political trouble at home, an under-performing economy or whatever else. Netanyahu's and Israel's wars on Gaza in recent years often served as the distraction from one failed policy or another. Bombing Gaza was a quite convenient and rarely costly strategy to boost the credential of Israeli politicians. Ariel Sharon mastered that art, as others did before him, including Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, and of course, Netanyahu himself.

One could argue that Israel's recent war on Gaza, code-named Operation Protective Edge, which began this year on July 7, would have taken place even if Israel's prime minister were someone other than Netanyahu. All signs were in place that made the Israeli military move impending. Rival Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, reached a unity agreement, despite strong Israeli rejection. Alone, that would have been a compelling reason for Israel to feel the need to squash Hamas and end the need for unity in the first place. But more importantly, the mood in the West Bank was begging for change. Protests and rallies were reported throughout the West Bank in June, despite Israeli attempts to crush them, with the help of the U.S.-funded and trained PA security.

Indeed, that was more important than the unity deal itself. Palestinians were being mobilized outside the fractured political landscape that has for years existed between Hamas and Fatah. Taking the focus back to Gaza, where Netanyahu was leading a supposed war to fight terrorism, extremism, and Israel's arch enemies who are "sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state" seemed, from Israel's Machiavellian logic, like a good idea.

In fact, Netanyahu succeeded, at least temporarily, in distracting from the looming confrontation in the West Bank. But what he expected was a relatively easy battle. Hamas and other resistance groups were arguably weakened due to the advent of the so-called Arab Spring. They were partly disowned by Iran and entirely disowned by Syria, which is busy fighting its own civil war. Moreover, the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt left Hamas politically frail and exposed. In fact, it was such vulnerability that pushed Hamas to a unity deal with Mahmoud Abbas who, according to the deal, maintained a degree of dominance over all Palestinian factions, including Hamas itself. Just before the war, a June public opinion poll conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) showed that PA President Mahmoud Abbas was winning the trust of 53 percent of Palestinians, while Hamas' Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh received the support of 41 percent.

Disastrous war

Netanyahu's war was the Israeli leadership's attempt at capitalizing on Hamas's purported decline. But the war was a disaster and it failed miserably. It killed more than 2,150 Palestinians and wounded over 11,000 more. The Israeli army was held back by a unified Palestinian resistance front. It lost 64 soldiers and hundreds more were injured. It cost the Israeli economy millions. The war to end Hamas gave birth to the strongest Palestinian resistance front ever.

When the war ended on August 26, Netanyahu, the keen politician who insisted on defining the political discourse of any war or major political event, simply disappeared. Two days later, he held a press conference in which he declared that Israel had "won." But both Israelis and Palestinians disagreed. According to a poll conducted shortly after the ceasefire announcement and reported in the Israeli Jerusalem Post, 54 percent of Israelis believe they lost the war.

On the other hand, numbers among Palestinians have dramatically shifted as well. According to PCPSR, 61 percent of Palestinians would now vote for Haniyeh, a huge climb from a few weeks earlier; 94 percent were satisfied with the resistance military performance; and more astoundingly, 79 percent said that Palestinian resistance had "won" the conflict.

Netanyahu's war backfired beyond anyone's expectations. He helped resurrect the very movement he tried to crush. And now he is desperately back attempting to reconstruct the lost political discourse, associating Hamas to vile terrorists, and absurdly presenting Israel as a victim, just as Palestinians finished burying thousands of their dead. This time, however, few seem to believe him.

Ramzy Baroud is a PhD scholar in People's History at the University of Exeter. He is the Managing Editor of Middle East Eye. Baroud is an internationally syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London).

Photo: In this 2010 photo, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cruises with then-Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou near the Isle of Poros. (CC)

Iran and U.S. cooperating on ISIS fight? Not as far-fetched as it seems

Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:30:00 +0000

The West and Iran are portrayed by certain sections of the media as being at loggerheads over policy in the Middle East towards the Islamic State (IS, otherwise known as ISIS or ISIL). The reality on the ground is quite different. Jamshid Ahmadi, assistant general secretary of CODIR (Committee for Defence of the Iranian People's Right), UK-based solidarity campaign reports.

The official line in both Washington and Tehran is that there is no cooperation between the two states in the struggle against the Islamic State across Syria and Iraq. In relation to the recently announced international summit in Paris last week, on cooperation to fight the Islamic State, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry suggested Iran's involvement "wouldn't be appropriate," although Kerry did modify this stance a few days later.

Officially, the Iranians had been no less forthright initially. In a statement on his official website, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, "Right from the start, the United States asked through its ambassador in Iraq whether we could cooperate. I said no, because they have dirty hands."

However, the Supreme Leader, as the main decision maker on foreign policy matters, including negotiations with the U.S., has given 100 percent backing to President Rouhani's efforts and has called on all factions of the regime to support the president's efforts.

The media in both the U.S. and Iran are keen to portray the standard images of either side. The Iranian media insists that, for the vast majority of Iranians, the United States remains the "Great Satan." For the American public, Iran remains part of the Axis of Evil, as declared by President George Bush in 2001.

The reality, however, is that more complex factors are at play. The generally accepted position in relation to IS in Iraq, for example, is that the Iranians have no desire to see a militant Sunni jihadist state on its borders. While this is true, it is not, for the Iranians, the main consideration.

The lifting of Western sanctions and a stabilizing of the relationship with the United States has been a covert central objective of Iranian foreign policy at least since 2010. Since then, and before the June 2013 presidential election in Iran, there is evidence of three secret meetings, which had taken place at a high level between the U.S. and Iran, mediated by the government in Oman. It is as a result of these contacts and open dialogue during the past 16 months that the U.S. and Iran are able to communicate over the immediate issue of the IS.

In the current situation Iran's cooperation with the West has gone as far as complicity in the removal of Nouri al-Maliki, a fellow Shia Muslim, as Iraqi Prime Minister. Iran for years was the main backer of Maliki's government and his Shia governing alliance. Suddenly in 2014 he fell out of favor for no obvious reason but the fact the U.S. had its eye on other methods of governing Iraq. Maliki's administration was deemed too sectarian. The exclusion of Sunnis and others from government was seen as part of the reason for the success of IS in northern Iraq.

