People Before Profit blog

Cuba's Municipal Elections: Millions Turn Out

Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:40:00 +0000

9-29-07, 10:20 am

More than 7 million voters in Cuba participated in nominations for municipal delegates, a process that has just concluded with 37,328 citizens proposed for voters’ ballots in the upcoming October 21 elections.

María Esther Reus, president of the National Electoral Commission, said on the Sept. 26 “Roundtable” radio and TV program that this important stage of the process had featured massive and enthusiastic participation by the people, and was notable for the organization and quality of the 50,760 assemblies that had taken place. This made it a resounding success, a manifestation of democracy and transparency, she said.

The nominees include 10,799 women, some 1,600 more than in previous nominations. This was also commented on by Yolanda Ferrer, general secretary of the Federation of Cuban Women.

Likewise, a significant number of young people were nominated: 7,949 candidates are 35 or younger, and the number of 16- to 40-year-olds is 14,373. Also significant: 83.8% of those nominated are graduates of university or other institutes of higher education, reflecting the success of the Revolution in that sphere.

According to Ricardo Alarcón, president of the National Assembly of People’s Power, what is happening today in Cuba’s electoral process should be analyzed within the international context, and particularly in comparison with the United States. If, one day, similar regulations were to be applied in the United States — citizen’s professions registered in voter’s list, the public availability of that information, nomination of candidates by the people — it would be impossible to maintain the current imperial regime, much less hand the presidency over to men like W. Bush.

Alarcón also noted that the ties between delegates and their voters are a key element in the Cuban political system. The great public accompaniment of their electoral process, he commented, should continue with the everyday fulfillment of their duties on the part of those elected representatives, who play a crucial role in the resistance and daily combat waged by the Cuban people against the genocidal war imposed on them by the empire.

From Granma Daily

British PM Gordon Brown and Echoes of Colonialism

Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:36:00 +0000

9-29-07, 10:17 am

Two years ago, when Gordon Brown unleashed his campaign to slip into 10 Downing Street, he said that 'the days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial history are over.'

Many puzzled observers scratched their heads, wondering when either the Labour Party or its opponents had ever apologised for the empire on which the sun never set and the blood never dried.

Appropriately enough, Mr Brown chose that bastion of progressive values, the Daily Mail, as the appropriate vehicle to air his views on the supposed lasting benefits of empire.

'We should celebrate much of our past rather than apologise for it,' he declaimed, quoting British ideas of 'tolerance, liberty and civic duty' and strong British traditions of 'fair play, of openness, of internationalism.'

Strangely enough, those at the sharp end of Britain's colonialist expansion saw things rather differently, from Ireland to India, from Ghana to Guyana and from Aden to Australia.

For some reason, the victims of empire seem obsessed with trafficking in human beings, prison ships, slavery, indentured labour, massacres, repression, rape, torture, dictatorship, plunder, exploitation and, above all, racism.

For hundreds of years, various parts of the world - at its height, a quarter of the Earth's land mass - were denied all rights to self-determination while Britain's ruling class enriched itself and spun tales of its unique status as a paragon of virtue and enlightenment.

It is not surprising that the Mail - a paper whose backing for Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts and support for racist immigration legislation complemented its pro-empire views - should welcome Mr Brown's espousal of views that he would once have spurned.

What is more perplexing is why the incoming leader of a party that was set up by Britain's trade unions should choose this course.

Is it that the colonialist-concocted fiction of empire's 'civilising mission' lends itself to current ideas of benevolent or humanitarian interventionism as fig leaves for imperialist invasion and occupation?

The three ideas and three traditions that he recommended are worthy aspirations, but they fly in the face of colonial practice and imperial nostalgia.

Mr Brown has already taken a pot shot at one former colony, Zimbabwe, this week, demanding that it bow the knee, despite opposition throughout southern Africa to his plan for Harare to fall in line with the imperial plan.

His most recent target is Myanmar, where a military junta is denying people their democratic rights and is holding democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest.

The democratic rights that Mr Brown now champions were totally absent in the British colony of Burma that was part of his beloved empire until 1948, from which Aung San Suu Kyi's father was forced to flee to China when he led the Burmese people's struggle for self-determination.

They remain absent in such states as, among many others, Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia that the Prime Minister and his commander-in-chief in the White House regard as compadres in the wars against terror and for democracy.

The British government should show some humility, acknowledge its own repressive role - historical and contemporary - and adopt an impartial and consistent attitude to norms of government that are dictated by international law rather than imperial power.

From Morning Star

The Credit Crisis: Result of a Neo-liberal, Imperialist Trajectory

Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:30:00 +0000

9-29-07, 10:08 am

August’s financial crisis originated in the United States from the practices of its private financial institutions. These firms have made a heavy entry into the credit sector in recent years, in the housing market but also in consumables, secured by residential mortgages. They have moved into the “lucrative” housing market, which offers a low repayment capacity. (“Nobody wants to lend you money, but we will!”)

This activity is financed by reselling to other agencies (private investors or funds, domestic or foreign) the bonds that materialise from the mortgage debt owed by household borrowers. This characteristic explains why the crisis has been exported—notably in Europe—to those who became the buyers of these bonds, and why it is affecting the stock market. In short, these buyers have become substitutes for public agencies, recently nationalised, whose share of the market is in decline. The neo-liberal state has therefore been deprived of a tool for intervening in the mechanisms of the credit sector.

We know that the level of household debt in the United States is gigantic and can therefore see that the situation is not about to discharge itself. It is being claimed that two million of these households will be faced with having their homes seized.

The problem is knowing whether or not the policies combating the effects of the crisis (the contamination of the real economy and other financial institutions) will be able to guarantee what is called a “soft landing.”

The figures, as reported in the press, corresponding to the refinancing of banks by the credit they are granted by the Central Bank (the “monetary policy”) are often pure fantasy. In the United States the total of these credits has been increased from about $25 billion to $50 billion in a matter of days—nothing too spectacular; much more was done for 11 September 2001.

Nevertheless, at the end of the month we saw a second wave of credits, not as strong but longer-lasting, revealing the persistent nature of the crisis, and a second intervention by the European Development Fund, which seemed to have little precedent.

Thursday 6 September saw a new injection of $30 billion over a period of fifteen days. It smells like something is burning!

The former president of the EDF, Alan Greenspan, made an explosive statement, comparing the current situation to historically formidable financial crises that have come before it. (He was careful not to include 1929 in his list.) Very shrewd it is of him to know how long it will take to stabilise the markets.

However, it is clear that the US government is completely committed to supporting its economy—which does not mean that it is in control of everything, in particular not international propagation. We’re not in 1929 any more.

The situation is complicated, as in any case, financial crisis or not, the US economy is on the brink of a new recession. All possible policy levers have been pulled—a low rate of interest on long-term credit, budgetary deficit, and a weak dollar—though the rates on short-term credits are up again. This will probably not be for very long; but is it enough to avoid the recession?

In fact the threat of recession and the financial crisis must be seen as two manifestations of the problems attached to the trajectory the US economy has been on since the start of neo-liberalism, now over twenty-five years ago: crazy levels of consumption, a deficit in foreign trade, and investment being financed by the rest of the world—an unprecedented trajectory characteristic of the current neo-liberal, imperialist configuration under the hegemony of the United States; a trajectory that it will take a long time to put right. And there will be a cost. The crisis, and a recession, are just the beginning.

From the Socialist Voice (Dublin, Ireland).

Canadian Communists Condemn Racist Campaign Around 'Voting Rights'

Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:24:00 +0000

9-29-07, 10:04 am

In a statement released several days before the Sept. 17 byelections in Quebec, the Communist Party of Canada expressed its 'deep dismay at the attempts to whip up racism and xenophobia around the rights of veiled Muslim women to vote.'

The statement went on to say, 'Unlike the Harper Tories and the other parties represented in Parliament, which have all jumped on this issue in an opportunist manner, the Communist Party condemns the bigots who are waging this campaign, and defends the right of Muslim women who choose to wear the veil to cast their ballots.

'Having been forced to defend the democratic and electoral rights of our Party and of all Canadians on many occasions since the 1920s, we are acutely aware of the need to protect the voting system. But this issue has the earmarks of a `manufactured' crisis, since there is no indication that significant numbers of women wearing veils will arrive at the polls. The Harper Tories - who have done more to attack women's equality than any government in recent history - are pushing this non-issue in an effort to portray themselves as opponents of gender oppression.

'In fact, the current rules adopted by Parliament do not require government-issued photo identification. This is important since many eligible voters do not have such photo ID - for example, those who do not have drivers' licenses. For this reason, the Elections Act provides that such voters may receive their ballots by showing two pieces of identification approved by the Chief Electoral Officer, as long as one shows their address, or by having another voter vouch for them if each swears an oath. As the Sept. 12 editorial in the Globe and Mail says, `If the system for verifying a voter's identity with written identification or sworn statements is considered good enough for other Canadians, it should be good enough for those who cover their faces for religious reasons.'

'The decision by Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand to permit veiled women to vote as long as their identity can be confirmed is therefore not a special exception, but simply the application of the current law. Other eligible voters - those living temporarily abroad who vote by mail - do not have to show their faces. Prime Minister Harper and the leaders of the Liberals, the Bloc Québecois and the NDP are all aware of these facts, and we condemn their cowardly statements on this matter.

'However, the Communist Party of Canada points to a very real and increasingly serious danger to the voting system: the restriction of access to the ballot through the disenfranchisement of many eligible voters, especially tenants, students living away from home, youth who do not yet have photo IDs, and people who are homeless or transient. Instead of addressing the problems with the permanent voters list by going back to door-to-door enumeration (which was far more comprehensive and accurate), Parliament is moving in the opposite direction. Restricting access to the ballot denies the fundamental democratic right to vote, especially for the growing numbers of Canadians who live in poverty. The Harper government has indicated that it will seize on the `veil' issue to introduce legislation making photo ID mandatory for voting, adding to the hundreds of thousands already excluded from the voters' list - most of whom, of course, do not back right-wing parties.

'This process will further erode the electoral system, which is already deeply compromised by such flaws as the near-complete media blackout against smaller parties, and the unconstitutional denial of federal funding for parties which do not reach the arbitrary 2% threshold of voter support. The Communist Party has repeatedly raised these issues in recent years, and we will continue to campaign for the expansion of voter rights and electoral democracy.

'Finally, we warn that the hysterical campaign against Muslim women is part of a wider agenda to restrict the privacy rights of all Canadians, in the name of the so-called 'war on terror.' Already, for example, the government is moving towards mandatory retinal scans at airports, which will no doubt be followed by similar `security' measures at government offices and other `sensitive' facilities.

'The Communist Party of Canada calls on all democratically-minded Canadians to reject the increasing attacks on democracy, electoral rights, and privacy. We urge Parliament to reject the calls by bigots for amendments to the Elections Act which will restrict the voting rights of Muslim women, and instead to take steps to make it easier for all Canadians to take part in the electoral process.'

From People's Voice

Japan: Communists Address Key Electoral and Political Issues

Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:19:00 +0000

9-29-07, 10:00 am

Following are remarks that Japanese Communist Party Chair Shii Kazuo made in answer to questions at a press conference on September 20:

On UNSC resolution and assistance in U.S.-led retaliatory war

Q: What do you think about the U.N. Security Council resolution adopted on September 19 that expressed “appreciation” for Operation Enduring Freedom’s maritime interdiction in which Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force is taking part.

Shii: You refer to the UNSC resolution that extended the mission of the International Security Assistance Force deployed to Afghanistan, in which the word, “appreciation” for the U.S.-led OEF, a retaliatory war, was inserted. No one can claim that by inserting one word into a nonbinding part of a resolution, the U.N. has mandated that the U.S. and other countries wage the retaliatory war. The Japanese government reportedly made considerable efforts to have the word inserted into the resolution. This is nothing but a disgraceful trick of deception.

The U.N. Security Council is the body that should work for peace and stability in international society. The Japanese government tried to bring in party politics to the U.N. body to keep the Liberal Democratic Party government alive, a shameful act that must be denounced by the international community. Russia abstained from voting on the resolution, expressing its strong dissatisfaction by stating, “A decision was made to give priority to domestic considerations of some members of the United Nations. But we believe our main responsibility is to the Security Council.” While casting a vote in favor, China stated, “We hope that the planning behind the resolution that was adopted today will not set a precedent.” I think these opinions are reasonable.

