- Bulatlat - http://www.bulatlat.com/main -
Indigenous Peoples Want Global Moratorium on Mining, Other Extractive Projects
Posted By bulatlat On March 28, 2009 In Indigenous Peoples, Latest Stories
The united voice of the indigenous peoples swept from continent to continent in 37 countries calling their respective governments to stop large-scale mining and other extractive activities (oil and gas projects) in their indigenous lands until effective measures to safeguard their rights and the environment are in place.
BY JO VILLANUEVA
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S WATCH
Northern Dispatch
Posted by Bulatlat
The united voice of the indigenous peoples swept from continent to continent in 37 countries calling their respective governments to stop large-scale mining and other extractive activities (oil and gas projects) in their indigenous lands until effective measures to safeguard their rights and the environment are in place.
The call for a global moratorium on extractive projects for oil, gold, gas and other mineral resources also include a demand that the World Bank must stop funding transnational mining companies in their effort to exploit the world’s natural resources.
This is among their collective calls contained in the final Declaration that is set to be submitted to the United Nations, multilateral banks and government officials attending the International Expert Workshop on Indigenous Peoples Rights, Corporate Accountability and Extractive Industry held March 26-27 at the Legend Villas in Mandaluyong City.
Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), said that following the growing and alarming reports by indigenous peoples against extractive industries, a recommendation was adopted during the 7th Session UNPFII, which authorized a three-day international expert group workshop on indigenous peoples’ rights, corporate accountability and the extractive industries.
The UNPFII is an advisory body to the Economic and Social Council, with a mandate to discuss indigenous issues related to economic and social development, culture, the environment, education, health and human rights.
Corpuz, a Kankana-ey from Besao, Mt. Province, Cordillera, said the results of the meeting will be part of reports that will be submitted to the Permanent Forum on its 8th Session, on 18-29 May 2009.
“We call for a moratorium on extractive industry projects that may affect us, until structures and processes are in place that will ensure respect for our human rights. The determination of when this can be realized and can only be made by those communities whose lives, livelihoods and environment are affected by extractive activities,” they said.
Further, they called for stronger mechanisms that should be enforced to fight the indiscriminate practices of extractive industries, which they said are often ignored or intentionally allowed by their respective governments.
They also want the World Bank to immediately stop financing transnational mining companies and commence phasing out its funding, promotion and support for fossil fuel- related projects, including large-scale mining projects.
“The World Bank must provide a timeline to end such funding,” the declaration said.
One provision in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) — poses serious disagreement with the World Bank, as the latter has not accepted such and instead coined and followed its own words to read: “free, prior and informed consultation.”
This, the IPs said, has been used by the World Bank and the transnational mining companies to skirt the law and push through with the extractive activities. They said that “consent and consultation” are two different words and each has distinct meaning.
“We want to request that UN to establish procedures which provide indigenous communities with the opportunity to request the relevant UN agencies to assist them in the monitoring and provision of independent information on FPIC processes,” they said.
In the Philippines,” free, prior and informed consent” is also embodied in the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997.
They added that World Bank group must update its operational directives and safeguard policies with regard to indigenous peoples and adopt the UNDRIP provision of free, prior and informed consent in all the WB assisted mining projects.
Indigenous lands around the world are facing massive threats from the influx of extractive industries, which the indigenous delegates to this second international conference claimed have appalling records of environmental destruction and widespread violation of the human rights of indigenous peoples.
The 85 delegates from 37 countries said they demand compensation for damages inflicted upon their lands and lives, and the rehabilitation of their degraded environment caused by extractive industries.
The delegates also proposed the creation of an international indigenous criminal court that would address the ill effects of extractive industries on the lives of indigenous peoples, including the loss of lives as a result of indiscriminate mining committed by transnational mining firms. The court, they said, must issue decisions based on the indigenous peoples’ customary laws. (Posted by Bulatlat)
Article printed from Bulatlat: http://www.bulatlat.com/main
URL to article: http://www.bulatlat.com/main/2009/03/28/indigenous-peoples-want-global-moratorium-on-mining-other-extractive-projects/
Is the Revolution in sight?
looks like the barge may be lifting off a sand bar...
April 4, 2009
April 3, 2009
Economic Crisis Slams Canada Federal Government Denial by Roger Annis
Global Research, March 29, 2009
Socialist Voice
As the grim news of growing job losses mounts in Canada, the federal Conservative government is continuing the politics of denial that marked last autumn's election campaign. Especially troubling for the working class is that opposition political parties, including the trade union-based New Democratic Party, are offering no substantial alternative.
Economic collapse by the numbers
The first two months of 2009 were a disaster for working people; 240,000 workers lost their jobs. The job losses in January were the largest monthly loss ever in Canada. November to February losses are the steepest since the crushing recession of 1981/82.
Since June of 2008, Canadian households have lost 8% of their net worth. Household credit debt grew by 2% in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Two of the big three U.S. automakers in Canada, General Motors and Chrysler, say they will pack up operations in Canada if they don't receive nearly $10 billion of taxpayer bailout money. Together they employ some 20,000 workers in vehicle assembly and tens of thousands more in parts manufacture, sales, and service. Chrysler wants its workforce to concede even deeper cuts in wages and benefits than those voted by GM Canada workers in mid-March.
Cuts to social services will soon be the order of the day as governments cry poverty and deficits mount. Bank analysts say the federal government will have a budget deficit of $40 billion in fiscal 2009. The government of Ontario, the province with the largest manufacturing employment, has announced the largest budget deficit in the province's history for 2009, $14.2 billion.
If deep cuts to social services have not already begun, it's because the federal government and some provincial governments, notably in British Columbia, are positioning themselves for re-election before swinging their axes.
The social wage threatened
Among the first victims of the economic downturn have been laid-off workers trying to collect unemployment insurance, and workers who are retired or soon to be.
Laid-off workers receive fewer benefits for shorter periods of time as a result of drastic cuts to the federal unemployment insurance program over the past years. According to Winnie Ng of the Good Jobs For All Coalition in Toronto, only 31% of unemployed workers receive benefits. Under pressure, the federal government recently extended by five weeks the length of time that recipients can collect. It did nothing to improve access.
Workers with retirement savings connected to the stock market have suffered double digit losses in the past six months. Meanwhile, company pension plans at many of Canada's largest employers no longer have enough funds to pay established benefits, in part because companies have unilaterally cut their contributions in recent years. The highly profitable Canadian Pacific Rail, for example, allowed its pension deficit to triple in 2008, to $1.6 billion. Air Canada's deficit rose 172% that same year. GM Canada's shortfall is somewhere around $6 billion. Only 50% of GM's unionized workers' present and future benefits are covered.
The federal government is considering legislation that would extend to ten years, from the current five, the time allowed companies to make up pension plan shortfalls.
The public pension picture, once thought impervious to the vagaries of the stock market, is starting to look grim. The manager of public pension plans in the province of Quebec announced in February an astounding loss of nearly $40 billion in 2008, one-quarter of the value of its holdings, due to substantial investment in the stock market, including the riskiest of assets.
Losses in Canada's public plan, which covers residents of all provinces and territories except Quebec, were $18 billion, or 14% of value. A big part of the losses can be traced back to a decision by the federal government in 1999 to allow the plan to invest 25% of its assets in the stock market. One can only guess what the size of the 2008 loss would have been without that 25% cap.
What economic collapse?