In a recent interview with U.S. broadcaster CNN, Iraqi President Fuad Masum was asked whether it was a combination of U.S. airstrikes, with Iraqi fighters and Iranian militiamen, that helped liberate the town of Amerli. He confirmed that it was.

Video footage has emerged showing Iran's top military commander, Qassem Soleimani, on the frontlines of the battle against IS alongside Iraqis trained and instructed by the U.S.

There are also reports that the Iranian air force participated in a coordinated bombardment of IS positions, along with U.S. fighters, on the first day of air operations in Iraq.

It is clear that both the practical fact of cooperation and the mutual denials that it is happening suits both sides. The U.S. can avoid the awkward issue of justifying to powerful lobbies in Washington working with a country it condemns and continues to sanction. The West also gets to avoid angering its Sunni friends in the Gulf monarchies.

For its part the Iranian regime, while saving face publicly by not being seen to be part of the Western camp, remains desperate to have sanctions lifted. The regime calculates that cooperation in Iraq will help pave the way to Iran being seen as a stable force in the region and a state with which the West can ultimately do business. The fact is that the Iranian economy has become a hostage to U.S. sanctions and the Iranian regime is prepared to bow to U.S. bidding to get these removed.

The question is how far the U.S. is prepared to push Iran to test its loyalty. The U.S. plan for the future of Syria is a major test.

In the short term, once the border is crossed into Syria, the relationship between the U.S. and Iran becomes more complex, with Tehran supporting the government of President Assad, while the U.S. continues to support the opposition insurgency. For their different reasons, even here, both are committed to defeating IS. While practical cooperation may not be an option in Syria at present, the immediate objective in relation to IS remains a common one. Whether this could widen out into some form of joint approach to the situation in Syria remains to be seen.

The immediate question of Syria aside, the ground has been laid for U.S.-Iranian cooperation over a period pre-dating the election of Hassan Rouhani to the Iranian presidency in June 2013. It has been in the interests of both the United States and Iran to build a rapprochement aimed at redefining their relationship and protecting the interests of both in the Middle East.

For more than a decade the U.S. has been engaged in large-scale military invasions with the commitment of huge quantities of hardware and personnel to the Persian Gulf. However, there has been only limited success in stabilizing the situation in favor of U.S. control of the region's markets and natural resources. The financial costs and the negative political fallout from massive U.S. military operations have significantly negated their benefit while incurring astronomic costs.

Also, during the last decade, the international complications arising from large-scale U.S. military intervention have significantly increased. Public opinion in the U.S. and globally has turned against costly direct military interventions in distant countries. This is partly due to the effectiveness of global antiwar and peace movements in Europe and North America. Large-scale U.S. military action has not produced the desired outcomes in line with the interests of global capitalism due to unpredictable fluctuations in the price of oil, the possibility of disrupting the flow of oil from the region, and the exchange rate of the dollar.

Political developments in the region suggest that a reconfiguration of U.S. politics in the Middle East is taking place. The desire to bring together a coalition of Middle East and Arab states before air strikes commenced in Syria for example was an indication of this change.

Part of this reconfiguration is aimed at the inclusion of "Political Islam" into a New Middle East Plan, on the part of the U.S., with Iran's theocratic regime being seriously considered as a key player. If successful, the new configuration in the Middle East will allow the U.S. to influence and steer key regional developments in order to reinforce and perpetuate its global economic, political and military hegemony.

There are also indications that the U.S. and EU have reached some agreement about Iran playing a key part in securing stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan after the departure of U.S., British and NATO troops from Afghanistan at the end of 2014. If current developments proceed according to plan, Western countries will not oppose Iran playing a key role in securing the future of the present set-up in Afghanistan. A key factor influencing this is undoubtedly the political clout wielded by the Iranian regime in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

In this context the cooperation of the U.S. and Iranian forces to defeat the IS insurgency does not look as far-fetched as it at first appears.

Photo: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as he arrives at a hotel in Vienna, Austria, on July 14, 2014, for a second day of meetings about the future of his country's nuclear program. (State Department/Public Domain)

Jewish community in Cuba holds gala for world peace

Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:18:00 +0000

HAVANA, Cuba - The Jewish Community Center of Cuba held a cultural gala for peace on Sunday, September 21, in an action calling for a better future for all nations of the world.

Center vice-president David Prinstein gave the opening remarks of the gala as he stressed that "each one of us may express through the arts the need for peace to prevail on our planet." He called for unity, social justice and racial equality around the world.

Under the slogan "The Wish of All Hearts," inspired by a phrase from the writings of poet José Martí, considered the great Cuban national hero, the gala comprised a varied program of songs, costumes, dances and tunes belonging to different religions, in an act of ecumenical integration.

Jewish leaders appeared in a video conference in which they stressed the need for unity through statements such as "Peace begins with a smile," or "Work also helps to establish peace," and "Let's raise love and not hatred."

Toward the end of the gala, the head of the Cuban Communist Party's Religious Affairs Office, Caridad Diego, said that after having enjoyed the event, "the wishes from our hearts have risen up against all kinds of wars, since with art we can show the world how to fight for peace."

The event closed with a video including the statement by Cuban Revolution leader Fidel Castro saying, "Something has to be done to save humanity. A better world is possible."

Photo: Roberto Morejon, Cuban News Agency

Scotland: In the wake of referendum "No" result

Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:32:00 +0000

Scots voted No to independence by 55 per cent to 45 per cent in Thursday's historic poll. Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond resigned as the political classes of Holyrood Palace and Westminster manoeuvred in the wake of Scotland's nail-biting independence referendum.

In the wake of the defeat, Salmond said it was time for Scotland and the SNP [a Scottish nationalist and social-democratic political party] to have a new leader who could take the devolution process forward.

"We lost the referendum vote but can still carry the political initiative," he said.

"More importantly, Scotland can still emerge as the real winner."

His decision came as Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband struggled to seize the initiative on constitutional change following a month of frenetic promise-making to try and secure more No votes.