The Japanese government has done nothing to have the U.N. Security Council defend the U.N. Charter concerning the Afghan war and Iraq war. It is outrageous for such a government to zealously try to use the U.N. body for its own interest.

Q: Does this U.N. resolution affect JCP policy?

Shii: The JCP is strongly opposed to Japan’s continued assistance to the retaliatory war primarily because waging a retaliatory war in dealing with terrorism is fundamentally wrong. Our position has been corroborated by the worsening situation in Afghanistan over the past six years. War cannot eradicate terrorism. It is impossible to deny this fact by manipulating U.N. resolutions. Based on this position, the JCP is calling for a halt to assistance to the war.

The other reason for us to oppose Japan’s operation is that it goes against the Constitution. Whether or not there are U.N. mandates, Japan’s participation in assisting use of force abroad goes against the Constitution, and is thus unacceptable.

This U.N. Security Council resolution, therefore, will not affect the JCP policy.

LDP’s presidential election shows its degeneration

Q: What is your impression about the LDP presidential election?

Shii: I would say this election shows the extent to which the LDP has degenerated.

First of all, they have no reflection on their state of affairs. Since the voters delivered such a severe verdict in the recent House of Councilors election, the LDP needs to seriously reflect on the judgment. But the two candidates in the LDP presidential election have neither reflection nor an ear for the judgment of the public. They have no reflection over the post-election political developments in which the whole of the LDP supported Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s remaining in office. The prime minister in an unprecedented manner then abandoned his power, and the LDP election is wasting time while the Diet is in session, causing enormous damage to the public. None of the LDP members expresses their reflection on this situation, showing their surprising degeneration.

I must add that the election shows that the LDP has no alternatives to its present policies. There is no difference between the two candidates in that they are committed to continue the “structural reform” and “neoliberal” policies that have increased poverty and social gaps and in that they are calling for continued deployment of the Self-Defense Forces to the Indian Ocean and Iraq at the beck of the U.S. There may be some differences in their tactics, but their policies are same. The fact that the LDP has no alternatives to its current policies sheds light on the LDP’s political degeneration.

In the past, the LDP attempted to keep its government alive by presenting options, in economic policies, for example. When the Hashimoto government plunged Japan’s economy into a severe recession by shifting heavier burdens onto the public and cutting back welfare services based on the “structural reform” policy line in the late 1990s, the Obuchi cabinet that replaced the Hashimoto cabinet made some “adjustments” with tax cuts and a major increase in public works projects. Roughly speaking, the Nakasone cabinet in the 1980s and successive LDP governments switched between Keynesian policies and neoliberal policies or adopted both in an attempt to stay in existence. Today, however, the LDP has no other policy option than the collapsing neoliberal “structural reform” policy line that has increased poverty and social gaps and will only lead to an impasse.

With regard to relations with the U.S., even disregarding the rights and obligations set out in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, the LDP government is willing to support U.S. wars anywhere in the world under the “U.S.-Japan global alliance.” But elsewhere these policies have resulted in failure. Here, too, the LDP has lost political prudence and options.

Whoever is appointed as prime minister, his stance will be called into question towards the negative inheritance from the pro-Yasukuni Koizumi and Abe governments such as prime minister’s visits to Yasukuni Shrine, the wartime sex slavery issue, and the text screening policy of denying the historical facts about Okinawans’ wartime “mass suicides.”

Whoever becomes the prime minister, the next LDP government will face a political impasse and will be forced to hold a general election. While making every effort to force it to hold a general election, the JCP will put forward a new policy framework to replace the LDP-Komei Party government policies.

JCP’s policy on Diet election to nominate prime minister

Q: The JCP decided to support Democratic Party President Ozawa Ichiro in a runoff in the election to nominate the prime minister scheduled for September 25. In 1998, the JCP voted for then DPJ President Kan Naoto in the first round of elections. Do you think your past stance was wrong?

Shii: Today’s DPJ is different from that in the past. At that time, the DPJ advocated neither constitutional revision nor consumption tax hikes. I think it was appropriate to take such a stance in 1998. Today, however, there are wide differences in policy line between the JCP and the DPJ.

So, in this prime minister’s nomination election, the JCP will vote for the JCP representative in the first round election in the House of Councilors. The nomination of prime minister concerns cooperation in forming the government, and at present there is no condition to offer the DPJ such cooperation. Under the circumstances, we will take our own stance.

At the same time, in case of a runoff, the JCP will vote for the DPJ representative in the House of Councilors in order to express our stance against the ruling LDP-Komei Party. In the recent election, voters delivered an overwhelming verdict against the LDP-Komei Party policies. Taking this public judgment into consideration, the JCP has adopted this stance.

On the new JCP general election policy

Q: The JCP Fifth Central Committee Plenum decided to change its policy of running a JCP candidate in every single-seat constituency. Does this change imply the JCP’s willingness to cooperate with the DPJ?

Shii: Absolutely not. The reason that the Fifth CC Plenum reviewed the JCP policy of attempting to put up JCP candidates in all single-seat constituencies and decided to field JCP candidates in certain constituencies is that we have to effectively and positively make use of the JCP’s ability in order to increase the JCP votes and seats in the proportional representation election based on a realistic judgment of our present capabilities.

We adopted this policy independent of the political situation or the DPJ. Our policies on cooperation with opposition parties in the Diet as well as on the prime minister’s nomination election also have nothing to do with the new general election policy.

Q: Has the JCP been approached by the DPJ concerning this question?

Shii: No.

From Akahata

Book Review: The State of the American Empire

Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:48:00 +0000

9-28-07, 9:32 am

The State of the American Empire – How the USA Shapes the World Stephen Burman University of California Press, Myriad Editions. 2007.

On first perusal my perceptions told me this was my kind of book: lots of graphs, charts, and maps for my visual learning strengths, more akin to the National Geographic where I can glean most of the significant information from the photos and captions as much as I can from the text. But then as I delved into the text that introduces and accompanies the visuals, I realized that this was a bit more than just an atlas – it also made political statements through choice of words and topics.

Unfortunately, that position wavered in front of me, at one time apparently saying this, at another time apparently saying that. The State of the American Empire has a slippery and elusive perspective, but one that finally settles down into a relatively clear theme, perhaps the slippery metaphor being appropriate for American ‘idealism’ as it stands today. Ultimately, the underlying theme to the book, even though it brings forth some very strong criticisms of American actions, is that we, the royal ‘we’, the global ‘we’, need the empire for stability that will bring about the security we need for our energy demands, for our currency markets, for our trade relations.

In the fifth chapter, “Military,” another related theme, much more clearly stated, not nearly as slippery, more like a grasping hawk, much more clearly defined, arises, giving the truth to the type of empire the world is dealing with, and the type of security and stability America is quite literally gunning for. Burman states, “…the USA has its own agenda and national interests to pursue, and it is its capacity to mobilize its armed forces, rather than economic strength, that is the bedrock of its imperial power.” Initially arguing for security through the idealistic goodness of empire and its economic idealism of free trade and global mobility of capital and labour and resources – mainly oil - that has been lost during the Bush ‘regime’ (I’ll come back to that word), the concept of stability falls upon the stability of a military ‘regime’ not unlike that promoted by the likes of Friedman, Ferguson, Ledeen and other hot war promoters: we are morally superior, might is right, and we are going to use it to protect our interests.

Domestically, Burman also recognizes the nature of this militaristic view, as the “…military expenditures make it difficult to cut spending, and this is one of the drivers behind the US creation and exaggeration of threats to its security.” It is not further defined as such, but following the artificially inflated fear of communism to the artificially inflated fear of ‘terror’, the US military keeps corporate as well as domestic America rolling along financially.

Returning to the “Military Abroad”, Burman says that all the overseas deployments “symbolize the power that defines American imperialism,” a rather clear and bold statement of the intent and purpose of the military, acknowledged to include “threats…to oil supplies from the Middle East or the Caspian region.” It is oil where the atlas begins its tour.

Topics on nuclear energy, climate change, energy security, oil consumption, dependency, and policy are covered in the first chapter. It is here that the repetitive idea of the need for security and stability are introduced, and Burman can only see a dominant US hegemony as being capable of providing world security and stability. A distinction is made between a benign hegemony of leadership and the more malignant kind of imperialism that has been created under the Bush ‘regime’, the first of many arguable points. It is also here that certain biases are introduced.

One of those biases is Burman’s curious view that the US has only been empirically aggressive under Bush, even with maps of American interventions abroad showing interventions “to prevent the spread of communism.” This is one of those slippery sections. Did he not say that the US created its own threat to security, in this case the exaggerated fear of communism that dominated US foreign policy for decades? A sidebar on the intervention map indicates that in Indonesia US covert support “…led to a purge of hundreds of thousand of communists.” Most accurate accounts indicate that anyone in opposition to the government was labelled communist and executed, regardless of their actual political persuasion.

Another bias is the word regime itself. I have used it to label the Bush government a regime, as it fits with Burman’s use of it in relation to other countries. Iran had a “nationalist regime”, Chile had a “socialist regime”, Venezuela has a “left wing regime” – all three of them democratically elected governments, the first two terminated by American CIA intervention, and the latter still waiting its ultimate intervention after an initial failure. The commonality was that they simply wanted to use their own resources for their own people and not let foreign nationals control the native wealth. The US cannot accept a democratically successful socialist government to exist within its sphere, as it works contrary to its own corporate interests. The word itself, according to the dictionary, is quite neutral, simply meaning “method or system of government; prevailing system of things.” Okay, we all live with regimes. Interesting how it takes on a hostile tenor when used in opposition to US interests.

There are other small biases that enter the text, a small but important one being the word “hijack”, as in “The trade dispute…over bananas reveals how wealthy corporations can hijack US foreign policy.” To the contrary, US foreign policy has mainly been about supporting corporate endeavours in other countries (witness the statements on the military, above), the ‘banana’ republics of Central America being prime examples, with intertwined interests going back to the late 1800s and the establishment of the Boston based United Fruit Company. There is nothing to “hijack” in foreign policy – it has always been thus, corporations working within US foreign policy, as currently evident with Bechtel, Raytheon, Halliburton, Exxon, Boeing et al and the war on terror now centred in the Middle East.

Another curiosity is the description of the US as an “honest broker” in areas of conflict such as the Middle East, and in Asia.” This is a futuristic view, but it is preceded by the word “resume”. There is nothing to resume, the US has never been an honest broker but Burman sees it doing this after “making tactical withdrawals from hotspots while continuing to manipulate the balance of power in regions of potential conflict.” I’m not sure how to respond to this, it just seems so ludicrous. Later on Burman indicates “The USA aspires to play the role of honest broker in conflict resolution,” in the Middle East, adding another layer of ridiculousness to the ludicrous. The two simply do not go together, not historically, nor will it in the future, not with the label USA attached.

Two of these ‘hotspots’ are Iraq and Iran but that they are labelled as such is disingenuous. Burman’s definition of a ‘hotspot’ is, above all, being an oil rich area. Further, “they are unstable due to internal unrest, anti-Americanism, or threatened by terrorist disruption.” As a result of all this, “the need to secure supplies in a potentially hostile world will continue to drive US foreign policy.” Oh goody, more invasions, more covert actions against democratic governments, more false flag interventions. There is no definition within the idea of hotspots that perhaps the US is a major part of the problem itself, having destroyed democratic governments, or having invaded on illegal and false pretences, or that ongoing occupation is what drives resistance and the resort to terrorism (which it really is not, if it is a local insurgency trying to drive an occupying force out – wholly sustainable under the UN Charter and international law).

Democracy and free markets receive a boost within the text as Burman believes that free markets lead to democracy in spite of the evidence provided by many other academics to the contrary (Stiglitz, Chua, Chomsky, Johnson) that show his belief in “supporting democracy through trade” to be a lie. He then works himself into a contradiction, as do all freemarketeers, by saying that “an unregulated world market poses as serious a threat” as other antagonisms, yet a ‘regulated free’ market is quite simply a contradiction. It is either free or it is regulated. Free marketeers do not truly want ‘free’ markets, they want ‘regulated’ markets that serve their purposes, as corporations and “other countries collude with American imperialism…as providers of stability and security.” Collude? Fraudulent secret understanding as per the dictionary? Burman keeps making these slippery twists and thus loses himself in his own arguments.