In the face of the grim economic news, the message from the federal government is, "Don't worry, be happy." Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a business audience in Brampton, Ontario on March 10: "Canada was the last advanced country to fall into this recession. We will make sure its effects here are the least severe, and we will come out of this faster than anyone and stronger than ever."
The latest message from Harper repeats the denials he issued when the world financial collapse escalated in September 2008, coinciding with the beginning of the last federal election. As the financial decline broke over Canada that month, Harper famously declared that it would be a good time to invest in the stock market. By November, Canada's largest stock index had declined 44%. In March 2009, it still stands 39% lower.
The government's claims are so outlandish that even big mouthpieces of capitalism have taken their distance. No less than the International Monetary Fund, itself an agency promoting rosy prospects for a quick international economic recovery, said on March 17 that Canada's economy would shrink by 2% in 2009, double an earlier "estimate" of 1%.
Former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge says that Harper's claim that Canada will experience a quick recovery and lead the rest of the world out of its decline is "totally unrealistic."
Canada's media has been focused on the disastrous decline of the U.S. economy. But Canada's January/February 2009 job losses are higher by 50% on a per capita basis than the U.S., wrote Vancouver Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe on March 20.
She also pointed to another ominous comparison between the two economies. Canada's is far more dependent on exports than its U.S. counterpart. They account for 35% to 40% of Canada's gross domestic product, compared to 12% to 15% in the U.S. More than three-quarters of Canadian exports go to the ailing U.S.
Harper's Pollyanna-like message is echoed by the opposition parties in Parliament, all of whom followed the government's lead in downplaying the gravity of the economic collapse. Only now are they hinting at taking their distance.
Deputy NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair expressed unease with the government's projections during a CBC Radio on March 24, "I'd like to have a clear-eyed view of what's really happening in the economy," he complained.
When asked what should be done for the country's unemployment insurance program, Mulcair said that the two-week waiting period should be eliminated. He decried the reduction in accessibility to the program but offered no measure to redress this.
The NDP announced on March 22 that it is launching a nine-week public consultation process to, "investigate the effects of the recession on ordinary Canadians, and bring new ideas to Ottawa."
Sub-prime mortgage elephant in the room
The March 14 Globe and Mail reported on a subject that no political party has dared to talk about, namely the troubling state of housing mortgages in Canada. Headlined "Canada's dirty subprime secret," the article began: "A Globe and Mail investigation into more than 10,000 foreclosure proceedings has uncovered a burgeoning subprime mortgage problem that many, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, have insisted does not exist in Canada."
The federal government opened up Canada's mortgage market in early 2006 to reckless and predatory practices similar to those in the U.S. For example, 40-year mortgage amortization terms became legal for the first time, extended from 25 years. Requirements for down payments were also sharply lowered for the first time in history.
The Globe article reports that in Canada, statistics on housing loans are veiled in institutional secrecy. The full extent of consumer exposure to predatory lending cannot yet be assessed. The authors write, "The spread of subprime mortgages to Canada is one of the country's most poorly researched and misunderstood economic afflictions."
Where the authors could find statistics — on home foreclosures in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia — they found fully half of them last year were on sub-prime loans. Foreclosures in both Alberta and B.C. in 2008 were more than double the previous year. What is striking about those figures is that the two provinces experienced a resource-price economic boom until late in the year.
It's not only the ability to pay, or not, that has mortgage holders threatened with losing their homes. Lenders have lost the will, or ability, to lend. As a March 27 Globe and Mail report revealed, an estimated $3 billion to $5 billion in high-risk mortgages are up for renewal in the next four years and the original lenders do not have the necessary access to capital to renew them. They want the federal government to step in and provide the financing. As many as 25,000 mortgage holders are involved.
Profitable banks?
From the capitalist standpoint, the one rosy picture in the Canadian economy is the performance of the country's highly monopolized banks. They all reported profits in the last quarter of 2008.
Government propaganda says that the banks in Canada are solid and not suffering from the same mistakes as their U.S. cousins. But that didn't prevent the government from quietly changing a law last November that would now permit it to purchase bank shares. Just in case…
The previous month, the government authorized the purchase of up to $25 billion in bad loans and securities from the banks. That was boosted to $125 billion early in 2009.
The banks lost hundreds of millions of dollars from the stock market decline in 2008. Losses will deepen in 2009 as they are hit by the manufacturing downturn, declining profit rates, and the full onslaught of foreclosures and personal bankruptcies.
The financial liberalization of recent years has simply postponed a practice that is endemic to capitalism — producing more goods and services than can be sold for a profit. In countries like the United States and Canada, government borrowing abroad, easy consumer credit and all manner of financial fraud made it possible to postpone the contradiction between growing supply of goods and services, on the one hand, and exploitation-restricted demand, on the other.
They must pay for their folly, not us
Government bailouts of the financial industry are nothing but a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in order to prop up the very institutions and wealthy families that have brought economic calamity to the world in the first place.
"Stimulus" spending by capitalist governments is proving to be a similar boondoggle. The Canadian government announced a spending package in January to the tune of $40 billion. Some of it is earmarked for road and bridge repair, in other words to line the pockets of the very transportation designers and companies that have created urban transportation gridlock and brought the world to the precipice of irreversible climate catastrophe
But where much of the spending will be targeted is completely unknown. Passage of enabling legislation is delayed because opposition parties are uneasy with a near-total lack of details of where the money will be spent and how it will be accounted for.
One thing that is known — the government has already said it will ease the process of environmental review of "stimulus" projects.
By far the most effective forms of "stimulus" spending would be to expand social services, including health care, education and child care; raise the salaries or welfare and pension benefits of the lowest paid in society; build public housing on a large scale; and undertake a massive program to redress the social and economic calamity lived by most of Canada's 1.8 million Indigenous peoples.
This kind of spending would deliver immediate aid to hard-pressed individuals and families. It would reverse the damaging cuts to social services by governments in recent decades. It would also inject money directly into local economies.
A serious fight by trade unions and other social organizations for such "social stimulus" would strengthen the entire working class movement and place it in a better position to wage struggles around a particularly vexing challenge — how to confront the jobs crisis in manufacturing industries.
A fight for an "ecological stimulus" is equally pressing. How can environmentally destructive industries such as automobile assembly, energy production, forestry and many others be transformed to produce socially useful products that do not trash the natural environment?
And how can a plan for a new economy take control out of the hands of corporations driven by greed and profit?
A future article in Socialist Voice will examine this challenge.
Roger Annis is an aerospace worker in Vancouver and co-editor of Socialist Voice.
April 2, 2009
Pro-US gov defeated in Czech Republic
By: NOT MY TRIBE - 3/27/2009 8:37PM MDT
The current leadership of the Czech Republic has been defeated by opposition parties, but corporate US and UK news outlets aren’t reporting the whole of why it happened. Global Network activist and hunger striker, Jan Tamas writes from Prague:
Dear friends,
I am very happy to announce that the Czech government has fallen. The Parliament voted the no-confidence. For us it is a great victory: we knew that the only way to stop the installation of the US radar base was the fall of the government and we worked for more than 2 years in this direction with permanence and coherence.
A government that represented the interests of the US military industry has fallen.
Our work has been fundamental in encouraging the members of the Parliament who already were against the radar and to spread doubts in the ones who were in favor. And it was just the change of mind of some deputies that made the fall of the government possible.
On the other hand, pressed by the hunger strike, the Social-Democratic Party had to take a clear position supporting us and this will make it more difficult for them in the future to change their opinion about the radar. The collaboration with the Communist Party, that has always supported our initiatives, has been decisive as well.