Under pressure from many of his right-wing Tory backbenchers, Mr. Cameron linked new powers for Scotland with restrictions on Scottish MPs voting on non-Scottish bills in Westminster [Parliament].

He said: "We have heard the voice of Scotland and now the millions of voices of England must also be heard.
"The question of English votes for English laws, the so-called West Lothian Question, requires a decisive answer so just as Scotland will vote separately on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues.

"All this must take place in tandem with and at the same pace as the settlement for Scotland."

House of Commons Leader William Hague will draw up the plans, with the same November deadline as the detailed proposals on powers for Scotland.

Labour leader Ed Miliband said his party would look at any proposals the Prime Minister came forward with - but called for a full constitutional convention to deliver change across Britain.

Speaking ahead of this year's Labour Conference, Mr. Miliband pledged to deliver powers promised to Scotland during the referendum campaign.

He said: "This referendum has changed Scotland. But it will also change Britain.

"We know there is deep anger across the UK with Westminster politics from so many people who feel left out and left behind - that our country doesn't work for them."

Scottish Labour Campaign for Socialism chairman Vince Mills welcomed the promise of new powers for Scotland but urged Labour to be cautious about accepting the timescale which Mr. Cameron is setting out.

"Giving new powers to Scotland in short order is fair enough," he said. "But the Better Together parties didn't say they were going to try to resolve all the problems of the British constitution on the same timetable."

Union leaders representing hundreds of thousands of Scots yesterday urged the Westminster parties to make good on their referendum pledge of change.

Unite [Britain's largest trade union] general secretary Len McCluskey said the Westminster parties had witnessed a "seismic shift in the political culture of these isles, one that must surely hasten the day we can say goodbye to the ruinous political consensus of the past 40 years which has not served our people."

He warned Labour leaders: "People want change, genuine change - please listen, understand these calls and heed them."

Reposted from Morning Star.

On Wednesday, the day of the referendum, Morning Star ran an editorial, starting with these paragraphs:

However Scotland votes today, one thing is certain - the British state has lost the trust and confidence of its peoples.

The Morning Star does not support Scottish separatism. Many contributors to our pages have explained why - the constitutional fix on offer does not challenge or weaken the power of capital owned and organised at a British and international level, but runs a very serious risk of dividing and weakening the labour movement and its organisations.

But as other columnists of ours from the pro-independence left have amply demonstrated, the referendum debate has energised a people determined to strike a blow against a pampered Westminster elite.

Click here for the full editorial.

Amid Haiti election dispute, ex-President Aristide under house arrest

Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:03:00 +0000

A new dispute is growing in Haiti, as former President Jean Bertrand Aristide has been ordered under house arrest, while legislative elections scheduled for October 26 are in doubt.

Aristide, who was overthrown in 2004 in an armed coup backed by the United States, Canada and France, returned to Haiti from exile in South Africa in March of 2011 after the United States had tried in vain to convince South African President Jacob Zuma not to permit Aristide to leave. Since then, he has dedicated his time to his educational foundation rather than participating actively in politics.

One of the protagonists of the coup, former musician Michel "Mickey" Martelly, was elected president in the elections of 2010-2011. Aristide was still in South Africa at that time, but tried to run for president also. Even though his party, Lavalas, is the largest in Haiti, Aristide was blocked from running for president under a technicality and Lavalas was excluded entirely. The U.S. State Department, at that time under Hillary Clinton, was heavily involved in the election at the runoff stage.

Well-off Haitians fear Aristide because by inspiring and mobilizing the poor, he represents a threat to their power and interests. The United States is afraid that if Aristide or someone else from Lavalas were to become president, it would mean that Haiti could move in the direction of other Latin American states that have, through the Bolivarian movement, been promoting horizontal economic and political integration among themselves and therefore threatening U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere.

Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, and its troubles have been intensified by a massive earthquake in January 2010 that killed up to 200,000 people and destroyed much infrastructure, plus a cholera epidemic which was set off by the careless handling of human waste by a United Nations peacekeeping unit.

Since becoming president, Martelly has delayed holding legislative elections for three years. Meanwhile he appears to be more and more connected to the circles of former dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier. Duvalier, also known as "Baby Doc" in reference to his infamous father, President Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier. Baby Doc has also returned to Haiti and has not been prosecuted for the many crimes he has been accused of, and he and President Martelly are seen together at social events.

So when the government announced legislative elections for October 26, to cover two thirds of the Senate, the whole of the Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of the legislature) and local legislatures and municipal governments, there was a great degree of suspiciousness about how these elections would be carried out. Specifically, opposition politicians feared that there would not be sufficient guarantees that Martelly's government would not try to rig the elections or manipulate the results.

The fears came, specifically, from doubts about the "El Rancho Accord", in which legislation establishing the mechanism for the elections was approved by the government but not by all opposition forces. Six senators, backed by major political parties and civil society organizations, have blocked a vote on legislation permitting the election from going forward until greater guarantees of electoral fairness can be agreed on. The Election Commission now says that elections on October 26 are not possible due to the dispute. But the term of the current legislature is up in January 2015, and if there is not an election by then, its legitimacy and that of any laws it passes is shaky at best.

As has happened several times before, a judge closely connected to the Martelly government, Lamarre Belizaire, summoned Aristide to appear before him about "ongoing investigations" of corruption during his last term as president. Aristide's lawyer challenged the subpoena as improperly served, and the judge himself did not show up at the initial hearing. Then, alleging contempt of court, Belizaire ordered Aristide to stay under house arrest. Shortly thereafter, the government withdrew the security guard detail that has been protecting Aristide.

The six senators who have blocked the election law have since visited Aristide in his home as a gesture of solidarity. In the United States also, there is a strong group of Aristide supporters, including Congresswoman Maxine Waters and actor Danny Glover, who see the actions of Judge Belizaire as sinister and dangerous; they are asking people in the United States to protest it.

However, some people in the U.S. Congress, both Republicans such as Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Democrats, are demanding that the elections go forth as planned.

On Thursday September 14, the U.N. Security Council discussed the situation of Haiti. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power criticized the Haitian senators who have balked on the elections, and called for them to go forward.