Many other slippery interpretations enter Burman’s text. His general factual information is good, but his interpretation and analysis of it is weak, with a creeping (perhaps slithering would work better with slippery) bias that provides a pro-empirical slant. The State of the American Empire is still something I would recommend, strangely enough, as an addition to an academic library, not for the ‘atlas’ quality that it could have been, but for the curious mixture of strong anti-empire criticisms superficially imposed over an overall positive view of the benefits of a capitalist free market system supported primarily not by the goodwill of the markets, but by the world’s dominant military.

--Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews to Palestine Chronicles. His interest in this topic stems originally from an environmental perspective, which encompasses the militarization and economic subjugation of the global community and its commodification by corporate governance and by the American government.

Latin America’s Process of Economic and Social Stabilization

Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:43:00 +0000

9-28-07, 9:24 am

Few critics would deny that in 2006 the economy of Latin America and the Caribbean reported growth performance at the highest rate since the 1970s. The present acceleration began in 2004 with a GDP increase of 5.9 percent. The region then continued in its fourth successive year of economic growth, averaging a steady and well-distributed rate of 5 percent. This growth obviously had positive effects on the overall economic situation of the region, but these figures may not necessarily tell the whole story. Some critics blame “neoliberal” structural reforms for the seemingly enduring income inequalities existing throughout Latin America.

Exports and National Debt Reduction

The 2006 external current account surplus, with its 1.75 percent of GPD, was at its highest level in decades. High profits from exports, a range of soaring income from tourism, and sustained capital influx in the form of direct and portfolio investment led to a vigorous surge in total reserves. A common problem for Latin American countries in the past was their inability to repay loans. They had weaker currencies, higher debt costs, faster inflation and punitive interest rates. Reflective of better times, in 2006 exports grew for the fourth year in a row, reaching a figure of $780 billion. Recently, revenues flowing to most Latin American governments are growing at a faster rate than public spending. Unlike in past decades, high state revenues have not led to uncontrolled government expenditure, and despite old habits, the present phase of growth as well as encouraging export revenues have generated a primary surplus and reduced national debt, to the benefit of much of the region. According to the IMF, further progress has also been made in debt relief for low-income countries in the region, covering Bolivia, Haiti, Guyana, Honduras and Nicaragua where the Inter-American Development Bank approved full debt relief totalling $4.4 billion in 2007. Increased economic stability, infrastructure growth, and financial strength have toughened up the region’s traditionally weak economic fundamentals so that emerging markets are better prepared to endure external shocks.

Regional Consumption and Demand for Goods

Unlike in preceding years, factors encouraging economic development in the region have not only been export dynamics and rising fuel prices, but also the visible stimulation of domestic demand for investment and consumable goods, which was encouraged by the reduction of interest rates. Latin America’s income per capita has increased for the third year in a row by more than 3 percent. For the first time in many years, no country in the region has registered decreasing income per citizen. As the 2004 economic growth rate figure of 5.9 percent shows, the situation of Latin American labor markets has improved throughout the current economic boom. Rising employment in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico has led to the lowest registered level of unemployment since 2002, averaging about 10 percent. In Brazil, the strengthened job market produced an increase of households with an annual income of $5,900 to $22,000 from 14.5 million to 22.3 million. Income distribution appears to be less unequal and the middle class’ purchasing power is becoming stronger. Sales of new cars, computers and consumer electronics are at record levels. This boost in regional consumption reflects the crucial tempo of economic development in Latin America and mirrors the transformative change in the region’s financial structure.

Economic and Social Achievements in Mexico and Chile

Besides the overall economic progress in the region, especially in Mexico and Chile, financial stability and faster economic growth have resulted in the reduction of some inequalities in wealth distribution. Although the recent class-based riots in downtown Santiago against what the poor perceive as society’s indifference to them, Chile has seen the greatest economic growth in the region since 2003. According to the World Bank, extreme poverty has fallen faster in Chile than anywhere else in Latin America, afflicting 1.5 million in 2003, with some saying it was as low as 500,000 in 2006.

Social policies, increasingly implemented by democratic governments in Latin America, are now responding to clamorous demands by lowering the gross total number of those living in poverty. In the case of Mexico, US economic growth has helped to encourage financial development. The number of people earning an income that is insufficient to even feed a family a minimal diet in Mexico fell from 37 percent to 14 percent over the decade through 2006. The fact that the number of Mexicans in the $400-1000 income bracket is rising faster than those in higher income bracket, shows that a “new lower middle-class” may be emerging from poverty, especially in Mexico.

Social Development

As several more leftist leaders have been elected or re-elected in Latin America in recent years, more social programs, such as health and education initiatives, are being put in place. The central objective is to lift people out of poverty and raise living standards. Innovative social networks and incentives are among the major contributors to the achievements that have been made in the social sector. One example of these initiatives can be found in countries like Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela, where stipends are provided to poor families in order to keep their children healthy and in school. Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez announced that during this present economic revival, steps should be taken to ensure facilitated access to producers that will result in meeting basic human needs, including stable job markets and a quality education. The combination of strong economic growth stimulants and social assistance programs were instrumental in the process of lowering the unemployment levels and poverty rates. According to IMF Survey Magazine’s April edition, the rate of Latin Americans living in extreme poverty fell from 44 percent in 2002 to about 40 percent in 2005, and has since fallen to 38 percent in 2006. Lowering barriers to access consumer goods and services has made it possible for people to start up their own small businesses. Some low-income communities have become involved in production processes and are contributing now to the region’s upgraded economic stability.

Forecast For Economic Development

Continually improving investment markets and success in diversifying and expanding trade patterns provides grounds for an optimistic forecast. Steadily increasing revenues are reducing income inequality and it is estimated that by 2012, 15 million out of 27 million households could have attained middle-class level incomes. According to the IMF’s director Rodrigo De Rato, turbulences in global financial markets will still hit Latin America, but the damage is likely to be less than it would have been in previous years. Unfortunately, growth is expected to slow down in 2008 to 4.25 percent; nevertheless, economists expect net debt to drop to 44 percent of GDP in 2008, compared to an estimated 46.6 percent in 2007. The IMF stressed that Latin America must take “advantage of good times to tackle the daunting task of entrenching stronger growth, reducing still high levels of poverty, and decreasing vulnerabilities against adverse shocks.”

Gains Remain Fragile

Despite the recent economic success and newly fortified foundations regarding growth, poverty and economic issues, are still matters that persist on Latin America’s agenda. Income inequalities may be at their least extreme in a generation, but they still remain high compared with other economies in the world. Although several countries have succeeded in expanding their economies and the social benefits which they provide to their citizens, income disparity is still one of the most serious issues in Latin America, particularly when one looks at the fact that while the wealthiest 20 percent of the population is receiving 60 percent of all income, the poorest 20 percent account for only 3 percent.

Enduring Rural and Urban Poverty

Poverty trends have been relatively affected by the lack of improvements in the living standards of the poor. The World Resources Institute (WRI) has estimated that there are 360 million people “living at the base of the socio-economic pyramid, defined as living on the purchasing power equivalent of $300 per month or less.” The massive increase in class and national conflicts at a variety of socio-economic points has not been negligibly influenced by the Latin American variant of capitalism. Critics blame the current process of globalization for the region’s limited possibilities for change or the efflorescence of home-grown efforts at improving the responsiveness their economic structure.

The Relationship between Neoliberal Reforms and Poverty

Since the 1980s, Latin American economies have focussed on strengthening the financial stability of markets by means of a specific code of policies that came to be known as the “Washington Consensus”, which is mostly the U.S. government’s version of neoliberalism. Economic neoliberalism promotes privatization of public industries, decreasing governmental social spending and the deregulation of the financial sectors. Such measures have had little positive significance for underprivileged citizens. Market-opening reforms had surfeited Latin American countries with cheap imports, forcing area farmers to compete in local markets against reduced-priced of overseas goods. Neglecting the importance of improving domestic markets and factoring in the traditionally close economic links with the U.S. has made the region more vulnerable to exogenous factors, demonstrated by the effects of turbulences in the global economy.

Worldwide, economists would agree that generally speaking, neoliberal reforms could be a powerful engine for development. But they would also agree to the fact that whatever its positive impact on improving the situation of the poor is more dependent on political interests and sharp-shooter instincts for a particular cause, rarely resulting social justice. Politics which give market efficiency precedence over the redistribution of social benefits do not redress the situation of wealth inequalities; rather, they contribute to increasing rural and urban poverty. According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), “The voices of the poor and their organizations are still waiting to be heard with the regard to the design and implementation of economic policies” in favor of the marginalized.

Free Trade Agreements and Dependency on Washington

Free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were implemented in the last decade in order to “facilitate trade among separate sovereign societies.” Latin America’s increasing economic openness and trade liberalization, followed upon by trade agreements, were implemented alongside a weak institutional development strategy. Today, Latin America has to face the consequences, such as a dependence on the U.S. economy and the region’s unfair disadvantages within a number of trade agreements. Obviously, open markets and foreign investments do contain a huge potential for improvement in Latin America’s economy, but the region’s actual history tells another story. An article in an issue of the International Herald Tribune, noted that “unregulated open markets, rapid import liberalisation and the absence of essential government regulation and public services is bad for growth, bad for stability and disastrous for poverty reduction.” The barriers of today’s labor markets and the competitiveness of imported goods cause high rates of unemployment, driving millions of people into the already overcrowded and only marginally rewarded members of the informal sector.

Political Change

One of the new characteristics of Latin American politics is the increasing collaboration among the countries of the region, in order to break the dependence on the North and its liegemen among the international lending community. In 2004, Chávez introduced The Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America (ALBA), a regional trade plan in order “to counter the Bush-favored free trade areas of the Americas, which aims to benefit the poor and the environment.” Latin American scholars have showed that in past elections the electorate has strongly rejected political programs which act in accordance with the Washington-favored neoliberal policies. They voted for leaders who were seriously willing to invest in human and social capital and in pro-poor economic policies, which respect society as opposed to having a dismissive attitude toward it. This new course, could lead to an improved habitat and to the end of adverse macroeconomic policies. Ironically, neoliberals and their critics all agree with IMF deputy-managing director Murilo Portugal, who in a recent speech, observed that “it is in the sunny days that we should fix the roof of the house.”

From Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Cut Transgender People Out of ENDA? No Way!

Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:37:00 +0000

9-28-07. 9:19 am

Just as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act neared action in Congress, disturbing reports have surfaced that House Democratic leaders are planning to remove the bill’s protections for transgender workers in committee next week. That’s completely unacceptable!

In the labor movement, we’re proud of our history of solidarity across lines of race, religion, ethnicity, gender and sexuality. We’ve learned to resist the divisive and dishonest tactics of enemies who would try to divide us along these lines. We cannot and will not leave the least numerous and most vulnerable among us to fend for themselves. We stand together, one for all and all for one!

The passage of the federal hate crimes bill, with full protections for LGBT Americans, by both House and Senate this year shows that politically, it is entirely possible to pass federal legislation that protects transgender people as well as gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. The House hate crimes bill passed by more than 50 votes this spring, and the Senate voted today to invoke cloture, cutting off debate and bringing its hate crimes bill to a voice vote, by 60 to 39.

Please take a moment to call these members of Congress and let them know you want transgender workers protected in ENDA –

Representative Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, 202-225-4965

Representative Barney Frank, chief House sponsor of ENDA, 202-225-5931

Representative George Miller, Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee, 202-225-2095.

If you can take the time to send an e-mail to your Representative, please do that too. But remember, every hour counts and personal phone calls are the most effective way of letting the Congressional leadership know your views.

Remember – An Injury to One Is an Injury to All!

Click here to send your message today!