Thanks to all of you for the support you gave us in many activities, support that was critical.
Thanks to all the pacifist organizations, thanks to the members of the European Parliament who believed in our fight, thanks to the mayors of different countries, thanks to the Humanist Movement, that allowed this protest to expand to many European countries and to reach other continents.
A great space should be given to this news. Now the US must rearrange their plans because of the protest of a people who don’t want foreign troops on this territory.
And the invading armies should withdraw from all the occupied territories of the world.
Now it is necessary to develop a strong opposition to the “Star Wars” and in favor of the nuclear disarmament also in other countries.
Now in the Czech Republic a new chapter of our struggle begins.
A strong hug
Jan Tamas
Prague, Czech Republic
Posted: March 27th, 2009
The current leadership of the Czech Republic has been defeated by opposition parties, but corporate US and UK news outlets aren’t reporting the whole of why it happened. Global Network activist and hunger striker, Jan Tamas writes from Prague:
Dear friends,
I am very happy to announce that the Czech government has fallen. The Parliament voted the no-confidence. For us it is a great victory: we knew that the only way to stop the installation of the US radar base was the fall of the government and we worked for more than 2 years in this direction with permanence and coherence.
A government that represented the interests of the US military industry has fallen.
Our work has been fundamental in encouraging the members of the Parliament who already were against the radar and to spread doubts in the ones who were in favor. And it was just the change of mind of some deputies that made the fall of the government possible.
On the other hand, pressed by the hunger strike, the Social-Democratic Party had to take a clear position supporting us and this will make it more difficult for them in the future to change their opinion about the radar. The collaboration with the Communist Party, that has always supported our initiatives, has been decisive as well.
Thanks to all of you for the support you gave us in many activities, support that was critical.
Thanks to all the pacifist organizations, thanks to the members of the European Parliament who believed in our fight, thanks to the mayors of different countries, thanks to the Humanist Movement, that allowed this protest to expand to many European countries and to reach other continents.
A great space should be given to this news. Now the US must rearrange their plans because of the protest of a people who don’t want foreign troops on this territory.
And the invading armies should withdraw from all the occupied territories of the world.
Now it is necessary to develop a strong opposition to the “Star Wars” and in favor of the nuclear disarmament also in other countries.
Now in the Czech Republic a new chapter of our struggle begins.
A strong hug
Jan Tamas
Prague, Czech Republic
Posted: March 27th, 2009
March 31, 2009
Orange Fades to Black: Heralded for its Orange Revolution five years ago, Ukraine is coming apart at the seams By Fred Weir
March 6, 2009
KIEV, Ukraine--As the global financial crisis intensifies, some journalists have begun placing bets on which country is likely to crack first and dissolve into anarchy. If you're into that sort of thing, the smart money might be on Ukraine, a nation with a government that was borderline dysfunctional and an economy that was unsustainable even before the financial firestorm hit.
Ukraine's economy has gone into a nosedive, its banking system is paralyzed and millions of people have lost their livelihoods in recent months. Everyone has a story of a lost job, overdue loans or life savings frozen in inaccessible bank accounts.
One man, a laid-off Kiev construction worker, says he has sent his family to live with relatives in the countryside, assuming that at least there will be something to eat. That's a chilling echo from the depths of Ukrainian history.
But it's the political drama that keeps grabbing everyone's attention. Apparently oblivious to the galloping crisis, the former heroes of the Orange Revolution, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and President Viktor Yushchenko, are locked in a bureaucratic trench war that only one of them will survive. Any anti-crisis measure taken by one is immediately contradicted by the other: Presidential appointees are struck down by the Tymoshenko-led parliament, while regional leaders across the sprawling and deeply divided former Soviet country of 50 million increasingly take local economic matters into their own hands.
"It's a war of all against all," says Dmytro Vydrin, an independent deputy of the Supreme Rada, Ukraine's parliament. "Our best hope at this point is that chaos will win out over ill-intentions, because the worst thing will be if one group wins and establishes a monopoly of power."
Yushchenko and Tymoshenko are jockeying for position in advance of presidential elections, due by the end of 2009. Few doubt that the fiery, ambitious Tymoshenko wants to be president, and many believe she has the makings of a Ukrainian version of Russia's tough leader, Vladimir Putin.
"Tymoshenko is the only Ukrainian leader with real charisma, and the drive to take and mold power for her own purposes," says Viktor Nebozhenko, a sociologist and former adviser to Tymoshenko. "She's very strong, she can make people do what she wants, and she looks very likely to win."
But the showdown might come much sooner than anyone expects. Experts warn that default on Ukraine's $105 billion foreign debt is imminent, despite an emergency loan of $16.4 billion obtained from the International Monetary Fund last autumn.
The national currency, the Gryvna, has lost 50 percent of its value since last summer, driving up the cost of imports and rapidly inflating the U.S. dollar-denoted debts held by most Ukrainian companies.
As a result of January's gas accord with Russia, Ukraine's energy-intensive economy will now have to pay $360 per thousand cubic meters of gas, roughly double last year's price. The vast eastern Ukrainian steel and chemical mills that account for a third of the country's GDP are reporting massive slowdowns, and many of these Soviet-era industries may not survive the shock of increased energy costs.
About 1 million of Ukraine's 20 million workers are currently unemployed, but millions more have reportedly been forced to take wage cuts, shorter hours or unpaid leave. Many experts are predicting mass social protests will erupt in coming months as the situation grows intolerable.
In a 24-page internal memo leaked to the Ukrainian media, Finance Minister Viktor Pynzenyk warned in late January that Ukraine's economy is on the verge of collapse: "We have entered an extremely serious and deep crisis. Ukraine's [economic] situation is the worst in the world."
Publication of that sobering assessment served only to intensify the mutual death-grip between the president and prime minister. Yushchenko took to the airwaves in late January to blame it all on the "populism" of Tymoshenko, whose 2009 budget incurs a huge deficit to pay public sector wages, pensions and other social obligations. As a result of her "irresponsibility," Yushchenko charged, "salaries, pensions and stipends will no longer be paid ... all this can bring about a social catastrophe."
Tymoshenko snapped back the next day: "The so-called televised address to the nation of Yushchenko is a mixture of falsehood, panic and hysteria. Everyone can see that the president is not the kind of leader they need when Ukraine is reeling under the blows of the global economic crisis."
Cultural split
It wasn't always like this. During the Orange Revolution in 2004, Tymoshenko and Yushchenko worked together to defeat a Russian-backed attempt to rig presidential elections in favor of the eastern-Ukraine based leader Viktor Yanukovych.
During weeks of protests in Kiev's freezing main square, it was usually Tymoshenko, a passionate orator, who would warm up the crowd before turning the stage over to the more measured and cerebral Yushchenko. But following Yushchenko's election as president, the two quickly fell out, and within a year Yushchenko dismissed her from the prime minister's job.
In three parliamentary elections since then, Tymoshenko has clawed her way back to power mainly by wresting votes away from Yushchenko's supporters. She now heads the government as leader of a fragile majority coalition.
Some observers fear that Ukraine may be facing its "1993 moment," a reference to the extended post-Soviet battle between Russia's left-wing parliament and Western-backed President Boris Yeltsin, which ended with pro-Kremlin troops and tanks dispersing the legislature amid a bloody mini-civil war in Moscow. Yeltsin used his victory to rewrite Russia's constitution to vest the lion's share of power in the Kremlin, and reducing the new parliament, the Duma, to little more than a talking-shop.