Photo: Supporters of Haiti's former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide hold an image of him in front of his gate during a protest to support him in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Aug. 14. Dieu Nalio Chery/AP

Rep. McDermott: Why I voted against sending arms to Syrian rebels

Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:18:00 +0000

Washington, D.C.- Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, made the following statement after voting no to the motion to approve U.S. military training and arms for Syrian rebels:

"Today, I voted in opposition to the motion to approve U.S. military training and arms for Syrian rebels.

I did not arrive at this decision easily. The threat ISIS poses to the people of Iraq and Syria and to U.S. personnel across the wider Middle East is a serious one. I also empathize with Americans' emotional desire to respond assertively, and immediately, to the abhorrent murder of our two journalists.

The President continues to show admirable restraint; his speech last week was careful and thoughtful. However, after much deliberation and reflection on the perils of rushing into yet another military conflict in the Middle East, I decided I could not support the McKeon Amendment.

I have said consistently that if the President was prepared to escalate military action against ISIS, he must present Congress with a plan and ask for our support. I am alarmed that President Obama continues to believe he can take action against ISIS on his own authority.

This amendment, which is valid only through early December, serves as nothing more than a faux authorization designed to get Congress through the election season. Moreover, it addresses only one aspect of the strategy the President outlined last week. That is not a responsible way to conduct public policy.

I remember the last time Congress failed to thoroughly debate a plan for military action in the Middle East; it unleashed a veritable Pandora's Box in Iraq and the wider region that we have struggled to contain ever since. The McKeon Amendment calls for the U.S. to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels, some of whom have murky identities and shadowy allegiances and who could - in the not too distant future - turn the very arms we supplied against the United States.

I appreciate this President's thoughtful efforts to respond to the complexities that arose from George W. Bush's irresponsible actions, but - at this time - I will not vote to sanction military action by proxy, even if sanctioned for a brief period of time.

Over the next several weeks, I will continue to urge the President to present his plan before Congress and ask for our support. When this Congress reconvenes in December, when this amendment expires, I will push for a robust and deliberative debate over a new Authorization for the Use of Force, one that is limited in scope and addresses the whole of the President's plan.

After a decade of reckless military action, that is the only responsible way to proceed."

Photo: Jim McDermott, Public Domain

Germany: The votes are in

Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:11:00 +0000

BERLIN - The votes are in, the elections in three eastern German states are over and done with. Political porcelain has been broken, raising questions on what went wrong and, to quote that old Abbott and Costello routine, "Who's on first?" for the next five years.

In Saxony, the Christian Democrats remained well on top, with 40.2 percent. Their well-spoken minister-president Stanislaw Tillich, 55, a member of a Slavic minority called the Sorbs, deserves more credit than Angela Merkel, national head of his party. But since their CDU again failed to get over half the seats, they must now choose junior partners, either Social Democrats or Greens. Both did miserably at the polls but are now chewing their nails hopefully. As for the LEFT ( DIE LINKE), it retained its long-held second place, but so far behind the winner (18.9) that it has nothing to boast about.

In Brandenburg, the big state surrounding Berlin, the LEFT has been a junior partner with the Social Democrats for the past five years. But alas, the four cabinet seats it occupied as its share in the government did not help it one bit; of those who voted (a record low of 47.9 percent) the largest number gave credit to the Social Democrats for whatever they had liked, and punished the LEFT for what they hadn't. It lost its second position, and of the 44 electoral districts, of which its direct candidates had won 21 five years ago, it now held on to only a measly four. In one district a leading Left candidate got 6507 votes, losing by exactly two votes! (There will be a recount; in case of an exact tie they will draw lots or flip a coin). The devastating LEFT loss (from 27.2 down to 18.6) means that the fairly new, already popular Social Democratic government leader may drop them as junior partners in favor of the Christian Democrats, now in second place. This means that in Potsdam, Brandenburg's capital, it is the LEFT that is chewing its nails, while wondering how it could lose so many voters despite what it viewed as successes of its well-meaning cabinet members.

In those two states it had long been clear who would remain top man. But in Thuringia, the future of the top woman has long been in doubt and suspense - and still is. Christine Lieberknecht, 56, a Christian Democrat and native of eastern Weimar, was long in control here, with the Social Democrats as junior partners, the same constellation as in the federal government, where another far better-known East German woman is in command.

But the LEFT is strongest in Thuringia, not way behind her CDU as in neighboring Saxony, and this time it hoped to win Social Democrats and maybe Greens as junior partners, joining to oust the Christians from power here for the first time. This is still possible; they have improved their results of 2009, if only by a measly 0.8 points (to 28.2). Now it is up to the Social Democrats who can, despite their catastrophic vote of only 12.4 percent, join with the Greens to become either the king maker - or the queen keeper, as they must now decide.

If they raise their LEFT hands they would be choosing the very first LEFT state minister-president in all of unified Germany. Bodo Ramelow, 58, a union leader who moved over from West Germany, still hopes to break all precedents and defy all prejudices.

It seems more than likely, however, that the Social Democrats will not risk this bold step, despite the sad electoral results of their rejecting the same possibility in 2009. My prediction: they will prefer to play their right hand and "stay in line". The last I heard, all sides in Thuringia were biting their nails.

If the Social Democrats do stick with the Christian Democrats the two would hold exactly 46 seats in the legislature, one single seat more than the required majority. If instead the LEFT joins with Social Democrats and Greens to rule the roost, the three would have exactly the same majority of 46 seats - just one more than needed. Pretty shaky either way!

Although results varied from state to state, some things were similar. The Greens, never strong in the east, hung on and won the required five percent three times, but twice just barely. The Free Democrats (FDP), once so important as scale-tippers in German politics, failed to make it anywhere, and are rapidly fading away.

The NDP (National Democrats), the almost openly pro-fascist party, also failed to win five percent anywhere, even in Saxony this time, and are also clearly fading.