From Pride At Work, AFL-CIO

An Interview with Thein Win, M.D., Chairperson, Free Burma Campaign, South Africa

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:44:00 +0000

9-27-07, 4:00 pm, PDT

Interview with Thein Win, M.D., Chairperson, Free Burma Campaign, South Africa. For additional information see this resolution on democracy in Burma adopted by the South African Communist Party. the interview was conducted by Joe Sims.

PA: Can you tell our readers about your organization and its objectives?

TW: Our organization, the Free Burma Campaign, South Africa, is made up of exile Burmese activists in South Africa, along with native South African civil rights and former anti-apartheid activists. One of our patrons is Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is deeply committed to our cause and strongly supports the struggle for freedom, justice and democracy in Burma.

Our main objectives are 1) to raise general awareness at the grassroots level in South Africa about the situation in Burma, especially the serious human rights violations committed by the illegitimate military regime, and 2) to gain the active support of South African civil rights and religious organizations, intellectuals and academics, the political parties, and the South African government. We are urging the government of South Africa to support our cause and to engage in concerted action with the UN and the international community to help achieve our goals.

PA: Given your country's oppressive political conditions, what are your immediate objectives?

TW: Unfortunately, the current situation in Burma s quite dire. Let me explain how that situation affects our immediate objectives.

The National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, won a democratic elections in 1990 with 81% of the parliamentary seats. Despite this massive vote for democratic change, the military regime continues with its so-called “seven-step road map to democracy,” without the representation or cooperation of the Burmese people, and ignoring all international appeals, including those of the UN. The military regime’s National Convention, now 14 years old, is attended only by hand-picked pro-government people. In its road map, the government stipulates that in any future parliament 25% of the seats must be elected from the military and that the head of state MUST have military experience. Such a “democratic parliament” exists nowhere on earth!

The situation in Burma is now approaching a boiling point. We absolutely cannot accept such a regime-orchestrated constitution. It will definitely be opposed by the people of Burma. The regime will not hesitate to use 'force,' but we do not want to see bloodshed again, as happened during the 1988 pro-democracy movement. The only way to avoid this undesirable violence is for the UN-led international community to intervene effectively and to halt the implementation of the regime's fraudulent road map.

Obviously the Free Burma Campaign’s immediate objective is to make the voice of the Burmese people heard in South Africa, and internationally as well, including the United Nations. I am hoping that the UN will not again have to say 'we’re sorry,' as it did after the genocidal massacre in Rwanda where up to 800,000 people died. The UN must act as soon as the early warning signs appear and not wait until the boiling point occurs, and then say “sorry” once again. The South African government needs to reconsider their decision to vote in the UN Security Council to block discussion of human rights abuses in Burma. South Africa should by now be well aware of the Burmese regime’s obstinacy and it willingness to ignore international appeals. PA: Could you tell us a little more about your country and its people?

TW: Burma, with a population of over 50 million, was under British colonial rule for more than 100 years and finally gained independence in 1948. We enjoyed democracy for 14 years and become one of the most economically promising countries in Asia. But the army coup in 1962 turned Burma into a least developed country (LDC), because of the gross mismanagement of the totalitarian regime led by General Ne Win.

The people of Burma believe in non-violence. We are a friendly and humble people, who try to live good lives even though we are poor and suffer under military oppression. The Burmese people rarely complain and are not of a demanding nature. However, in 1988 the people just could not take any more. 'Enough is enough,' we said to the military government and came out on the streets of Burma in a spontaneous, country-wide, pro-democracy movement – but without proper leadership.

The country has many ethnic groups, including the Burman. Although the majority of the military regime are Burman, the major problems are really between the regime and all the countries ethnic groups, because the regime has denied the basic rights of all ethnic nationalities, including the Burman. However, the worst oppression is suffered by ethnic groups who live in the country’s frontier areas. The people of Burma are not greedy and not are not demanding anything exorbitant. They are simply asking for their basic human rights, for justice and the rule of law, all of which are denied them by the illegitimate military regime. In fact, these are innate human rights, and the Burmese people should not have to ask the military regime for them.

PA: What is the role of trade unions and other mass organizations in Burma?

TW: To answer your question very simply, there has not been a single, independent trade union or mass organization in Burma since the military coup in 1962. Of course, free and independent organizations did manage to survive for a few weeks in 1988 during the pro-democracy movement, but only until the current regime assumed absolute state power.

There are now so-called mass organizations like the Union Solidarity Development Association (USDA). This was formed by the regime in 1992 under the patronage of the Chairman of the SPDC (State Peace and Development Council), Senior-General Than Shwe. It receives the government’s full support, both financial and technical, and of course its leadership is also provided by the regime. The Central Executive Committee of the USDA is composed of generals and veteran military officers. From the CEC directives flow down to the townships and then to the village level. The regime uses the USDA to crack down on democracy activists, the National League for Democracy, and all its supporters.

PA: Could you say a few words about the status of women?

TW: I would say, to put it bluntly, that today in Burma women are under attack. The regime practices systematic violations of human rights, especially against women, using rape and other forms of sexual violence. On some occasions, women have been deliberately raped in front of their relatives because the government wants to show the people how they will suffer if they do not obey the army command. The regime always denies such accusations, calling them 'groundless and misleading.” However, I refer you to the report, 'License to Rape' which was submitted to UN by the Shan Women’s Organization. It contains 173 incidents of rape and other forms of sexual violence, involving 625 girls and women, committed by Burmese army troops in the Shan state alone. (see: )

However, the regime wants to hide this reality. The ruling SPDC has been regularly participating in women's forums sponsored by the UN since the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, to which the SPDC sent a delegation - led by a male military officer. In 1996, it established the Myanmar National Committee for Women's Affairs (MNCWA), whose military patrons are all men. Working committees to recruit members by force have been formed at all levels: state, district, township and village. Almost all of these committees are led by wives of SPDC personnel. Of course, the SPDC itself is 'a no-woman’s land.' In 1997, the SPDC even signed the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and submitted their first report to the CEDAW in 2000. The Burmese delegation to the committee was led by a man! In order to present a pro-women facade to the international community, the regime has also formed many “women's organizations” such as the Myanmar Maternal and Child Welfare Association (MMCWA), the Myanmar Women’s Sports Federation (MWSF), and the Myanmar Women’s Entrepreneur Association (MWEA). PA: How are your struggles supported where you are, and what can others do?

TW: The Free Burma Campaign, South Africa is financially self-supporting, but it receives sympathetic support from local South African and Burmese people. We are proud to say that our campaign has the firm solidarity and support of COSATU (the Congress of South African Trade Unions) with its almost 2 millions members, as well as the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the Young Communist League (YCL), who are partners, together with the African National Congress government, in the Tripartite Alliance. Many civic and student organizations (such as SASCO), the Anti-privatization Forum (APF), and others support our work.

Although the ANC Government unfortunately voted against the Burma resolution recently before the UN Security Council, because of what they now describe as a “technical matter,” they have also publicly declared the government’s extreme concern about human rights violations in Burma. I sincerely hope that the ANC government will strongly support the cause of Burmese democracy in the future.

In regard to winning support for the Free Burma Campaign internationally, it should be noted that we have thus far gained more support from the “North” than the “South.” In my view, the underdeveloped South has been somewhat reluctant to support our struggle because of the nature of the international balance of power, and because of the strategic political games that are played between the North and the South. However, we appeal to the entire international community, both North and South, to support the struggle of the Burmese people for freedom. All human beings should support us, because basically what we are confronting here is a major human rights issue. It is definitely not just an 'ism' issue. The bottom line is that our people, the citizens of our country, have been suffering under the heel of military oppression for a very long time. Their pain has gone on long enough. The more the world's politicians focus on the political equation, if they concentrate on the political “game,” the more the people of Burma will suffer. The regime is well aware of this international political game and uses it to stay in power.

I am very glad that the leadership of the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions have such a clear vision in this regard. We appeal to the entire international community, and especially to our comrades on the left who, in balancing the political equation, it is crucial to unite against the Burmese military junta and support our struggle for freedom – for the sake of the people of Burma. For a non-violent people to be crushed under the boot of the military for nearly five decades is far too long. We yearn for the support of the entire international community, so that the truth of our cause can prevail at last.

| | |

October 27th image

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:21:00 +0000

Southern Africa says 'No' to US Military Bases in Region

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 02:10:00 +0000

9-27-07, 9:52 am

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has taken a stand against US plans to establish a permanent military presence in the region, after having been already snubbed by North and West Africa.

The SADC is an inter-governmental organisation which furthers socio-economic cooperation and integration as well as political and security cooperation among 15 southern African countries and includes South Africa, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola.

American foreign policy has attracted the retaliatory attacks the Americans call 'terrorism' following its efforts to effect illegal regime change in over 50 countries in addition to invading 35 others in 56 years.

It is for this reason the SADC countries have decided to block US attempts to establish a base for the American African Force, (Africom) to be permanently resident in Africa.

The American African Force is a new unified combatant command of the US Department of Defense to be operational by September 2008. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld formed a planning team in 2006.

The South African Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota said 'There is a certain sense in the countries of our region (SADC) that if there was to be an influx of armed forces into one or the other of our countries, that might affect the relations between the sister countries, and not encourage an atmosphere of security.

'At the interstate defence and security committee meeting held in Dar es Salaam [in Tanzania], SADC defence and security ministers took a position and recommended that sister countries of the region should not agree to host Africom [and] in particular, to host US armed forces.'

It is reported that when US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice hosted Mozambican President Amando Guebuza in mid-July, she dangled the carrot of humanitarian aid to try to entice Mozambique to accede to militarisation of the region. Washington released US$500 million, as humanitarian aid to entice Mozambique.

Mozambique is strategic in that it has a vast coastal area, an ideal play ground for US marines and warships, and has huge untapped natural resources, which can be used to the advantage of the Americans.

But the SADC countries decided that an American military base would not bring any good tidings as it could either lead to accelerated exploitation of natural resources or destabilisation of the region. It remains to be seen whether Mozambique will fall for Bush’s tricks.

--Isdore Guvamombe writes for The Herald (Zimbabwe)

From The Guardian

| | |

Twisted Justice in Miami

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 02:04:00 +0000

9-27-07, 9:45 am

Similar to the kidnapping of the Cuban boy, Elián González, seven years ago, a five year-old Cuban girl is today the center of an international dispute over her custody in the only place in the world where something like this could happen: the U.S. city of Miami, in south Florida.

Like the Elian case that won world notoriety, the plaintiff is the father of the child and the arguments of the kidnappers are mostly based on the irrational policy of the United States against Cuba.

In this case, the alleged kidnapper is a wealthy entrepreneur involved in human trafficking called Joe Cubas who, under the façade of a sports agent, has made a fortune in the illegal dealing of Cuban athletes using intelligence logistics and US subversion against the island and the support of Cuban-American extremist groups which have transmuted hatred of the Cuban socialist project into a money-making business which includes political wheeling and dealing directly involving top-ranking government officials of the state of Florida in the United States.

Bob Butterworth, secretary of the Department of Children and Families in the State of Florida (DCF in its English acronym) whose lawyers are battling to prevent the Cuban father from obtaining custody of his daughter, told the Miami press that this 'unusual' case is the costliest he has ever seen.

The little girl is daughter of the Cuban campesino from Cabaiguán in the central region of the island and Elena Pérez a 35-year-old woman who left Cuba legally and arrived in the United States in December 2005 with the daughter in question and her son. Shortly after her arrival in the Miami, her new husband, Jesús Melendres, abandoned them.

According to reports in the Miami press, Elena, evidently disturbed because of the economic situation she faced for several months, tried to commit suicide. This was the reason her children were taken from her. The DCF took her children from her in March of 2006 and placed them in the care of Joe Cubas.

When Rafael Izquierdo found out, he decided to assume his duty and his right as a father, and was able to travel to the United States to bring his daughter back.

The mother has been categorical in declaring that if she cannot have her daughter she wants her to return to Cuba with her father 'who loves her and wants to be with her'. Anything would be better – the mother said - than leaving her in the United States in the care of Joe Cubas who has kept the little girl for over a year and formally adopted her brother.

According to the local press, the 13-year-old adolescent told his mother that he wants to stay with Joe Cubas amidst the luxury in which he is kept.