Yeltsin's successor, Putin, was subsequently able to establish a virtual dictatorship in Russia without--until recently--altering a single word of that constitution.
By contrast, Ukraine has muddled through its repeated post-Soviet crises with a working division of powers between parliament and president--both elected in genuinely contested polls--and a relatively independent court system. This is partly due to the country's profound cultural split between the heavily "Russified" industrial east and the nationalistic, Ukrainian-speaking agrarian west.
The relative balance of forces between them has created permanent political gridlock, but arguably prevented either side from seizing complete control. An attempt to rig 2004 presidential elections in favor of Yanukovych led to the Orange Revolution, which ultimately brought the Western-leaning Yushchenko to power, pledging to put Ukraine on a fast-track to join NATO and integrate with Europe.
But public opinion surveys show that about two-thirds of Ukrainians oppose joining NATO, and Moscow has warned that Kiev will cross a "red line" if it invites the Western military alliance into the heartland of the former Soviet Union.
Mounting unrest
The ongoing popularity of Yanukovych's pro-Moscow Party of Regions illustrates the hold Russia still has on much of Ukraine's electorate. According to a December poll by the Kiev-based Democratic Initiatives Foundation, Yanukovych is Ukraine's leading politician, with 22.3 percent support. Tymoshenko follows with 14 percent, while Yushchenko has fallen to just 2.2 percent.
In January, Tymoshenko flew to Moscow and sealed a gas accord with Putin, ending a two-week shutdown that had left 18 European nations--literally--out in the cold. But Tymoshenko's enemies claim that, during several hours of private talks with Putin, she made a separate deal for Kremlin support in her upcoming presidential bid, allegedly agreeing to shelve Ukraine's NATO aspirations in return for help in winning votes in eastern Ukraine.
That's presumably what Yushchenko's chief of staff, Roman Bezsmertny, was referring to when he told journalists: "Yulia Tymoshenko's current policies show that she is hooked by Russian secret services, which makes her resort to actions that threaten Ukraine's national security."
Vadim Karasyov, director of the independent Global Strategies Institute in Kiev, says, "Yulia understands that the United States is very far away and preoccupied with its own problems, and Russia is very close at hand. She's just being practical."
As the crisis intensifies, it seems increasingly likely that the final showdown may come as early as this spring, and it may not take the form of an electoral contest. Social unrest is mounting, especially in the eastern industrial regions, where the steel mills, chemical factories and coal mines that produce 30 percent of Ukraine's gross domestic product are grinding to a halt.
But discontent is also palpable among the middle class in Kiev--erstwhile ardent backers of the Orange Revolution--who are suddenly finding that the ATM machines have stopped dispensing cash, the service sector jobs are evaporating and the West has lost interest in Ukraine's fate.
"Middle class disillusionment is extremely dangerous, because these are the people most capable of self-organization," says sociologist Nebozhenko. "Things are coming apart very fast, and I'm afraid this is all headed for a settlement in the streets."
Fred Weir is a Moscow correspondent for In These Times and regular contributor to the Christian Science Monitor, the London Independent, Canadian Press and the South China Morning Post. He is the co-author of Revolution from Above: The Demise of the Soviet System.
Iran rejects U.S. plan to boost troops in Afghanistan, (Xinhua) by Mehdi Bagheri
TEHRAN, March 31 (Xinhua) -- While Washington engages Iran eyeing its role in peace and security in the war-torn country and initiating unconditional talks with Iran over its nuclear issue, Tehran still pursues its own objectives.
Iran's representative to a one-day international conference on Afghanistan, which was opened in The Hague of the Netherlands on Tuesday, reaffirmed his country's rejection of a U.S. plan to boost its troops in Afghanistan.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Medhi Akhundzadeh said the presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan does not help the situation in the country and that the international community needs to tackle the root causes of terrorism.
"The presence of foreign forces has not improved things in the country and it seems that an increase in the number of foreign forces will prove ineffective, too," he said.
Akhundzadeh said the military expenses should be redirected to the training of the Afghan army and police and that the Afghan government should lead the government-building process.
He also asked the international community to tackle the root causes of terrorism and avoid introducing double standards on terrorism.
The Iranian diplomat told the official IRNA news agency in The Hague that Iran "supports a regional solution to" the Afghanistan issue, which is, as observers concede, the same policy that Iran was pursuing over the foreign troops in Iraq.
He attributed the failure of the resolutions developed for Afghanistan to the interference of the aliens (nations out of the region) in regional issues.
"The dead-end status with which the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is faced today is due to this fact, and also because the mere presence of foreign military forces in a country can lead to increased emergence of extremism in that country," he added.
NATO is leading a 60,000-strong international force in Afghanistan. U.S. President Barack Obama has announced the deployment of 17,000 additional troops in the upcoming months.
While Tehran sounds pessimist about the promotion of security and peace in Afghanistan by an increase in the number of international forces there, deputy spokesman of Afghan presidential palace Siamak Harawi is on the opposite with Iran.
He underlined "the need for promotion of security in Afghanistan" by calling for a further participation of and coordination among the international forces in his country.
Alongside the discontent with the presence of the aliens in its backyard, Iran never conceals its inclination to participate as a sole regional power in doing the political and economic issues of its neighboring country to imprint and expand its influence there.
Akhundzadeh said Iran is fully prepared to participate in reconstruction projects of Afghanistan and to make efforts to halt drug trafficking.
"Iran has during the course of the past seven years managed to gain the trust of the Afghan nation by seriously pursuing construction projects in their country and that is also the reason why the other countries admit that both the Afghan nation and the Afghan government attach great importance to cooperation with Iran," he added.
On Sunday, a preliminary Moscow conference on Afghanistan proposed the replacement of part of NATO forces in Afghanistan by Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) forces, where major attention was paid to narcotic drugs trafficking, terrorism, and organized crime problems.
Enjoying good ties with the SCO member states, Tehran did not hide its agreement with the proposal that the SCO member and observer countries gradually replace the West, especially the United States, considered by the Islamic Republic as the ideological foe.
The conferences both in Moscow and The Hague which brought together officials from influential countries bore potentials for a rare diplomatic encounter between the United States and Iran.
Iran's foreign ministry, however, denied on Monday any meeting between Iranian and U.S. officials in Moscow, according to IRNA.
An informed source in the ministry denied Sunday's report of the Weekly Sunday Times concerning the meeting between Tehran and Washington's representatives in Russia, saying it was baseless, IRNA said.
Obama: Plan for GM May Involve Bankruptcy, fr: Democracy Now
Obama: Plan for GM May Involve Bankruptcy
President Barack Obama has ordered General Motors and Chrysler to accelerate their restructuring efforts and brace for possible bankruptcy. Obama spoke Monday hours after the White House forced GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign and ordered Chrysler to complete an alliance with the Italian automaker Fiat.
President Obama: “Now, what we’re asking for is difficult. It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers, who have already made extraordinarily painful concessions, to do more. It will require creditors to recognize that they can’t hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts. It’ll have to—it will require efforts from a whole host of other stakeholders, including dealers and suppliers. Only then can we ask American taxpayers, who have already put up so much of their hard-earned money, to once more invest in a revitalized auto industry.”
Obama administration officials say they are weighing a fix for GM and Chrysler that would divide their “good” and “bad” assets and send the auto makers into bankruptcy. If GM declared bankruptcy, up to one million employees, dependents, retirees and their spouses could lose healthcare and retirement benefits. A bankruptcy judge recently allowed car part suppler Delphi to cancel healthcare and life insurance benefits for retirees, calling the moves “good business judgment.” During his address on Monday, President Obama said nothing about protecting the benefits of workers and retirees. GM’s shares plunged 25 percent Monday, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 3.3 percent. President Obama said there is no plan to nationalize General Motors.