Far more important and more alarming is the new party, Alternative for Germany (AfD). In all three of these first runs it won on or about ten percent. And though still vague on many positions, with various inner conflicts, it is sharp and clear on two issues: German nationalist spouting and anti-immigrant attacks. Although these states have the fewest refugees and immigrants, nasty media reporting on crime by "foreigners" has its effect. The new AfD also stressed a few social issues, even praising (but only in East Germany) some good elements in the old GDR. Avoiding all thug-like types in heavy boots and SS tattoos in favor of wise-looking professors and pretty, dainty-looking young ladies, it has been able to attract voters from all other parties, especially those who want somehow to protest, and that included thousands who formerly voted for the LEFT. The AfD seems the big new danger, and although the Christian Democrats officially rejected all coalitions with it, some in that party are looking almost greedily toward a new right-wing bloc.

As for the LEFT, one thing seems all too certain: wherever it has joined the Social Democrats as junior partners in a coalition - Brandenburg has been the third such effort - it got the worst of it and, to use the German phrase, it "lost feathers" - in this case voters. It tried so hard to get along with its senior partners in Brandenburg, and pushed so hard to join up with Social Democrats and Greens in Saxony and Thuringia that, as some members complained, it too often neglected to enter militant fights for and together with those who gained little or nothing from the establishment of "free market capitalism" in East Germany. It is those voters who turned to the AfD to register a confused protest or who refrained from voting altogether - almost half the electorate. Hopes for respectability and cabinet seats, successful or not, may help achieve some reforms and improvements but usually require a general approval of the status quo.

In Saxony, the only LEFT candidate to win a direct mandate was 36 year old Juliane Nagel in Leipzig. She got out into the streets in loud and lively defense of people's rights, of immigrants, and against neo-Nazis. Her less conformist methods might just serve as a lesson.

Germany has profited greatly from its export successes, often at the expense of those in other countries. But even at home many are suffering, especially children of the jobless, of single mothers, of less highly-skilled immigrants. And no one knows when the next crisis will hit - or how tough and long-lasting it will be. Status quo policies are pleasanter, perhaps, but do not seem very promising, on the state, federal, perhaps even the world level!

Photo: Juliane Nagel, DIE LINKE blog

Cuban 5 labor event draws standing room only crowd

Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:23:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - The growing interest in international solidarity by organized labor in the United States was on full display Saturday evening, Sept. 13, at the national headquarters of the Service Employees International Union here. The activity, organized by the International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban 5 and cosponsored by SEIU and other organizations, was in support of freedom for the three remaining members of the "Cuban 5."

The Cuban 5 are five Cuban nationals who worked in South Florida to observe the activities of far right-wing Cuban exiles who had for years been mounting armed actions against Cuba, in which thousands of Cuban citizens have been killed. Information they had gathered was passed to the F.B.I. by the Cuban government in the hopes that it would act to put a stop to these illegal activities by the exiles. Instead, the F.B.I. arrested the Cuban 5 and, after a farcical trial, they were condemned to long prison sentences. By now they have been imprisoned for sixteen years. There have been worldwide appeals on their behalf, as the cause of the Cuban 5 has grown into a huge international campaign with involvement of labor unions in a number of countries.

Two of the original five, René González and Fernando González, have served out their entire sentences and are back in Cuba, but the remaining three still have long years to serve. One of them, Gerardo Hernández, was convicted on trumped-up charges of murder and sentenced to two life sentences.

Saturday's event, part of a number of D.C. area activities in support of the Five and also part of a global campaign, was one of several that SEIU has sponsored on this issue. Several other unions have passed resolutions or taken other action calling for justice for the five. This is a growing movement, but so far the U.S. government has not responded. It has brushed aside calls for the Cuban 5 to be exchanged for Alan Gross, an employee of USAID, a U.S. subcontractor, who was caught openly violating Cuban law by entering Cuba a number of times as a tourist and providing help to dissident groups.

On Saturday, there was "standing room only" when SEIU officials opened the event by outlining the issue and expressing their support for the cause of the Five. Maria Naranjo, assistant district leader of 32 BJ SEIU, and Valarie Long, international executive vice president of SEIU Property Services Division, welcomed the guests and explained why the Cuban 5 case is of concern to U.S. labor. There followed a rap presentation on the subject of the Five, and a panel discussion, with presentations by Ambassador José Ramón Cabañas, head of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C., former Vice President of the Mexican Senate Yeidckol Polevnsky, Professor Steven Kimber (author of a definitive book on the case of the Cuban 5, "What Lies Across the Water, the Real Story of the Cuban Five.")

Also speaking was Piero Gleijeses, a professor at the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, who has written two books about socialist Cuba's contribution to the ending of colonialism and apartheid in South Africa.

Ann Wright, a former U.S. Army colonel and State department official, could not attend, but sent a written message which reads in part, "Without international and domestic education and pressure, such as the forum tonight and other important conferences of the International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban Five, to hold the United States government accountable for its actions, accountability will not happen in these sensitive political cases.

"I am honored to have had the opportunity to add my voice calling for justice for the Cuban Five and release of the remaining three victims of U.S. injustice-Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino and Antonio Guerrero."

Gerardo Hernández also sent a message from his prison cell: "How far we have come! There are now committees in support of the Cuban 5 in many countries, and dozens of U.S. consulates around the globe have to endure regular protests at their doors calling for our freedom....

"Sixteen years is a long time but you are a movement that just won't go away. I cannot reiterate enough the importance of you once again holding activities in the U.S. capital calling for our freedom....

"I would especially like to thank the Service Employees International Union for providing their hall for you to use, showing once again the important role that organized labor has in the solidarity calling for our freedom. On this sixteenth anniversary of our imprisonment you can count on the three of us who remain in prison to keep resisting. You can also count on René and Fernando to keep going forward, leading our struggle for justice."

A new short video on the Five was premiered at the event: http://www.discoverthefive.com/

Photo: J G Blanchard Lewis // CC 2.0

Argentina, UN approve a radical move on the “vulture capitalists”

Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:41:00 +0000

The Argentine Congress voted last week to take the function of paying off the country's sovereign bonds away from the private Mellon Bank of New York and transfer it to the National Bank of Argentina, a state enterprise. And the U.N. General Assembly passed a supportive resolution calling for a reworking of the entire system of dealing with the restructuring of sovereign debt.