Elena has declared that she regrets having left her small town of Cabaiguán where her children were happy. 'I know this country seems marvelous to many people but I am disappointed in it', Elena Pérez expressed and described her attempted suicide in a moment of weakness amidst a situation of desperation and destitution.

'One horrible night I decided that my children would be better off without me and so I did something stupid,' she declared. I am not crazy. I have been depressed and stressed-out and spent many sleepless nights but I am ok'.

The U.S. judge, Jeri B. Cohen, risks her career attempting to act impartially in the Miami environment, in a legal process which is becoming ever more political. She acknowledged that the case would have another outcome in which 'the United States government refuses to repatriate the child to a communist country where her father lives.' She also revealed that 'employees of the state of Florida' – the name given to the legal representation of a state government in trial – want the child to remain in the United States in the custody of a Cuban American family. 'They would have acted differently if the child's father lived anywhere but Cuba.'

'In over 10 years of presiding over cases of child welfare I had never seen lawyers of the Department of Children and Family of the State of Florida act against a father to raise his child unless he had repeatedly failed to comply with a court-ordered stipulations, the judge declared.

Considering the tense relations between the United States and Cuba, I believe that 'the father may never see his daughter again if he returns to the island without her'.

It is easy to understand, however, that the judge is working under great pressure and that the trial is not taking place in a fair climate of objectivity and impartiality.

A clear example of the incompatibility of the Miami environment in a reasonable legal process was the sentencing in 2001, amidst the hostile atmosphere of southern Florida, to severe prison terms for five Cubans who penetrated counterrevolutionary groups to monitor and denounce terrorist plans against their homeland constantly under attack through the passive complicity of US authorities.

On August 2005, the Federal Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court in Atlanta reversed those sentences decreed against the five anti-terrorist activists who have been in jail since 1998 under vile conditions and dispersed in different prisons of several states of the U.S. union.

In the Atlanta Appeals Court, three judges unanimously made this ruling after observing the fraudulent process which had occurred in Miami, although, at the time, the defense gave solid arguments that the venue was unacceptable but the acting judge inexplicably rejected these.

The verdict of the Appeals Court noted that the hostility and prejudice in the Miami environment, both in the public as the local press made it impossible to hold an impartial trial in that city 'dominated by such marked prejudice against the Cuban government that a legal process was impossible against men who openly identified with the government of their country and with the objective necessity of defending the Cuban people from terrorism.'

With such a categorical statement by the Appeals Court, it was logical that the Prosecution disallow the charges and immediately release the five Cubans. But the opposite occurred. On the insistence of the federal government the decision was reversed and the promoters of this legal aberration that was the trial in Miami against 'The Five' were stimulated to commit more outrages.

In this legal setting, a Cuban father fights to recover his young daughter in Miami .

From The Cuban Nation

--Manuel E. Yepe Menéndez, journalist and professor at Havana's Higher Institute of International Relations.

Jena Six and the Struggle for Equal Justice Under the Law

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:56:00 +0000

9-27-07, 9:36 am

Editor's Note: Tim Wheeler is a national correspondent for the People's Weekly World.

PA: I understand you were at the Jena March. What were some of the memorable sights and sounds?

TW: It was one of the most awesome demonstrations I’ve ever been to, and I’ve been to many. Partly because it was so huge and in such a small town. I would estimate there were around 50,000 people there. A friend and I drove up from New Orleans, and when we arrived at 9:30 in the morning every street and every road leading into Jena was packed with motor coaches bumper-to-bumper, parked along both sides of the road. Every parking lot was filled with cars, buses, and vans. People had poured into the town from every point of the compass, from all across the country, especially from throughout the South, but also from the Midwest and the Northeast. The NAACP was one of the main mobilizers, and there were easily 250 or 300 buses that had been organized by the NAACP. It was such a huge outpouring, and I would guess it was 90% African American, probably more. The town was very, very quiet. All the businesses were closed. But this crowd was so disciplined, so peaceful and nonviolent, and obviously very conscious of the need to avoid any kind of provocation. They were very determined to heal divisions rather than aggravate them. I was very impressed by the way it was organized, by the unity, the spirit, and the determination to free these 6 young African Americans, who are facing very long prison terms for having been involved in a fist-fight. From all indications, they were highly aggravated by having the “N” word used against them, and they were, in the first place, taking a stand against the hanging of three nooses from a tree on the lawn in front of their high school.

PA: What are the specific demands put forward by the marchers?

TW: There are a number of demands. I think the clearest demand is “Free the Jena 6,” to drop all charges against these six young men and to restore or begin to establish equal justice under law. At the march there were many signs saying, “Enough is enough!” Very clearly the African American people in this country have reached a boiling point concerning the glaring inequality in the criminal justice system. There is a double standard. African American youth, especially the young men, are treated one way and whites are treated another way. Many people that I interviewed spoke about the things that that the white youths did that led to the this justified response. One white youth, for example, came to school with a loaded gun. They confiscated the gun and gave him a slap on the wrist, and then they hushed it up. But here we have six African American youth who were reacting to nooses hanging from a tree, a deadly threat to the safety of African Americans, a frightening reminder of lynch law in the South. But when they took a stand against it, they were pilloried. What occurred was such as a clear travesty, and people are just not going to take it anymore.

PA: Did you get a sense of the presence of organized labor at the march?

TW: The American Postal Workers Union was there. I saw them marching as a contingent. But also, many of the people I interviewed turned out to be workers. For example, Linda Smith, a young white woman I interviewed works as an electrician at the Ingalls Shipyard in Mississippi. I interviewed another young man from Columbia, SC, and when I asked him what he did for a living, he said, “I’m a steelworker.” He said he’d been fired from the Owen Steel Mill in Columbia, South Carolina for having spoken out against the sweatshop-like conditions in the mill. He’s now working for another steel company. I spoke with the president of the NAACP in Lafourche Parish Louisiana. He had come with a busload from Thibodaux, Louisiana. When I asked him what he did for a living, he said, “I’m a carpenter; I’m working to rebuild houses in the lower 9th Ward in New Orleans. So it was very clear that a very high percentage of the people there were workers and undoubtedly a number of them union workers, but also, of course, in the South, where unions are under attack, many of the workers in the march were not in unions, but they were definitely sympathetic to unions.

PA: Earlier this year, we saw a huge right-wing media campaign against a district attorney in North Carolina who prosecuted three white college students who were involved in an incident – the Duke lacrosse case. They wanted this guy’s head because he was an over-zealous prosecutor. What kind of response are we seeing in the media to the Jena 6 case?

TW: It’s interesting you ask that. I was talking with some people at the march who had come in from North Carolina, and one of them brought the Duke lacrosse case up as another example of the double standard – that they went after a prosecutor who was prosecuting some white fraternity boys who were involved in a very suspicious incident. This fellow said that he didn’t know if the young woman was raped or not, but he did say, just looking at the situation the way it was – that here were some white fraternity boys hiring a stripper – that in itself was suspect. But in Jena there we have a case where the prosecution is going wild over six young men who took a stand against racism in their school, and those young men are being pilloried. And the media was very quiet about it – there was hardly anything on that score.

Although I must say I was very impressed with media outpouring at the march in Jena. Right across from the Lasalle Parish courthouse an entire parking lot was packed with satellite trucks to beam this story out around the country and around the world. So I’m glad they were there and glad and that people were focusing on this event, because I think it has become so brazen and so blatant, the injustice that exists, and that it really has now become a burning issue. I think it is so outrageous that even though a Louisiana appeals court has overturned Michal Bell’s conviction, he is still in jail. People were fuming over that. How can that be? Here an appeals court has overturned the conviction, and the judge says he’s still going to stay in jail. What kind of justice is that? That is just completely outrageous. People were also saying at the march that the only reason this case is on people’s minds is because of the media focus in it. But there are 10,000 other cases of young African American men being railroaded to [jail], many of them later found innocent on the basis of DNA evidence, etc. and we know nothing about it, because it just doesn’t make it into the media. I really think the case of the Jena Six is like a shot heard around the world. I also think we have not seen the end of this case. The challenge is for progressives to build racial unity and to bring out white people to join in the protests. I interviewed several young white women at the march. I think it was noteworthy that among the white people who did come out, all the ones that I interviewed were young white women, who just saw the simple injustice of this case and said that they had to do something about it, and it was also noteworthy that all of them were from the South.

PA: A lot of Southern people are getting nervous about the focus on the South again, and they are pointing out, I think correctly, that this isn’t just a Southern problem. Do you have a comment on that?

TW: Oh definitely. First of all, the last cases in which the attention of the nation and the world was focused on racist injustice in this country in such a dramatic way were Amadou Diallo and Abner Louima in New York City. They were the victims of terrible, genocidal violence, one shot down in a hail of 41 bullets, and the other sodomized in a police station by police officers. So this is not just the South. This is a nationwide problem, and we have to take action to stop it. It is absolutely crucial to turning this country around and turning it in a progressive direction – to fight back and defeat this creeping racist offensive we are seeing against Black youth. Of course, there is also the anti-immigrant movement, all the immigrant bashing, which is another form of this attempt to split and divide us. There were many people I interviewed there in Jena who were calling for unity against racism, and they really need white people to join in this fightback. I think it is our duty to respond to that call.

Iraq: Compensation for Damaged Property Inadequate, Say Diyala residents

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:50:00 +0000

9-27-07, 9:32 am

BAQUBAH, 26 September 2007 (IRIN) - Residents of Diyala Province, northeast of Baghdad and adjacent to the Iranian border, say the payments they will get from the Iraqi government are insufficient compensation for the damage caused to their property by US and Iraqi forces in recent military operations.

The ethnically mixed province, a major insurgent stronghold, saw heavy fighting in the past few weeks in which warplanes, helicopter gunships and artillery were used against Al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq. Residents say the fighting left over 5,000 families displaced and in poverty, and damaged hundreds of houses, shops, government buildings and schools. Almost all towns and villages in the province have been affected by the military operations, they say.

“The damage is extensive and many buildings have been totally destroyed. The amount to be paid by the government is less than half the value of the properties before they were damaged,” said Maruan Ziad, an economics professor at Baghdad University and a senior official at the Ministry of Construction and Housing.

Ziad said some villages had been almost completely destroyed and would have to be rebuilt from scratch.

“Many families are still displaced and others are fleeing Baqubah [the provincial capital] as sectarian violence worsens. Some partially destroyed houses have been occupied by other families, and residents are encountering difficulties returning to their homes,” Ziad added.

The Iraqi authorities have allocated US$50 million for compensation. Imad Jalil, Diyala’s deputy governor, has said 10 million Iraqi dinars (about US$7,000) would be the maximum that would be paid to each household for the damage caused. Residents and specialists have said the money is not sufficient for families to rebuild their properties, and should be doubled.

“Inadequate and unfair”

“The Iraqi government is trying to compensate families but isn’t being fair in discharging its duties and we know there is corruption in the compensation scheme,” Ziad said.

This view is echoed by Fahed Abdel-Sattar, a 34-year-old resident of Baqubah, who is now displaced, along with his family, after their home and shop were destroyed: “The government wants to compensate us by paying us less than 50 percent of the value of our property that was damaged in the conflict.”

“My shop doesn’t exist any more and my house is nearly 70 percent damaged and the government has offered me less than $7,000. Before it was damaged my house was valued at $15,000,” Abdel-Sattar said. “They want to show the world that they are helping but the help is inadequate and unfair.”

From

| | |

Capital Versus Labor: The Pullman Strike Showdown

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:44:00 +0000

9-27-07, 9:27 am

“It has been my life’s desire to unify railroad employees and to eliminate the aristocracy of labor.” -- Eugene Debs after the creation of the American Railway Union.

On July 6th, 1894, federal troops marched into the Panhandle railroad yards in Chicago. The soldiers had been ordered to the yards by President Grover Cleveland with orders to evict the hundreds of striking railroad workers interfering with the yard. The ragged strikers, into their second week off the job, didn’t take kindly to the presence of hostile federal troops. With a grim determination they fought attempts to move them and this peaceful strike quickly turned into a brawl. By the time the clashes with federal troops had ceased, damage to the yard and nearly 700 railcars was estimated to be $340,000 (nearly $8 million today). So ended one of the most violent days in one of the defining labor struggles of the late 19th century, the Pullman strike.