President Obama: “Let me be clear: The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company."
Obama Accused of Double Standard on Bailouts
Michigan lawmakers, including Democratic Senator Carl Levin and Republican Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, said there is a double standard in terms of treatment of the financial industry compared with the auto industry. The government has not yet required any banks to replace its top executives.
GM CEO to Receive $20 Million in Retirement Benefits
While GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner is being forced to resign, he still stands to make millions. ABC News reports that Wagoner will be eligible to collect $20 million in retirement benefits from GM....
President Barack Obama has ordered General Motors and Chrysler to accelerate their restructuring efforts and brace for possible bankruptcy. Obama spoke Monday hours after the White House forced GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign and ordered Chrysler to complete an alliance with the Italian automaker Fiat.
President Obama: “Now, what we’re asking for is difficult. It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers, who have already made extraordinarily painful concessions, to do more. It will require creditors to recognize that they can’t hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts. It’ll have to—it will require efforts from a whole host of other stakeholders, including dealers and suppliers. Only then can we ask American taxpayers, who have already put up so much of their hard-earned money, to once more invest in a revitalized auto industry.”
Obama administration officials say they are weighing a fix for GM and Chrysler that would divide their “good” and “bad” assets and send the auto makers into bankruptcy. If GM declared bankruptcy, up to one million employees, dependents, retirees and their spouses could lose healthcare and retirement benefits. A bankruptcy judge recently allowed car part suppler Delphi to cancel healthcare and life insurance benefits for retirees, calling the moves “good business judgment.” During his address on Monday, President Obama said nothing about protecting the benefits of workers and retirees. GM’s shares plunged 25 percent Monday, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 3.3 percent. President Obama said there is no plan to nationalize General Motors.
President Obama: “Let me be clear: The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company."
Obama Accused of Double Standard on Bailouts
Michigan lawmakers, including Democratic Senator Carl Levin and Republican Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, said there is a double standard in terms of treatment of the financial industry compared with the auto industry. The government has not yet required any banks to replace its top executives.
GM CEO to Receive $20 Million in Retirement Benefits
While GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner is being forced to resign, he still stands to make millions. ABC News reports that Wagoner will be eligible to collect $20 million in retirement benefits from GM....
The Great Afghan Bailout It's Time to Change Names, Switch Analogies By Tom Engelhardt
(taken from Tom Dispatch)
posted 2009-03-29
Tomgram: The A.I.G. of American Foreign Policy
Let's start by stopping.
It's time, as a start, to stop calling our expanding war in Central and South Asia "the Afghan War" or "the Afghanistan War." If Obama's special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke doesn't want to, why should we? Recently, in a BBC interview, he insisted that "the 'number one problem' in stabilizing Afghanistan was Taliban sanctuaries in western Pakistan, including tribal areas along the Afghan border and cities like Quetta" in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan.
And isn't he right? After all, the U.S. seems to be in the process of trading in a limited war in a mountainous, poverty-stricken country of 27 million people for one in an advanced nation of 167 million, with a crumbling economy, rising extremism, advancing corruption, and a large military armed with nuclear weapons. Worse yet, the war in Pakistan seems to be expanding inexorably (and in tandem with American war planning) from the tribal borderlands ever closer to the heart of the country.
These days, Washington has even come up with a neologism for the change: "Af-Pak," as in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater of operations. So, in the name of realism and accuracy, shouldn't we retire "the Afghan War" and begin talking about the far more disturbing "Af-Pak War"?
And while we're at it, maybe we should retire the word "surge" as well. Right now, as the Obama plan for that Af-Pak War is being "rolled out," newspaper headlines have been surging when it comes to accepting the surge paradigm. Long before the administration's "strategic review" of the war had even been completed, President Obama was reportedly persuaded by former Iraq surge commander, now CentCom commander, General David Petraeus to "surge" another 17,000 troops into Afghanistan, starting this May.
For the last two weeks, news has been filtering out of Washington of an accompanying civilian "surge" into Afghanistan ("Obama's Afghanistan 'surge': diplomats, civilian specialists"). Oh, and then there's to be that opium-eradication surge and a range of other so-called surges. As the headlines have had it: "1,400 Isle Marines to join Afghanistan surge," "U.S. troop surge to aid Afghan police trainers," "Seabees build to house surge," "Afghan Plan Detailed As Iraq Surge 'Lite,'" and so on.
It seems to matter little that even General Petraeus wonders whether the word should be applied. ("The commander of the U.S. Central Command said Friday that an Iraq-style surge cannot be a solution to the problems in Afghanistan.") There are, however, other analogies that might better capture the scope and nature of the new strategic plan for the Af-Pak War. Think bailout. Think A.I.G.
The Costs of an Expanding War
In truth, what we're about to watch should be considered nothing less than the Great Afghan (or Af-Pak) bailout.
On Friday morning, the president officially rolled out his long-awaited "comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan," a plan without a name. If there was little news in it, that was only because of the furious leaking of prospective parts of it over the previous weeks. So many trial balloons, so little time.
In a recent "60 Minutes" interview (though not in his Friday announcement), the president also emphasized the need for an "exit strategy" from the war. Similarly, American commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, has been speaking of a possible "tipping point," three to five years away, that might lead to "eventual departure." Nonetheless, almost every element of the new plan -- both those the president mentioned Friday and the no-less-crucial ones that didn't receive a nod -- seem to involve the word "more"; that is, more U.S. troops, more U.S. diplomats, more civilian advisors, more American and NATO military advisors to train more Afghan troops and police, more base and outpost building, more opium-eradication operations, more aid, more money to the Pakistani military -- and strikingly large-scale as that may be, all of that doesn't even include the "covert war," fought mainly via unmanned aerial vehicles, along the Pakistani tribal borderlands, which is clearly going to intensify.
In the coming year, that CIA-run drone war, according to leaked reports, may be expanded from the tribal areas into Pakistan's more heavily populated Baluchistan province where some of the Taliban leadership is supposedly holed up. In addition, so reports in British papers claim, the U.S. is seriously considering a soft coup-in-place against Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Disillusioned with the widespread corruption in, and inefficiency of, his government, the U.S. would create a new "chief executive" or prime ministerial post not in the Afghan constitution -- and then install some reputedly less corrupt (and perhaps more malleable) figure. Karzai would supposedly be turned into a figurehead "father of the nation." Envoy Holbrooke has officially denied that Washington is planning any such thing, while a spokesman for Karzai denounced the idea (both, of course, just feeding the flames of the Afghan rumor mill).
What this all adds up to is an ambitious doubling down on just about every bet already made by Washington in these last years -- from the counterinsurgency war against the Taliban and the counter-terrorism war against al-Qaeda to the financial love/hate relationship with the Pakistani military and its intelligence services underway since at least the Nixon years of the early 1970s. (Many of the flattering things now being said by U.S. officials about Pakistani Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, for instance, were also said about the now fallen autocrat Pervez Musharraf when he held the same position.)