The actions came as a sequel to a long running controversy over the efforts of U.S. hedge funds to make a large profit at the expense of the Argentine people.

From 1976 to 1983, Argentines suffered under the brutal U.S.-supported military dictatorship of General Jorge Videla and his colleagues, who stifled all dissent by methods that included murder of some 30,000 members of the opposition.

During this time of unaccountable rule by fear, the military rulers incurred sovereign debt for the country, through bonds organized through New York financial institutions. This pattern did not stop when the military left power in 1983, but continued in the chaotic period that followed, with Argentina under heavy pressure to implement neo-liberal policies of privatization, austerity and free trade.

By 2001, Argentina was broke and the enraged populace was in the streets. A new left-wing president, Nestor Kirchner, had to preside over a default. His government and that of his wife, current President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who succeeded him, managed to restore their country's finances without the usual method of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, by persuading the vast majority of creditors to accept new bonds at 30 cents on the dollar.

However, a small minority of the creditors held out, demanding that they be paid 100% of the original value. These include Elliot Management, whose major investor is Paul Singer, a heavy contributor to Republican Party candidates in the United States, and Aurelius Capital Management. These are not even the original bondholders: They bought these bonds from the original bondholders at fire sale prices when Argentina defaulted, and now they want not just to recuperate their original cost plus a profit, but to receive the entire value of the original bonds, pocketing an immense profit.

The way the bonds were originally set up stipulates, according to U.S. Federal Judge Thomas Griesa, that until Argentina pays off Singer and his allies in full, at the original price they demand, it cannot continue to pay a penny to the majority of bondholders who agreed to the bond swap. And if it agrees to pay the holdouts what they demand, it also has to offer those creditors who accepted the swap the same full payment as to the holdouts. So Griesa froze a payment Argentina had made to an account for the majority bondholders in Mellon Bank New York, to the tune of $539 million dollars, forcing Argentina to miss a July 30 deadline on those payments.

Thus, Griesa says, Argentina is in default again, which Argentina denies. The Argentine government took out ads in U.S. and Argentine newspapers declaring that they are not in default and referring to the hedge funds as "vulture funds." Griesa has threatened to find Argentina "in contempt of court" for doing this.

Singer is well known for this kind of tactic, which he has employed to the detriment of the people of Peru and of Congo (Brazzaville). The precedent set if Argentina loses would represent a danger to all efforts at restructuring the debts of poor countries. The winners would be wealthy hedge funds in the rich countries, and their political allies.

So it is not surprising that President Kirchner has been getting strong support from other Latin American countries, from the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), and from the Group of 77 developing countries.

Bolstered by this support, Kirchner asked her legislature to support a measure whereby the control of the payments of sovereign bonds would be moved away from Mellon Bank New York to the government-controlled National Bank in Buenos Aires. That way, the bondholders who agreed to the swap will get their payment in Argentina, and U.S. courts will not be able to interfere. Both houses gave this proposal a solid majority last week.

China, the Group of 77, and Bolivia brought the Argentine case to the U.N. General Assembly. The proposal was to move forward on changing the framework for the restructuring of debt. There were 124 votes in favor, including almost all poorer countries. Only 11 countries voted "no," including the United States, Britain, Germany, Japan, France, and other wealthy states. There were 41 abstentions.

The U.S., which had earlier filed an amicus brief in Griesa's court favoring Argentina, says that it voted against the U.N. Resolution out of fear that it would create instability in financial markets.

Photo: National Bank of Argentina. Jurist.org

Politics trump justice in Cuban 5 case

Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:58:00 +0000

When the corporate-controlled U.S. media conspired with the Miami court to railroad the Cuban 5, few people realized the power of government to silence the truth for so long.

Reading the affidavit (8-31-2012) of Martin Garbus, First Amendment attorney, is an eye-opener for anyone concerned with freedom and justice in the U.S. legal system. A sixteen-year time period, from the shoot-down of a plane over Cuban waters flown by extremist exile groups, to a sensational trial, leading to the present attempts by Gerardo Hernandez to discover new facts, provides the setting for a drama in which journalism, prosecutorial misconduct, and a wall of media silence conspired to condemn five innocent men known as the Cuban 5.

A perfect storm of prejudice and hostility, created by local media, was abated briefly in August 2005 by three judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals who unanimously ruled a mistrial of the Miami process. One year later, in September 2006, the first news of paid "government agents" in the media failing to disclose to their employer the use of taxpayer dollars to get a conviction of the Five made headlines. This affront to an ethical press and professional standards of journalistic conduct must not go unchallenged.

By now, journalists and law students should have been commenting how a grave injustice committed under jurisdiction of the Justice Department could have been allowed. The many irregularities before, during and after the 2001 trial did not result in a change of venue. Instead, an inquisition and travesty of justice violating the 8th Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment provision occurred.

Government money for the purpose of domestic propaganda to deny due process is illegal. Throughout the affidavit, documenting what Radio Martí does was met with Government resistance to nearly all FOIA applications by the defense. Was it any accident that Voice of America (VOA) oversight of government propagandizing became moot when Radio/TV Martí moved to Miami from Washington, D.C., in early 1996? With an aim to address the Cuban-American vote in Florida, passage of the anti-Cuban Helms-Burton Act (March 1996) sailed through Congress without discussion. Now, Miami became the hotbed of "rogue activity."

Recognition by the Obama administration that U.S. policy toward Cuba is obsolete was only the first step in a change of direction. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court refusal to hear an appeal by the Cuban 5 in 2009 meant more delay, more denial of justice. Locking away five men in solitary confinement ("the hole") for 17 consecutive months without legal representation may be the enduring legacy of a rightwing Supreme Court, lest we forget the stolen 2000 election in the battleground state of Florida that preceded the approval of a permit for a circus in Miami that began on November 27, 2000. Where politics trump justice, it becomes apparent that the Five were convicted by an embedded media in a hostile environment. A fair trial would have exposed the cozy relationship between the FBI and anti-Castro extremists in Miami that has existed since the mid-20^th century.