For all of the 19th century, living conditions for most working-class families were absolutely deplorable. Most lived in crumbling tenement buildings grouped together in large urban ghettos. These neighborhoods had poor sanitation, few social services and high crime rates making the quality of life for their working class residents very poor. Workers labored 10 or 12-hour days just to support their families and, unable to afford anything else, were forced to live in these tenement slums. Living conditions in working-class Pullman, Illinois, were a far cry from conditions found in the tenement ghettos. The 12,000 Pullman residents lived in clean town homes with indoor plumbing, gas and sewer systems. The children went to school free of charge, and the town had its own library. Pullman was attractive with modern architecture, multiple parks and extensive landscaping. Besides a library, the town had a church, shops and various entertainment options. To outside observers the town was a model community vastly better than the dense tenement slums.

The town was the brainchild of welfare capitalist George Pullman, owner of the Pullman Palace Car Company, a railcar manufacturer. Pullman had designs drawn up and had the town built in the 1880’s. He intended to provide housing for the entire workforce of his nearby Pullman factory. The town was seen as highly progressive and was widely admired.

The situation in Pullman differed radically from this perception. The whole town, including housing, stores and even the church was company owned. Alcohol was banned, and despite cheaper rents nearby, Pullman workers were required to live in town. A portion of employees paychecks were in vouchers only redeemable at overpriced company stores. Pullman had a similar monopoly on utilities. A message from the Pullman residents complained that, “Water which Pullman buys from the city [Chicago] at eight cents a thousand gallons he retails to us at 500 percent advance…. Gas which sells at seventy five cents per thousand feet in Hyde Park, just north of us, he sells for $2.25. When we went to tell him our grievances he said we were all his children.” One worker described the situation in Pullman; “We are born in a Pullman house, fed from the Pullman shop, taught in the Pullman school, catechized in the Pullman church, and when we die we shall be buried in the Pullman cemetery and go to the Pullman Hell.”

In early 1894, the Pullman company laid off a large percentage of its workforce and cut the salaries of the remaining workers four different time. Each reduction slashed wages 30–70 percent. There was no corresponding reduction in rent or company store prices. Records show that workers living in Pullman at the time were over $70,000 behind in rent ($1.6 million today).

Several delegations of workers approached George Pullman himself to discuss the crisis, but Pullman ignored the delegations. On June 11th wages were again cut 30 percent, the fifth major pay cut that year. In response, the 6,000 remaining Pullman plant employees struck in protest. The strikers quickly sent word to their union, the newly formed American Railroad Union (ARU), and appealed for its support.

A year earlier, in June of 1883, the ARU had been formed during a meeting of Chicago railroad workers. Eugene V. Debs, a former railroad fireman and co-founder of the Industrial Workers of the World union, was elected leader of the infant union. Under Debs’ leadership, union membership blossomed; by the time of the Pullman strike, hundreds of ARU locales were in 27 states with overall total of 140,000 members.

The ARU was the first industrial union in the United States, meaning anyone within a particular industry regardless of skill level was eligible for membership. Membership was open to whites only. Despite extensive lobbying by Debs to integrate the union, segregation was approved by a slim majority at the founding meeting. This decision would come to haunt the ARU and lead to be its unraveling.

Soon after receiving news of the Pullman strike, the union leadership quickly voted to support the strikers. A boycott of any trains containing Pullman cars was approved, and the strike started as planned on June 26th.

Immediately workers walked off the job in several large Chicago rail yards. Several other sympathy strikes began around the country, slowing train traffic. Soon, the ARU issued a statement demanding that George Pullman agree to arbitration with the Pullman residents. The ARU promised that once this condition was met, everyone would immediately go back to work.

Pullman quickly responded to the ARU claiming he had been forced to cut wages and that he didn’t know of anything needing arbitration. Hearing his response, the ARU chose to escalate the action. By June 30th, 125,000 ARU members had struck, effecting 29 different railroads. Due to the popularity of Pullman cars, strikers refused disrupted the vast majority of trains. Chicago, a key rail hub, was completely shut down by the strikers and rail yards in many other cities were affected to some degree. Train traffic to the west coast ceased and east coast traffic slowed to a crawl.

In response to the railway shutdown, Pullman ordered his cars to be added to federal mail trains the obstruction of which was a federal offense. He also contacted Attorney General Richard Onley, a railroad owner himself, in the hopes of further involving the federal government. The Attorney General agreed using the vandalism of a Chicago rail yard by strikers as an excuse. Onley issued injunctions against the ARU leadership. The injunctions cited the strike leaders in “compelling or inducing by threats, intimidation, persuasion, force or violence, railway employees to refuse or fail to perform their duties.”

Pullman also appealed to President Grover Cleveland for federal intervention, claiming the strikers were obstructing federal mail trains and that the injunctions were being ignored by the ARU leadership. On July 3rd, a day after the injunctions were issued, Cleveland ordered federal troops to Chicago. This move was met by fierce protests from the mayor of Chicago, John Hopkins, and pro-labor Illinois governor John Altgeld who opposed the forceful breakup of the strike. Altgeld’s support of the Pullman strikers would later cost him his career.

The injunctions inhibited communication between the ARU leadership and the strikers, and as communications broke down the ARU leadership began to lose control of the nationwide strike. With federal pressure mounting, order at the strike spots began to unravel. The strikes had been peaceful up to this point but the appearance of hostile federal troops outraged the strikers further. Peaceful demonstrations escalated into riots as federal soldiers attempted to disperse the crowds of strikers forcefully at the rail yards. The violence reached it peak on July 6th and riots broke out at the Chicago Panhandle yards when federal troops appeared to disperse the crowd. The ensuing melee caused massive property damage. The next day was also exceedingly violent. Following suspected arson at the Columbian exposition in Chicago, soldiers fired into a demonstrating group of strikers nearby killing between four and 30 people.

Soon after violence broke out in Chicago, Debs and other ARU leaders were arrested and charged with contempt of court. A second appeal was made to Pullman for arbitration, but this was refused. Pullman and the railroads brought in black strikebreakers to move the trains and work in the Pullman factory. Federal soldiers protected the African American workers, who felt no loyalty to the ARU. Bending under immense pressure, the strikes began to dissolve; the strikers began returning to work. On August 2nd, the Pullman factory reopened. The next day, the ARU officially declared the strike over.

Soon after the ARU capitulation, Pullman forced his employees to sign pledges stating they would never re-unionize. He also fired large numbers of union leaders and strike organizers. Debs and seven other ARU leaders were convicted of mail obstruction and contempt of court. They all were sent to jail, and in their absence the ARU quickly dissolved.

Much of the mainstream press was unsympathetic to the strike and boycott, some going so far as calling it “the insurrection.” A June 31st Chicago Tribune headline read, “Debs strikers Begin Work of Destruction, Guns Awe Them Not, Drunken Stockyard Rioters Defy Uncle Sam’s Troops, Mobs Invite Death.” A July 8th New York Times article described Debs as “A law Breaker and an Enemy to the Human Race.” Political opinions were also hostile. When Minnesota Senator Davis was asked whether he would support a pro-union bill in Congress affirming the boycott’s legality, his caustic response was recorded by the Brooklyn Eagle: “[voting for the bill] would be a blow at the security, peace, and rights of millions of people who have never harmed the railroad employees or their associates.”

While vocal public support of the Pullman strike was rare, Chicago Mayor John Hopkins and Illinois Governor John Altgeld supported the strikers and vehemently opposed federal involvement. Samuel Gompers, leader of the American Federation of Labor, voiced support for the strikers but concrete action from his union never materialized. James H. Kyle, a Populist Senator from South Dakota and Chairman of the Committee of Education and Labor, introduced a controversial bill affirming the strikers’ right to boycott Pullman cars. The strikers also received considerable support from other unions and pro-labor organizations, especially in Chicago. Editorials in a few mainstream papers were also sympathetic. This editorial from the Brooklyn Eagle is a good example: Mr. Pullman cries poverty to his starving employees and then retreats to his princely summer mansion on Pullman Island, in the St. Lawrence river…. If the present strike is lost to labor it will retard the progress of civilization and reduce the possibilities of labor ever emancipate itself from the thralldom of greed.

The Pullman strike was a watershed event in the history of the labor movement. It showed the power unions held if organized and run effectively and also demonstrated how extensively business interests had infiltrated the press and federal government. The Pullman strike set the stage for the passage of protective labor laws and for successful strike action in the future. Without the Pullman strike, legislation we take for granted like the eight-hour workday, minimum wage and workplace safety standards might not exist.

Debs used six-month jail sentence to read the works of Karl Marx. Combined with his Pullman experience, Marx radicalized his politics. After leaving jail, he became an outspoken social activist, pacifist and socialist politician for the rest of his life. He eventually founded the American Socialist Party and ran for president five times on a socialist ticket. He died on October 20th, 1926 in Elmhurst, Illinois.

| | |

Fear of Freedom: On the Left and the Right

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:38:00 +0000

9-27-07, 9:21 am

Generally, an historical phenomenon is naturalized thanks to an absence of memory (hence the political value of neutrality and forgetting). Obviously not always for political reasons: it was once assumed that a nerve originating from the heart ended in one of the fingers of the left hand, which is why the wedding ring is worn there today. A man takes his bride to the altar with the left arm because centuries ago other grooms had to keep the right arm free in order to grasp the sword aimed at skewering the enemy. Carriages drove down the left side of the road: the driver's right hand took up the weapon needed to defend himself against other drivers. For political reasons, revolutionary France and North America chose to drive on the other side and Napoleon confirmed it, not because he was revolutionary but because he was left-handed. Greeting with the right-handed handshake or handwave was able to signify the same thing: it was a friendly way of verifying that one was not armed.

Despite the fact that the right hand signified violence, symbolically it was associated with all of the virtues. The knight who alone or with other nobles crossed the countryside of Europe and the Middle East valued his right hand for many reasons, among which was its identification with defense. In a violent world, the right served for self-defense, and therefore possessed a value superior to the left hand and to reason. There was no argument about the fact that the right served to defend against other right hands in a culture of violence. In the same way, armies are justified even today for the defense of the homeland and of honor and not for assaults on other homelands and other honors. Right, righteous, rights, right-wing, right-hand man , have come to be synonyous with virtue while the left is identified with the sinister (from the Latin sinister, meaning 'on the left' or 'unlucky'). Culture nourished the superstition that a left-handed man was a partner of Evil and school children's left hand was tied down and they were forced to write with their right hand.

At the same time, as Saussure would observe, there is no reason for a sign to have any necessary relationship with its signified. The fact that the Jacobins and Girondins would sit on one side or the other of the National Assembly of revolutionary France was merely circumstantial.

What is not accidental is the creation of semantic fields (the establishment of ideolexicons) in the struggle for social power.

Twenty or thirty years ago in the Southern Cone declaring oneself a leftist was enough to send you to prison or lose your life in a torture session. Nearly the majority of citizens and almost all the media took pains – in different ways – to identify themselves with the right. Being on the right was not only politically correct but, also, a requirement for survival.

The valorization of this ideolexicon has changed dramatically. This is demonstrated by a recent trial taking place in Uruguay. Búsqueda, a well-known weekly magazine, has taken to court a senator of the republic, José Korzeniak, because he characterized the publication as 'on the right.' If this attitude were generalized, we would have to say that censorship no longer extends from political power toward the communication media, as before, but from the media toward the politicians in power. Which would be an interesting historical rarity.

The trial represents another rarity. The judge in the case had to call different witnesses to define what is on the right and what is on the left. It is assumed that the judicial process must resolve a philosophical problem that has never been closed or resolved. Dialectical exercise is completely healthy, but the form and place are proving to be surrealist at the very least.

I suppose that if it is demonstrated that Búsqueda is not on the right the senator will lose the trial, but if the opposite is demonstrated, he would be absolved of his crime. Nonetheless, another problem arises here. Is freedom of expression a crime now? What does it matter if Búsqueda is on the right or on the left as far as the law is concerned? Why should it be considered an insult or a civil crime to be on the right? Is not all opposition to the government on the right, and who knows if the government itself as well from some more radical point of view?