Despite that mention of the need for an exit strategy and a presidential assurance that both the Afghan and Pakistani governments will be held to Iraqi-style "benchmarks" of accountability in the period to come, Obama's is clearly a jump-in-with-both-feet strategy and, not surprisingly, is sure to involve a massive infusion of new funds. Unlike with A.I.G., where the financial inputs of the U.S. government are at least announced, we don't even have a ballpark figure for how much is actually involved right now, but it's bound to be staggering. Just supporting those 17,000 new American troops already ordered into Afghanistan, many destined to be dispatched to still-to-be-built bases and outposts in the embattled southern and eastern parts of the country for which all materials must be trucked in, will certainly cost billions.
Recently, the Washington Post's Walter Pincus dug up some of the construction and transportation costs associated with the war in Afghanistan and found that, as an employer, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comes in second only to the Afghan government in that job-desperate country. The Corps is spending about $4 billion this year alone on road-building activities, and has slated another $4-$6 billion for more of the same in 2010; it has, according to Pincus, already spent $2 billion constructing facilities for the expanding Afghan army and police forces, and has another $1.2 billion set aside for more such facilities this year. It is also likely to spend between $400 million and $1.4 billion on as many as six new bases, assorted outposts, and associated air fields American troops will be sent to in the south.
Throw in hardship pay, supplies, housing, and whatever else for the hundreds of diplomats and advisors in that promised "civilian surge"; add in the $1.5 billion a year the president promised in economic aid to Pakistan over the next five years, a tripling of such aid (as urged by Vice President Biden when he was still a senator); add in unknown amounts of aid to the Pakistani and Afghan militaries. Tote it up and you've just scratched the surface of Washington's coming investment in the Af-Pak War. (And lest you imagine that these costs might, at least, be offset by savings from Obama's plan to draw down American forces in Iraq, think again. A recent study by the Government Accountability Office suggests that "Iraq-related expenditures" will actually increase "during the withdrawal and for several years after its completion.")
Put all this together and you can see why the tactical word "surge" hardly covers what's about to happen. The administration's "new" strategy and its "new" thinking -- including its urge to peel off less committed Taliban supporters and reach out for help to regional powers -- should really be re-imagined as but another massive attempted bailout, this time of an Afghan project, now almost 40 years old, that in foreign policy terms is indeed our A.I.G.
Graveyard Thinking
As Obama's economic team overseeing the various financial bailouts is made up of figures long cozy with Wall Street, so his foreign policy team is made up of figures deeply entrenched in Washington's national security state -- former Clintonistas (including the penultimate Clinton herself), military figures like National Security Adviser General James Jones, and that refugee from the H.W. Bush era, Defense Secretary Robert Gates. They are classic custodians of empire. Like the economic team, they represent the ancien r�gime.
They've now done their "stress tests," which, in the world of foreign policy, are called "strategic reviews." They recognize that unexpected forces are pressing in on them. They grasp that the American global system, as it existed since the truncated American century began, is in danger. They're ready to bite the bullet and bail it out. Their goal is to save what they care about in ways that they know.
Unfortunately, the end result is likely to be that, as with A.I.G., we, the American people, could end up "owning" 80% of the Af-Pak project without ever "nationalizing" it -- without ever, that is, being in actual control. In fact, if things go as badly as they could in the Af-Pak War, A.I.G. might end up looking like a good deal by comparison.
The foreign policy team is no more likely to exhibit genuinely outside-the-box thinking than the team of Tim Geithner and Larry Summers has been. Their clear and desperate urge is to operate in the known zone, the one in which the U.S. is always imagined to be part of the solution to any problem on the planet, never part of the problem itself.
In foreign policy (as in economic policy), it took the Bush team less than eight years to steer the ship of state into the shallows where it ran disastrously aground. And yet, in response, after months of "strategic review," this team of inside-the-Beltway realists has come up with a combination of Af-Pak War moves that are almost blindingly expectable.
In the end, this sort of thinking is likely to leave the Obama administration hostage to its own projects as well as unprepared for the onrush of the unexpected and unknown, whose arrival may be the only thing that can be predicted with assurance right now. Whether as custodians of the imperial economy or the imperial frontier, Obama's people are lashed to the past, to Wall Street and the national security state. They are ill-prepared to take the necessary full measure of our world.
If you really want a "benchmark" for measuring how our world has been shifting on its axis, consider that we have all lived to see a Chinese premier appear at what was, in essence, an international news conference and seriously upbraid Washington for its handling of the global economy. That might have been surprising in itself. Far more startling was the response of Washington. A year ago, the place would have been up in arms. This time around, from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs ("There's no safer investment in the world than in the United States...") to the president himself ("Not just the Chinese government, but every investor can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States..."), Washington's response was to mollify and reassure.
Face it, we've entered a new universe. The "homeland" is in turmoil, the planetary frontiers are aboil. Change -- even change we don't want to believe in -- is in the air.
In the end, as with the Obama economic team, so the foreign policy team may be pushed in new directions sooner than anyone imagines and, willy-nilly, into some genuinely new thinking about a collapsing world. But not now. Not yet. Like our present financial bailouts, like that extra $30 billion that went into A.I.G. recently, the new Obama plan is superannuated on arrival. It represents graveyard thinking.
A.I.G...
Af-Pak War...
R.I.P.
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the Cold War and beyond. He also edited The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), an alternative history of the mad Bush years.
Copyright 2009 Tom Engelhardt
TORY BLITZKRIEG AGAINST AUTO WORKERS, By Sam Hammond
The Harper government has launched a new attack on the Canadian working class, aimed directly at the CAW. After a deadhead budget proposal that brought the country to a political crisis, a narrow escape hiding under the skirts of the Governor-General, a "just enough to appease the Liberals" limp into the parliamentary new year with a do‑nothing program, the Harperites have finally made a decisive move. That move is an insult to every working class person in this country.
In a crisis where the perpetrators have been generously rewarded for their crimes, where not one banker or corporate CEO has been asked to return a single penny from billions in bonuses and stock options they gave themselves, where not one politician has been asked to curtail expenses, where the government has given itself a generous $3 Billion slush fund that doesn't have to be accounted for, they dare to demand that autoworkers and retirees return pension benefits, give back monetary items, freeze wages and cut health benefits.
This attack will shrink the consumer spending of 10,000 auto workers, diminish the domestic market and spin‑off into decreased health benefits for 10,000 families and probably more pensioners. This is surely not a demand for the present, because it will escalate everything that brought us into this crisis. No! This is a demand for the near and distant future, for the neo‑con dream of a fettered and compliant working class, either bereft of unions or possessing unions that have been forced into the role of junior partners in the drive to maintain and nurture the status quo.
The opening shot is against the proud CAW at General Motors. Ford hasn't asked for a bailout, but for sure they will want contract parity with GM. What will the CAW do? Chrysler waits in the wings with an empty pail extended, another set of concessions?
This all takes place without a defined benefit from government. The demand is made and the concessions offered before any evidence of reward, before any knowledge of an outcome. This is not bargaining, it is something else, and the implications for Canadian Labour are enormous in scope and deadly in content.
Remember that in the midst of this debacle, under the cover of saving an industry and jobs, GM is investing tens of millions of dollars in Brazil to build state of the art production facilities. Ford already has the most technologically advanced assembly plant in the world operating in Brazil.
If the CAW agrees to take concessions to produce cheaper than US workers, what will it do to produce cheaper than Brazilian workers when the dial moves? This is not solidarity; it is competition, the enemy of workers that seeks to put us into antagonistic relations in a race to the bottom for the sustenance of corporate greed. The antithesis of competition is solidarity and unity, the historical foundation of trade unionism.