Let us re-enforce the worldwide "jury of millions" that strive to obtain recognition and respect in circumstances of dire prejudice against the Cuban 5. Possibly, then, cracks in the silent walls of oppression will become visible for all, so equal treatment under the law, and freedom for the Cuban 5 can be achieved sooner rather than later. Obama give me Five!

Photo: Activists call for freeing the Cuban Five. AP

Cuba leads in the fight against Ebola in West Africa

Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:07:00 +0000

Cuba is the first nation in the world to answer an urgent call for personnel to help stop the spread of Ebola in West Africa and will send 165 medical professionals to Sierra Leone, one of the three countries most affected by the virus, next month.

The announcement was made last Friday by Dr. Roberto Morales Ojeda, Cuba's Minister of Public Health, at a news conference at the headquarters of the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, Switzerland. Although other countries have pledged money or supplies, Cuba is the first to offer its most valuable asset and what is most needed to combat Ebola: well-trained, experienced doctors, nurses, and other health care experts.

It is reported that the United States will follow Cuba's lead as President Barack Obama is expected to announce plans to send 3,000 military troops to Liberia to supervise building of treatment centers and train medical staff.

Cuba's decision is consistent with a long history of solidarity with other developing nations, particularly those facing crises. Indeed, the WHO's Director, Dr. Margarat Chan, not only praised Cuba's contribution to fighting the Ebola crisis but its larger role in providing medical care to millions around the world. "Cuba is world famous for its ability to train outstanding doctors and nurses and for its generosity in helping fellow countries on the route to progress," she asserted.

Chan thanked Cuban President Raul Castro and upheld Cuba's experiences in emergency situations as a model for other countries to emulate. During the devastating 2010 earthquake, for example, hundreds of Cuban medical workers were sent to Haiti, and many remained there to provide health care. At present, there are over 50,000 Cuban health care professionals working in 66 countries, including 2,500 doctors in 32 African nations. One of the most celebrated programs is "Mission Miracle" in Venezuela, where Cuban doctors have performed thousands of cataract operations and also run clinics in poor urban neighborhoods and rural communities.

Cuban doctors were already working in Sierra Leone when the Ebola outbreak began in December 2013 in Guinea. The crisis has overwhelmed the three neighboring countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. There have been a few reported cases in Nigeria and Senegal, although it appears transmission of the virus has been brought under control in those nations. Over 2,400 people have died from the virus and at least 4,900 more are known to be infected, although WHO officials and others have suggested those numbers are drastically underestimated. Moreover, the disease is spreading rapidly, there are insufficient facilities to treat those infected, and health care workers have died in disproportionate numbers.

The three most affected countries have only recently emerged from political crises - in the cases of Liberia and Sierra Leone, decades of civil war - and already lacked adequate health facilities and personnel before the crisis. These factors, combined with prevalent poverty and widespread illiteracy, make controlling the Ebola outbreak a seemingly impossible task. In addition to the human toll, the crisis is crippling agricultural output and mining activities, the primary sectors of the sub-region's economies.

Declaring the crisis "unparalleled in modern times," the United Nations' Ebola coordinator, David Nabarro, said that more than $1 billion is needed to end the outbreak in West Africa. Several countries and organizations have made monetary pledges to help the fight against

Ebola, but few have followed through with their commitments.

Ghana's President John Mahama, current chairman of the Economic Community of West African States, yesterday visited Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, and criticized the slow pace of assistance. "We need to speed up the roll out of all these pledges," Mahama stated. "The processes in terms of budgeting, in terms of putting in the procurement are quite cumbersome and so, if we can speed that up, it will help greatly."

Nevertheless, as the WHO's Chan explained last week, "Money and materials are important, but these two things alone cannot stop Ebola virus transmission. Human resources are clearly our most important need. We need most especially compassionate doctors and nurses who will know how to comfort patients despite the barriers of wearing PPE (personal protective equipment) and working under very demanding conditions."

The Cuban team consists of health care professionals who have experience working in countries facing natural disasters and disease outbreaks and includes 100 nurses, 50 doctors, three epidemiologists, three intensive care specialists, three infection control specialist nurses, and five social mobilization officers. The team is now receiving special training in Cuba and will spend six months in Sierra Leone working in Ebola treatment centers and community clinics across the nation.

Dr. Bruce Aylward, Assistant Director of the WHO emphasized the significance of Cuba's contribution: "Those of us who have been working on the response efforts at WHO know how truly valuable this offer is. Many countries have offered money but no country has offered such a large number of workers to go in and help do the most difficult job in the crisis."

Photo: WHO's Director, Dr. Margarat Chan and Dr Roberto Morales Ojeda, Cuba's Minister of Public Health, at the announcement that Cuba will send a medical team of 165 people to Sierra Leone to help in the frontline in the Ebola response efforts. WHO/M. Missioneiro.

British party leaders scramble to Scotland to quell Yes vote

Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:22:00 +0000

Britain's three main party political leaders - among the most unpopular in British political history - crawled up to Scotland yesterday to beg that the nation votes against independence.

Prime Minister David Cameron, his Lib Dem (Liberal Democrats) deputy Nick Clegg and Labour leader Ed Miliband ditched PMQs (Prime Minister's Questions) in desperation to make the trek across the border urging Scots to vote No with just one week left before Britain could be divided for good.

The move comes as the pro-independence Yes campaign appeared to be gaining last-minute popular support, with opinion polls showing it is increasingly difficult to determine which side will triumph in next Thursday's referendum.

Mr. Cameron said he would be "heartbroken" if the vote results in Britain being "torn apart" in an emotional plea to a nation where he is widely regarded to be hated.

In an equally stomach-turning speech from Mr. Miliband, the Labour leader said the case for a No vote came from the "head, heart and soul."

The scenario gave SNP (Scottish National Party) leader Alex Salmond yet another occasion to gloat as he accused the three party leaders of being stricken with panic, saying that "collectively, they are the least trusted Westminster leaders ever."