We will dispense with pretensions of independence, of neutrality or of objectivity, because those superstitions have already been demolished by thinkers like Edward Said. Nothing in culture is neutral, even though the will to objectivity might be a utopian virtue which we should not renounce. Part of intellectual honesty consists of recognizing that our own point of view is human and not necessarily the point of view of God. Historically political neutrality is prescribed only when it works in favor of a status quo, since every social order implies a network of political values imposed through the violence of their alleged neutrality.

Whether the senator is on the left or on the right, whether this or that daily paper is on the left or the right, that is up to each citizen to judge. The only thing that every citizen should demand of the law, of justice, is that it respect and protect their right to whatever opinion they like and their right to do so in any medium. In an open society, censorship should only result from reason or the strength of arguments. If a social consensus were possible about theme X, this should be derived from the most complete freedom of expression and not from any authority's imposition of force or from the fear of 'crime of opinion.'

Is it that we Uruguayans, who are so proud of our democratic tradition, are still not able to overcome the mental parameters of the dictatorship? Why such fear of freedom?

In many of our countries, trials for reasons of 'honor' are still common. The stamp of the duel to the death – heritage of the violent knights of the Middle Ages – projects its image onto an anachronistic mentality. Like the famous 'honor of weapons,' a paradoxical ideolexicon, if such a thing exists, since there is nothing less appropriate to a demonstration of honor than instruments of death.

Someone might argue that if Juan insults me that stains my honor. Nonetheless, even in that extreme, in an open society I would have the same right to respond to the hypothetical offense using the same means. But the very idea that someone can offend another person by recourse to insult is a flawed construction: anyone who insults gratuitously insults his own intelligence. If we knew how to develop a culture of freedom and uproot the implicit fear of debate and dissidence, the insult would be an undesired option just as it is today to assault each other in a ridiculous weapons duel. For the same reason, we would stop confusing criticisms with personal affront.

I can understand that defense of the crime might be considered a crime in itself, but we still have not been able to demonstrate clearly that naming someone or an organ of the press with the title 'on the right' is a defense for the crime. First, because being on the right does not lead necessarily (directly or deliberately) to theft or criminality. Second, because we know people who honestly believe that being on the right is a virtue and not an insulting defect. Third, because nobody is safe from acts and opinions on the right.

--Translated by Bruce Campbell.

| | |

David and Goliath: Palestinian Artist Spreads Hope

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:34:00 +0000

9-27-07, 9:15 am

When one commits to the life of an active citizen, spending their hours days and years reading and writing about current events, it becomes a daily struggle to overcome the cynicism that chases after you with the despairing headlines marking each newspaper or magazine. Rare is it when someone or something comes along to revive the feelings of courage, tenacity and wilfulness of the young and hopeful activist.

In my office, hanging above the fireplace in conspicuous view from any part of the room is a large print of Rana Ghassan’s 'David and Goliath'. It has been placed in a strategic location, where beholding it daily is unavoidable. I am forced to study the foreboding danger portrayed as soldiers gather in the distant dust. I must consider that the young faceless boy in the work stands with no barricade to protect him, no riot gear, armoured vehicle, just a worn-out cotton t-shirt and a steadfastness that can move mountains.

With a hearty clutch on a handful of stones, his only weapon, the bulging veins and blanched knuckles convey an uncommon strength that so fluently and completely relays the history of the Palestinian struggle. It is not a message of victimization, weakness and pity. Yes, it does speak of adversity, injustice, but also of empowerment and the will to rise above wrong. If there is any notion that Palestinians would wish to relay, it is this; that their fight is not born of weakness and pity, but of brazen determination and guts. Ghassan is an ambassador in her own right, and has, in my opinion, conveyed this message impeccably.

'David and Goliath' reflects a symphony of emotions. She masterfully brings together elements of accurate drawing, mood coloration, and phenomenal composition, capturing subtle emotions sometimes hidden within a live scene or photograph, and expresses the struggle of life under oppression in an inspiring light of courage and struggle.

One of her many strengths is that Ghassan focuses on the positive emotions of a negative scene. Some artists who choose to focus on Palestinian themes concentrate on the oppressors, which results in morbid, dark, and although very powerful and remarkable, nonetheless gloomy scenes. She believes that history has shown us that it is our darkest hours, which provide us with the contrasting background for the brightest light of hope and inspiration. Clearly, this idea is captured in her work.

Recent months have sadly also shown a less dignified side of the Palestinian cause. With infighting and internal politics so divisive that the real essence of struggle is eroded, Ghassan's also provides a painful and abrupt reminder of the real heroes in this struggle. It is the poor, the disenfranchised and more, the youth of Palestine that keep the authentic and true struggle alive. I believe that Ghassan, through this intensely meaningful portrait, not only exposes the outside enemy, but the failure of the Palestinian leadership as well, for it is not politicians, ministers and the like that brave the occupying army, but a boy in the springtime of his youth who stands in his people's defence.

I am so thankful for Rana Ghassan, for her genius, dedication and commitment to documenting this struggle in such a beautiful way. The pride and hope that screams from each canvas forces one to renew their commitment somehow, to reconsider their place in this unshakable struggle with each thoughtful gaze. I am certain that Ghassan will be honoured for generations as one of the most gifted Palestinian artists of our time.

-For more information visit http://www.cafepress.com/ranaghassan

--Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London). For more, visit his website:

| | |

Edwards, Obama Promise to Walk Picket Lines As President

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:29:00 +0000

CHICAGO (PAI)--In rousing pro-worker speeches to a packed hall of 1,000 unionists, two of the top three Democratic presidential hopefuls--Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.)--promised to walk with union picket lines even after they are elected to the White House.

Edwards and Obama were greeted with roars and ovations by the delegates to the Change to Win convention, meeting in downtown Chicago. The third top contender, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) also gave a strong pro-union speech--not including that particular pledge--but was forced to talk via speakerphone after her plane, along with hundreds of others, was grounded on the tarmac at the Little Rock, Ark., airport.

The three hopefuls are vying for support from the 7-union 6-million-member federation, while also campaigning for support from the rest of the labor movement. CTW Chair Anna Burger said no decision was likely from the entire federation until after the February 5 round of primaries. The other four Democrats were not invited.

One of the seven unions, the Carpenters, has already endorsed Edwards. The Carpenters, including President Doug McCarron, were notable for their small presence--verging on invisibility--at the CTW conclave.

Edwards, sounding more like a preacher than a trial lawyer, turned on the crowd repeatedly by reminding them of his strong past support for union workers and their causes, even in adverse circumstances, such as the United Food and Commercial Workers’ struggle to unionize the 5,000 workers at the Smithfield pork-processing plant in Tar Heel, N.C. All three also opposed free trade pacts without worker protections.

Edwards noted he walked 240 picket lines for 23 unions--and his wife Elizabeth was even then walking with United Auto Worker pickets in Grand Rapids, Mich. GM forced UAW to strike, starting September 24, over several issues, notably health care.

Smithfield workers, he said, toil in 100-degree temperatures “with drinking water that is so tainted they have to put in Gatorade to kill the smell. But most people in America have no idea of what working conditions are like” at Tar Heel and elsewhere.

“So here’s what I have to say to all of you who are trying to earn a decent wage and have good working conditions: You are not alone. I’ll be with you every step of the way and I’ll be with you on the picket line when I’m elected president of the United States,” he declared.

All three also touted their pro-worker credentials in other ways, with Edwards repeating his pledge to “go out on the White House lawn” to tell Americans about the importance of unions to creating and preserving the middle class. He also reminded the crowd that he told the same thing “to 4,000-5,000 people at the Chamber of Commerce in Sacramento, not exactly your friendly audience.”

And when it came to passing the Employee Free Choice Act, which would help level the playing field between workers and bosses in organizing drives and in bargaining, Edwards said he would “use my political capital” for the bill. “And if we’re having trouble in particular Senate races and congressional races getting it passed, I’ll go to every one of those places and campaign for EFCA,” he declared. Obama, a Chicago resident, reminded the crowd he started work 20 years ago as a community organizer, helping Steel Workers who lost their jobs when mills on the city’s south side closed. “I’m not a newcomer. I didn’t discover working folks on the campaign trail,” he commented--without saying which of his foes did.

Obama blasted the GOP Bush regime as “the most anti-union administration in history,” before saying that “if a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union,” referring to a key EFCA provision: Enshrining card-check majority recognition of unions in labor law, rather than at the employer’s discretion.

And after taking a swing at Wal-Mart, and mentioning the bill he co-sponsored last week to end companies’ “independent contractor” dodges, Obama returned to EFCA by declaring: “If your rights are being denied, I don’t care if I’m in the U.S. Senate or the White House, I will walk with you.” He got a standing ovation.

Clinton also strongly backed EFCA, saying she would “use the bully pulpit” of the presidency to push the bill. “I’ll travel the country, hold events, and explain the importance of unions even for those who are not unionized,” in order to push EFCA through, she explained through the speakerphone.

All three hopefuls also touted their health care legislation and tried to draw differences between the plans. Edwards noted his bill was the only one where there’s a way to pay for its $90 billion-$110 billion cost, by repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Obama said his bill guarantees coverage for all kids, because kids don’t have choices, but parents do.

Clinton said her plan is not government-run and would guarantee coverage--for those who do not want to keep their own health care plans--equivalent to the coverage Congress has. Congressional coverage gives lawmakers and staffers reasonable premiums and a choice of doctors.

--From International Labor Communications Association and Press Associates Inc.

Observing Our Government Through Blackwater

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:34:00 +0000

9-26-07, 11:30 pm, PDT

Jeremy Scahill, author of a terrific book on the Blackwater mercenary army, spoke in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Tuesday to a packed hall. He took questions at the end, and one man asked something to the effect of 'Why does the government want to privatize the military? We taxpayers have been paying for the Army.' I wished Scahill had pointed out that it's the tax payers who are now paying the private corporations, but the answer Scahill gave was critical.

'There's a cynical answer and an honest answer,' he said, 'and I think they're the same answer.' He said that the Pentagon is useless to politicians because it doesn't make campaign 'contributions'. But when you take a big chunk of that enormous military budget and give it to private companies, you free it up to come back (some portion of it) to politicians every campaign season.

Scahill has the ability to tell the story of one little corner of corruption and through it provide an understanding of the overall military industrial media congressional complex. The corner of corruption he focuses on is Blackwater.

Scahill described the recent 'Bloody Sunday' incident in Baghdad in which Blackwater mercenaries shot and killed approximately 28 Iraqi civilians, including women and children, in a square. The Iraqi government claims to have video proving the shooting was unprovoked. Witnesses corroborate that story.

Within hours of the incident, Condoleezza Rice phoned Iraqi President and Bush puppet Nouri al Maliki. Within 5 days Blackwater was back on the streets.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman plans to hold a hearing on October 2nd and has asked Blackwater CEO Eric Prince to testify, but has not subpoenaed him. He's asked Prince to testify before, and Prince has refused.

The State Department has told Waxman that any information it provides Congress on occupation contractors will be classified. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has herself refused to comply with a subpoena. It might be possible to compel Prince to comply, but Waxman has not subpoenaed him. Beyond the power of subpoena, Waxman has made clear he will never support using the power of impeachment. For several months now he has sent frequent requests to the State Department without receiving compliance.

Scahill described the size of the problem. There are 181 security companies in Iraq and 180,000 private contractors, tens of thousands of whom are mercenaries. And they are unaccountable. When a Blackwater mercenary shot and killed the Iraqi Vice President's body guard, Blackwater snuck the shooter out of the country. In February of this year, Waxman held hearings and invited Prince to testify. Prince did not show up, but sent his lawyer instead. Rep. Dennis Kucinich noted at the hearing that Blackwater appears to be complicit in the flight of a murder suspect.

Blackwater has frequently found itself in gun battles with Iraqis, as recounted by Scahill. The U.S. Embassy, Scahill said, lied when it recently said it had never had complaints about Blackwater. The Iraqis have complained frequently. But the US wants shock troops, Scahill said. 'They want Iraqis to have the fear of god in them if they try to approach Ryan Crocker or Condoleezza Rice.'