On March 10 and 11, as this newspaper goes to press, 10,000 auto workers will vote on the concessions. Those most vulnerable, the pensioners, will get no vote. Those who deferred their wages into pensions and benefits through tough bargaining and strikes will get no vote. Those who built the CAW will get no vote. But even if these 10,000 active workers turn down the concessions, (unlikely in the absence of a back‑up plan), the problem remains. What is to be done to restore the Canadian manufacturing base?
If it wants to survive as an independent force representing the class interests of working people, the labour movement needs to come up with a program of reconstruction that all people can fight for. Then battered autoworkers can really have a choice, can reject concessions for the "labour alternative." That alternative must include the nationalization of resources to be used for the building of a repossessed, publicly-owned manufacturing base. The first step in building that Labour Alternative could be rejection of concessions and a definite "no" to the Harperite agenda.
(This article is from the March 16-31, 2009, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St., Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)
CUT PAY, KICK 'EM WHEN THEY'RE DOWNUAW workers are not to blame for OE bailout : by Tim Sramcik
Editor's column: CUT PAY, KICK 'EM WHEN THEY'RE DOWN, UAW workers are not to blame for OE bailout
Publish date: Feb 1, 2009
By: Tim Sramcik
Source: Automotive Body Repair News
http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/Collision+Repair/Editors-column-CUT-PAY-KICK-EM-WHEN-THEYRE-DOWN/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/578993
The next time you get a chance, do yourself and your industry a big favor. Walk out onto your shop floor and kick your best tech as hard as you can in the backside. Make it hurt. It's important you show as much disrespect as possible to the person who shows up every day, puts in overtime, goes to training and devotes a good part of his or her life to you.
Next, cut his big, fat salary. After all, his high wages are at the core of your business problems just as they're the source of rising repair costs and the rising number of totals.
SOUND PRETTY STUPID? IT IS. But I've heard similar foolish statements made about UAW workers during debates over the auto bailout. Specifically about the purported $73/hour UAW members are supposed to be making "standing around turning a wrench." That wage is supposed to be the main source of Detroit's problems, unless you're the kind of person who believes in looking at fact.
FACT 1: The $73/hour stuff is nonsense. Actual current hourly wages for GM workers average between $14 and $28/hour. Benefits are another $10/hour. The $73/hour figure represents those numbers combined with benefits and the costs of pensions and health care for retired workers (people who have long since left the factory floor).
FACT 2: Labor contributes only 10 percent to the price of a car. In case you haven't noticed, American cars cost significantly less than their import rivals, usually several thousand dollars less for a comparable model. When was the last time you heard someone say, "I really wanted a Chevy or Chrysler over my Honda, but they're way too expensive?"
During the Congressional bailout debate, the people actively pushing the $73/hour myth were senators from Southern states that are home to factories run by import manufacturers – not exactly the kind of people who would be rooting for Detroit to succeed.
Who makes key decisions that ultimately decide whether a company survives. It's the executives, the same folks who were content to keep building gas guzzling big trucks and SUVs while practically ceding the core midsize and small vehicle markets to import brands. These are the same people who have had 30 years to win back the confidence of American consumers who believe, often rightly so, that import models offer far more in the way of quality and reliability. Oh, and if you're looking for workers whose wages actually work out to $73/hour (over $150,000 annually), that and far more is paid to a lot of people in offices who make the decisions that have kept Detroit struggling.
I believe the duty of the press is to bring the truth to light. Unfortunately, truth doesn't often translate into ratings, which explains why these facts often don't make their way onto cable news outlets. I also think it's important, especially in these difficult economic times, for members of the automotive industry not to turn upon one another. The American automotive market supports over 3 million jobs. These are your vendors, neighbors, friends and maybe even relatives. In these tough economic times, in an economy where every job is tied to another, every job matters.
Should one of the Big Three automakers fail, the consequences would be dire. Repairers already are reporting having to wait weeks for some parts due to Detroit's problems. Expect more of that should an automaker go under. Expect, too, to see vehicle values depreciate even more, which means more totals. Figure in the fact that fewer American jobs mean fewer customers to pay for your repairs.
Detroit needs to find solutions to turn its fortunes, and ours, around. That means addressing its real ills honestly, which shouldn't include squeezing autoworkers or making ridiculous claims about their compensation. We would do well to learn the same lesson.
Contact info:
tsramcik@advanstar.com
(440) 891-2743
About the Author
Tim Sramcik
Editor-in-Chief
tsramcik@advanstar.com
Tim began writing for ABRN nearly ten years ago, although he joined the staff full time in January 2008 as Editor-In-Chief. He has produced numerous news, technical and feature articles covering virtually every aspect of the collision repair market. In 2004 the American Society of Business Publication Editors recognized his work with two awards. Tim also has written extensively for Motor Age and Aftermarket Business. Articles by Tim Sramcik
Publish date: Feb 1, 2009
By: Tim Sramcik
Source: Automotive Body Repair News
http://abrn.search-autoparts.com/abrn/Collision+Repair/Editors-column-CUT-PAY-KICK-EM-WHEN-THEYRE-DOWN/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/578993
The next time you get a chance, do yourself and your industry a big favor. Walk out onto your shop floor and kick your best tech as hard as you can in the backside. Make it hurt. It's important you show as much disrespect as possible to the person who shows up every day, puts in overtime, goes to training and devotes a good part of his or her life to you.
Next, cut his big, fat salary. After all, his high wages are at the core of your business problems just as they're the source of rising repair costs and the rising number of totals.
SOUND PRETTY STUPID? IT IS. But I've heard similar foolish statements made about UAW workers during debates over the auto bailout. Specifically about the purported $73/hour UAW members are supposed to be making "standing around turning a wrench." That wage is supposed to be the main source of Detroit's problems, unless you're the kind of person who believes in looking at fact.
FACT 1: The $73/hour stuff is nonsense. Actual current hourly wages for GM workers average between $14 and $28/hour. Benefits are another $10/hour. The $73/hour figure represents those numbers combined with benefits and the costs of pensions and health care for retired workers (people who have long since left the factory floor).
FACT 2: Labor contributes only 10 percent to the price of a car. In case you haven't noticed, American cars cost significantly less than their import rivals, usually several thousand dollars less for a comparable model. When was the last time you heard someone say, "I really wanted a Chevy or Chrysler over my Honda, but they're way too expensive?"
During the Congressional bailout debate, the people actively pushing the $73/hour myth were senators from Southern states that are home to factories run by import manufacturers – not exactly the kind of people who would be rooting for Detroit to succeed.
Who makes key decisions that ultimately decide whether a company survives. It's the executives, the same folks who were content to keep building gas guzzling big trucks and SUVs while practically ceding the core midsize and small vehicle markets to import brands. These are the same people who have had 30 years to win back the confidence of American consumers who believe, often rightly so, that import models offer far more in the way of quality and reliability. Oh, and if you're looking for workers whose wages actually work out to $73/hour (over $150,000 annually), that and far more is paid to a lot of people in offices who make the decisions that have kept Detroit struggling.
I believe the duty of the press is to bring the truth to light. Unfortunately, truth doesn't often translate into ratings, which explains why these facts often don't make their way onto cable news outlets. I also think it's important, especially in these difficult economic times, for members of the automotive industry not to turn upon one another. The American automotive market supports over 3 million jobs. These are your vendors, neighbors, friends and maybe even relatives. In these tough economic times, in an economy where every job is tied to another, every job matters.