Mr. Salmond said their pathetic attempt would only serve to galvanise support for a Yes vote on September 18, claiming the No camp was in "disarray."

Meanwhile in its final A Just Scotland report, the STUC (Scottish Trades Union Congress) argues that both the Yes and No camps also "have little to say" on employment rights such as pay, better-quality jobs and employment regulation.

Scotland's biggest trade union body, which has refused to take sides in the referendum, criticises both sides in the debate for "overblown" claims and counter-claims in the report.

It describes the case for a formal currency union in the event of Scottish independence as "weak" and argues that the question of how tax might be used for redistributive policies has been "largely absent" from the debate on both sides.

Grahame Smith, STUC general secretary, added: "We have spent much of the last two years urging both sides of the debate to recognise and to bring forward arguments to address the fundamental inequalities of wealth and income in society.

"But this report concludes that neither of the mainstream referendum campaign groups, nor the respective governments, has been willing to consistently challenge the orthodoxies which have led to the prevailing conditions."

Reposted from Morning Star.

Photo: Detail from a frieze by British artist William Brassey Hole in the entrance hall of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Edinburgh, of notable figures in the first Scottish War of Independence. (Wikimedia)

Defending Colombian political prisoner David Ravelo, and others

Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:11:00 +0000

David Ravelo, arrested on September 14, 2010, remains in a Colombian prison. He is innocent of any crime, yet received an 18-year sentence. Through independent thought, action, and courage, he confronted an oligarchic, militarized, U. S. backed regime. He attracted attention and so was vulnerable to political persecution.

A year ago, judges rejected his appeal, and news coverage of his case slackened even among leftist media. He now returns to the news: in late August the British Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) sent an "amicus curiae" report to the Colombian Supreme Court. As indicated by lawyers handling Ravelo's defense, "the Supreme Court has the opportunity to do justice in a case of obvious persecution against a defender of human rights in Colombia."

Kirsty Brimelow, BHRC international litigation head, and Reinaldo Villalba of Ravelo's legal defense team held a joint news conference in Bogota on September 1 to discuss his case. A remarkable YouTube rendition of the conference recounts circumstances leading to Ravelo's imprisonment.

Ravelo led the fight in Barrancabermeja, his home city, against right-wing paramilitary domination. The charge against him of participating in the 1991 murder of a city official stemmed from accusations by two jailed paramilitary heads. They were in prison because Ravelo had implicated them in a 1998 massacre that took the lives of 32 people. Their vengeance served the state.

Villalba indicated that William Gildardo Pacheco Granados, Ravelo's prosecutor, had spent a year in a military prison in 1993 because, working as a police lieutenant, he helped "disappear" a young man. Under Colombian law such criminal behavior disqualifies him from serving as prosecutor. He remains on the job, however.

David Ravelo is used to international solidarity. Overseas delegations have visited him, and British parliamentarians, NGO's, international human rights groups, unions, and hundreds of individuals have communicated with Colombian authorities on his behalf. Yet he and 9500 other Colombian political activists remain in prison.

The question arises: How can the impact of international solidarity for Colombian and other political prisoners be sharpened? In essence, how can numbers and intensity of those fighting for them be augmented?

Colombian Communist Party secretary general Jaime Caycedo recently traced history that might help with answers. He looks at U.S. use of Colombia as an anti-communist bulwark in Latin America. He mentions the Truman-era Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, formation of the Organization of American States in 1948, U. S. military support for destroying the newly born FARC guerrilla organization in 1964, and assistance thereafter with building the military and state - security capabilities of the Colombian state. Colombian troops serving in the Korean War was symptomatic: "Colombia was the only Latin American country that took on such an act of vassalage to the empire."

Caycedo explains that, "The pretext was and continues to be the specter of communism, of socialism, of revolutionary ideas, and even of critical thought." He sees "criminalization of the right to protest, to be non-conformist, to dissent, to complain, and to organize and mobilize the people. They managed to project an imaginary enemy within the people itself against whom persecution, intimidation, and murder becomes 'legal.'"

That's where persecution of David Ravelo fits in. In the early 1990's he served the Patriotic Union leftist electoral coalition as a city official. He organized community - based political and economic educational programs. Among human rights groups he was involved with, the Regional Corporation for the Defense of Human Rights (CREDHOS) stands out. He was a founding member and later head of that group, which served as a platform for Ravelo to oppose the paramilitaries. In 2009 the local Catholic diocese gave Ravelo an award for 35 years of defending human rights. He's a longtime member of the Central Committee of the Colombian Communist Party.

Cruel persecution, with death in the offing, was constant. The state jailed him in 1993 for two years on baseless charges. He and his family received regular death threats. Nine Credhos leaders are among the "countless" social and political leaders assassinated in and around Barrancabermeja over the years.

U.S. imperialism set the stage for repression in Colombia. That includes persecution of human rights defender David Ravelo. Surely it's a scenario playing out elsewhere. If so, then it makes sense to broaden campaigns for political prisoners by linking anti-imperialism and prisoner defense. Activists, those with empty hands, or others already busy, might leap at the chance actually to apply their ideas for resisting the pretensions of empire.

Maybe it's time now to revive International Labor Defense. That organization launched by the U.S. Communist Party in the 1920's maintained chapters throughout the United States. It defended Sacco and Vanzetti, the Scottsboro Boys, besieged unionists all over, even in Cuba and Mexico. The idea was to start first with anti-imperialism, and then look for prisoner victims. Perhaps that's the approach that would work now.

Photo: David Ravelo. Alliance for Global Justice

“In the Fields of the North” photos on the border wall

Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:39:00 +0000

"En Los Campos del Norte" or "In the Fields of the North" is an exhibition of photographs of farm workers in the U.S., almost all migrants from Mexico, taken by David Bacon. They are hung on the iron bars of the border wall, on the Mexican side of the wall between Mexico and the U.S. in Playas de Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico.

The exhibition was organized by Jose Manuel Valenzuela and Gabriela Zamora of the Colegio de la Frontera (COLEF), and was printed and mounted by the Centro Cultural de Tijuana (CECUT).

For more articles and images, see http://dbacon.igc.org

Photo: David Bacon