A US soldier can be court martialed. There have been 64 courts martial for murder charges in Iraq, which Scahill finds stunningly low, given that in his estimate there have been 750,000 Iraqis killed. (I don't know why Scahill disagrees with the studies that now place the number over a million.) Mercenaries are not prosecuted under Iraqi or US law or courts martial.

Scahill said that when he recently testified before Congress, the whole issue seemed to be brand new to congress members. After four years of slaughter and wild west tactics in Iraq, Scahill said, two freshman senators have finally proposed establishing a system of justice for mercenaries.

Scahill seems to be of two minds about this proposal. He recognizes that mercenaries, aggressive wars, and foreign occupations are illegal to begin with, making their regulation a dubious endeavor. He recognizes that the mercenary companies are themselves supporting the proposal, and that this is a good indication of how worthless it is. Yet, he finds something encouraging about the fact that there is a proposal and a discussion underway. I am less encouraged, largely because any bill that was actually worth passing would be vetoed.

Scahill recently gave a talk in Eric Prince's home town in Michigan (a town described well in Scahill's book). Prince published an op-ed in the local paper claiming that Blackwater is not a mercenary company. But, Scahill explains, Blackwater has hired soldiers from countries like Chile whose democratically elected governments opposed the occupation, and sent those soldiers to fight in Iraq. Employing soldiers to fight for a foreign power, such as Chileans for the United States, is the very definition of mercenary used by Prince himself.

The Democrats in Congress are asleep on this issue, says Scahill, and he blames the financial 'contributions' they receive from the war industry.

Scahill says that the count of 1,000 or more private contractors killed in Iraq is almost certainly undercounted dramatically, because it includes only those eligible for federal aide.

Britain may put in more mercenaries as it pulls out troops, Scahill said. The US may put in more mercenaries when it pulls out troops. And more and more of the mercenaries may be hired from poor nations around the world, including Iraq. (And yet the best talk in Congress is still of 'redeploying' troops, never troops and mercenaries.)

Scahill also discussed Blackwater's connections with the Bushes and the radical right. With Blackwater guards now bigger targets in Iraq than the people they are guarding, why would the US keep them on? The answer, Scahill suggests, is the role the Prince family has played in funding the religious right and rightwing political movements in the United States. All of this, including the story of Blackwater's creation and rise to power, is well told in Scahill's book.

And it's not just the Princes. The number two man at Blackwater, Cofer Black, formerly of the CIA, is part of the power that Blackwater has over the State Department as well, Scahill surmises. He has been in charge of capturing Osama Bin Laden and in charge of the extraordinary rendition program. It's unclear whether Blackwater's planes have been used in that program. The number three man at Blackwater is Joseph Schmitz, former Pentagon Inspector General under Rumsfeld. Blackwater's lawyers include Fred Fielding, former White House Counsel, and Kenneth Star, former investigator of Bill Clinton's oral sex.

The main problem, as Scahill says, is that companies have a profit motive in launching and escalating wars. And nobody in Washington, other than Dennis Kucinich, will talk about it, Scahill says.

Someone in the audience Tuesday night asked whether Scahill was concerned about what role American mercenaries in Iraq will play when/if they're brought home. Scahill agreed that it should be a major concern, and said that he's seen a glimpse of it in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. He talked to Israeli private security guards for a company called Instinctive Shooting International who were operating an armed checkpoint on behalf of a wealthy individual. Mercenaries are for hire by billionaires as well as by the government.

Scahill also warned that he expects an increase in attacks on mercenaries in Iraq as retaliation for the recent massacre.

Scahill dodged the obligatory 9-11 theories question but answered a question on whether the four famous Blackwater deaths in Fallujah had been an intentional set-up to spur revenge attacks. Scahill believes that was not the case, that Blackwater was simply rushing recklessly to fill a contract.

Someone also asked what everyone in the room could do when they got home. Based on Scahill's response, I posted the following call to action on a local website:

CALL CHAIRMAN HENRY WAXMAN

Jeremy Scahill discussed Blackwater tonight in Charlottesville. Someone asked what we could do, and he suggested that we all phone Congressman Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California and the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We should ask Waxman to subpoena Blackwater CEO Eric Prince. Waxman's number is 202-225-3976.

A little background: Waxman has subpoenaed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and she has refused to appear. Unless Waxman backs impeachment of her (the House Judiciary Committee passed an article of impeachment against Nixon for refusal to comply with subpoenas) he has no leverage over Rice. Waxman has asked Prince to testify before, and he refused. There is a chance that Waxman could compel Prince to obey a subpoena or hold him in contempt or inherent contempt. The State Department has told Waxman that any information it provides is classified. Waxman should ignore that announcement, hold open hearings, and subpoena Prince and other heads of mercenary companies. He should expose to the public what their contracts are and what their crimes have been, including the recent Blackwater bloody Sunday massacre, of which Waxman should obtain the video from the Iraqi government and air it.

From

| | |

Naomi Klein on 'Disaster Capitalism'

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:48:00 +0000

9-26-07, 9:33 am

This article is a review of Naomi Klein’s important article in the October 2007 issue of Harper’s Magazine (“Disaster Capitalism: The new economy of catastrophe”) based on her new book, The Shock Doctrine.

A major theme in this article is the analogy between the effects of war and of “natural” disasters on people and the environment. The contrast between the Green Zone in Iraq (a safe haven) and the Red Zone (the rest of Iraq) is analogized with the aftermath of Katrina and the difference between the areas of New Orleans inhabited by the rich (reconstructed and prospering) and the poor (neglected and festering).

Just as areas of Iraq outside the Green Zone have been destroyed and the people brutalized by Bush’s war, so have many areas throughout the world faced the same type of treatment and the people have seen their regions “demolished by ideology, the war on ‘big government’, the religion of tax cuts, [and] the fetish for privatization.”

In many areas of the Third World infrastructure (what little there is) is failing under the assault of the philosophy of “free trade.” Klein gives as an example the failure of the sewer system in Jakarta (capital of Indonesia). Earlier this year, 57 people died and half the city was inundated by raw sewage. This was due to policies that cut back on public investment and social spending in order to enrich the private sector.

The same is happening here in the US. The bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the subway flooding in New York, all due to the neglect of the public sphere so that tax cuts and incentives can be dished out to the private sector. Klein points out that The American Society of Civil Engineers states that the US public infrastructure (“roads, bridges, schools, dams”) has been neglected to such an extent that it would five years and 1.5 trillion dollars just to get it back up to standard.

This is the background for the development of “disaster capitalism.” Ms Klein writes: “Every time a new crisis hits-- even when the crisis itself is the direct by-product of free-market ideology-- the fear and disorientation that follow are harnessed for radical social and economic re-engineering.” That is to say, the ruling class is using disasters, both natural and those brought about by their polices, to ram through social structural changes in their interests that they never could have brought about using the democratic process. Getting rid of public housing for the poor in New Orleans, for example.

What is happening is that private corporations are rushing to take over the role of disaster relief and reconstruction and make super profits as a result. They are aided and abetted by those politicians who push the ideology of free market capitalism and slam as “socialism” any measures by the public sector to solve social problems. It is quite instructive, in this regard, to compare Alan Greenspan’s rapturous description of the wonders of the free market in his book The Age of Turbulence, with what Naomi Klein has found on the ground in her travels around the world.

Klein sees the development of disaster capitalism as an evolution and extension of the older concept of “the industrial-mililtary complex” that President Eisenhower spoke of back in 1961 [originally “the industrial-military-congressional complex” because Ike knew the US Congress was a completely corrupt and complicit equal component of this complex -- as it still is-- but he allowed his speech writers to delete “congressional” to keep the illusions of bourgeois democracy alive for that fraction of the population that still voted].

This new 'disaster-capitalism complex' she describes as one 'in which all conflict - and disaster - related functions (waging war, securing borders, spying on citizens, rebuilding cities, treating traumatized soldiers) can be performed by corporations at a profit.'

What has happened is that a state within a state has been created-- a virtual corporate run state that now carries out many of the functions that the state represented by the US government used to perform. The Bush administration, for example, gave out 3.4 billion dollars in no bid contracts to its corporate buddies to rebuild after Katrina. E.g., Blackwater provides guards for FEMA operations for $950 a day per guard!

Its all our tax payer money that goes to fund these corporate crooks. The 'shadow state,' Klein writes, 'has been built almost exclusively with public resources... and is all privately owned and controlled.' This is how the famous free market works-- it simply loots the public sector for its profits.

This new disaster capitalist market now, Klein says, has to be protected. That means NGOs, charities, and government entities are seen as potential enemies and rivals by the new corporate state. For example the mercenary providers, firms such as Blackwater, are looking for bigger and better contracts. They now say 'they are better equipped than the UN to engage in peacekeeping in Darfur.' Just give them a big for profit contract and the African Union troops can stay home.

And it is not just Dafur. Klein quotes a Lockheed Martin representative about the contracting out of the police and fire departments of American towns and cities to private firms: 'What they do for the military in downtown Fallujah [leave as a pile of rubble?--TR] they can do for the police in downtown Reno.'

And if this isn't bad enough, Klein gives us a quote from Fast Company magazine on the results of the 'War on Terror' [the unleashing of the US military as a result of the fluke 9/11 attack]. The 'end result' will be 'a new more resilient approach to national security, one built not around the state but around private citizens and companies .... Security will become a function of where you live and whom you work for, much as health care is allocated already.'

This is another major theme of Klein's article. That the country is turning into a domestic copy of the Iraqi Green Zone. There will be gated and protected areas with state of the art schools, hospitals, police and fire protection, nice housing, etc. areas walled off from the rest of the common lower class herd of Americans, and all run by private companies.

We can see this trend in New Orleans today, Klein writes. Gated communities for the well off (mostly white) protected by private security forces, and FEMA villages: 'desolate, out-of-the-way trailer camps for low-income evacuees, built by Bechtel or Fluor subcontractors and administered by private security companies that patrolled the gravel lots, restricted visitors, kept journalists out, and treated survivors like criminals.'

An ominous new factor to note is, that heretofore terrorist attacks and national disasters used to send the stock market down. Now they make it jump up. The new disaster capitalists stand to make fortunes out of the human misery of these disasters now that the government just turns over no bid contracts for them to do the follow up. And they don't even have to do the work. There is little or no supervision or accountability. Any problems with poor results are explained away by the corporations and taken at face value by the Bush administration.

What used to be a 'truism' of capitalist dogma, Klein says, is no longer so: namely, 'that you couldn't have booming economic growth in the midst of violence and instability.' At least for some parts of the economy and for the biggest corporations in the stocks representing aerospace, defense and homeland security, and, of course oil and gas just the opposite is the case. 'The oil and gas industry,' Klein says, 'is so intimately entwined with the economy of disaster -- both as a root cause behind many disasters and as beneficiary from them -- that it deserves to be treated as an honorary adjunct of the disaster-capitalism complex.'

It is important to note the relationship between the disaster capitalists and, Klein points out, 'elite opinion makers.' Not only do they have many members of Congress in their pockets (from both parties), but also many areas of the mass media is under their control and they fund 'think tanks' to churn out propaganda in their interests (especially the National Institute for Public Policy and the Center for Security Policy).

So, Daddy Warbucks is alive and well. We can expect the US, I think, to bomb Iran for no other reason than to have an excuse to spend public money on corporations to sell the government the bombs and other weapons. Wars and disasters are ends in themselves-- an excuse to enrich the industrial- military complex [AKA disaster capitalism].

Wouldn't it be interesting if the Bushites were in Iraq not to 'win' but simply to destroy as much as they could of both our own resources, human and material, and the Iraqi's, just so they could justify the transfer of billions, if not trillions, of dollars from the public funds of the US to the corporate allies of the Bush administration.

After all many, if not most, of the Pentagon big shots, after retirement, end up making real money on the boards of disaster capitalist companies. In any case, Iraq is a 'win win' situation. Win, and you get the oil. Lose and you get to enrich the corporations anyway by all the expenditures. And, if Exxon can't have the oil, selling it for $80 a barrel is a good consolation.

--Thomas Riggins is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at

| | |