Should one of the Big Three automakers fail, the consequences would be dire. Repairers already are reporting having to wait weeks for some parts due to Detroit's problems. Expect more of that should an automaker go under. Expect, too, to see vehicle values depreciate even more, which means more totals. Figure in the fact that fewer American jobs mean fewer customers to pay for your repairs.
Detroit needs to find solutions to turn its fortunes, and ours, around. That means addressing its real ills honestly, which shouldn't include squeezing autoworkers or making ridiculous claims about their compensation. We would do well to learn the same lesson.
Contact info:
tsramcik@advanstar.com
(440) 891-2743
About the Author
Tim Sramcik
Editor-in-Chief
tsramcik@advanstar.com
Tim began writing for ABRN nearly ten years ago, although he joined the staff full time in January 2008 as Editor-In-Chief. He has produced numerous news, technical and feature articles covering virtually every aspect of the collision repair market. In 2004 the American Society of Business Publication Editors recognized his work with two awards. Tim also has written extensively for Motor Age and Aftermarket Business. Articles by Tim Sramcik
March 30, 2009
DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE Responds to the Manley Report by asking: And what about the people of Afghanistan?
January 25, 2008
Montreal
Development and Peace believes and reaffirms that the only way to truly advance the debate on Canada's role in Afghanistan, and to promote the appropriate decisions that must follow, is to place the well-being of the people of Afghanistan at the centre of all analysis and decisions.
1. An insufficient opening to greater diplomacy and more development
Informed and well-documented, the Manley report calls upon Canadian decision-makers to develop a more comprehensive policy, one more in line with the situation in Afghanistan, and a policy that gives diplomacy and development greater importance than does Canada's current response to the situation in this country. Although Development and Peace welcomes this opening, it regrets that the report put so much emphasis on the issues of security and more effective use of Canadian military forces instead of providing analysis and suggestions on how an increased role for diplomacy and development could be achieved.
In addition, given the means, resources and access to documentation afforded the commission, the report is somewhat disappointing. It fails to offer new insights or innovative solutions that could contribute to clear decision making. Many of the solutions offered have already proven inadequate or have demonstrated clear limitations. Simply affirming that Canada needs to develop an overall strategy, without providing at least some guidelines and proposing clear recommendations to bring this about, does not really advance the search for the appropriate solutions.
2. The people of Afghanistan are being neglected
Development and Peace has always believed and reaffirms here that the only way to truly advance the debate on Canada's role in Afghanistan, and to promote the appropriate decisions that must follow this, is to place the well-being of the people of Afghanistan at the core of all analysis and decisions. The rights of women are particularly problematic in Afghanistan. They should benefit from extra-special attention. This is why the goal of building a prosperous and secure Afghanistan for all citizens should not be subverted to international geopolitical considerations. Before all else, the men, women and children of Afghanistan have inalienable rights as human beings, and it is our responsibility as a rich country to stand alongside them and lend them our solidarity.
Afghanistanis’ rights to security are as important as other rights, but the country’s recent history clearly demonstrates that security cannot be achieved through military operations, whether national or international. While diplomatic and development initiatives also play very important roles, the participation of Afghanistanis in the re-building of their country is absolutely indispensable. In the end, Afghanistan can and should not be anything but that which its citizens desire: a strong civil society, well-organised, committed and engaged in determining its own future is a basic requirement to healthy development and proper functioning of a country Thus, the importance of enabling citizens’ early involvement and commitment to democracy and transparency. The Manley Report makes no mention at all of the participation of Afghanistanis in deciding their future, a major failing that is not resolved with references to the government of Afghanistan… for a country is so much more than its government.
3. The failings of Canadian development assistance in Afghanistan
Violence, poverty, and corruption, in addition to the cruel lack of services and infrastructure in Afghanistan demands an intelligent development strategy. It should be a combination of: 1) an immediate response to urgent needs, 2) a re-launching of the economy, a restarting of services and infrastructure rehabilitation, and 3) the building of solid, viable, tolerant and democratic communities in a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country.
The rapid response projects in support of Canadian troops in the Kandahar region, as discussed in the Manley Report, fall far short of the broader development approach that Development and Peace recommends. While it is clear Canadian assistance must bear fruit within a reasonable timeframe and assist the civilian population in the Kandahar region, Canada should not be focusing its assistance so narrowly. Intelligent development action needs to go deeper and further. This, of course, raises the issue of resources. While the Manley Report's assessment acknowledges the imbalance between the resources dedicated to military operations (more than $6 billion) and to development ($1.2 billion), its recommendations omit any reference to this. Given that Canada has the resources to help redress this imbalance: it is imperative it do so, and the Manley Report should have said this.
4. Afghanistani leadership - the forgotten element
Development work in Afghanistan, from emergency to reconstruction to long-term community development, is a complex and difficult task due to an atmosphere of overall insecurity, ethnic and religious differences and the fragility of its government. International aid workers are forced to contend with all sorts of restrictions, not the least of which is their own security, so they are unable to deploy all of their talents and capacities to the full. While they bring to Afghanistan valuable knowledge, expertise, equipment and technical know-how, as well as devotion and compassion, this does not negate the imperative and basic fact that development must be led and managed by Afghanistanis themselves. The government of Afghanistan, national institutions, local and civil society organizations must play a leadership role in this process and CIDA must support them and their diversity. Our experience in war-torn countries, and reconfirmed after 7 years in Afghanistan, illustrates that local organizations, these natural networks of assistance and solidarity and their traditional structures, are best able to support the population with greater security and impact, even in the most remote areas.
5. Distinguishing military concerns from humanitarian assistance and development issues
The perversion of international assistance into condescending strategies designed to captivate the support of the local population must cease immediately, if development work is to be successfully carried out, and if the people of Afghanistan are to be the principal actors in their own development. Giving the military the responsibility for projects intended to win the "hearts and minds" of the people of Afghanistan, and handing this responsibility to Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) under military command, simply imposes additional and unnecessary risks on national and international development workers. Plus it is a major obstacle to development work over the medium and longer terms. Even if NATO continues to pursue such short-sighted strategy, the Canadian government should exercise leadership and innovation by refusing to adhere to it and give the military responsibility only for activities within their domain. In the end, development work requires competencies and approaches that are outside of military expertise. Unfortunately, the Manley Report does not identify or recognize this problem.
6. Forgetting the national reconciliation and negotiation process
The "hearts and minds" of the people of Afghanistan must instead be mobilized around a national reconciliation initiative. All the major actors currently at war, as well as those who, under certain conditions, are prepared to participate in this initiative, should be invited. Canadian diplomacy has an important role to play in supporting this process with the Afghanistanis, and in promoting it with neighbouring countries such as Pakistan, India, Iran, and with its NATO allies and the United Nations, in addition to pressuring them all to take a more active role in the mediation and negotiation process.
7. The need for a clear debate
Over the coming weeks and months, the Canadian Parliament, government, media and the general public will be discussing what Canada needs and must do in Afghanistan. The Manley Report has already disappointed those expecting innovative ideas and new solutions to this very complex crisis. However, the discussions must continue and they must be thorough. They cannot be limited to legitimate concerns about our military compatriots deployed in the country, nor subordinated to purely geopolitical considerations, however important these may be.
For this reason, we feel called to repeat the obvious question, "And what about the people of Afghanistan?"
Development and Peace in Afghanistan
• DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE has been working continuously in Afghanistan since August 2001, supporting 22 development projects for a total of C$2,140,000.
• Project financing has come from public fundraising campaigns by DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE.
Our principal partners in Afghanistan throughout the years have included:
• Afghan Women’s Education Center
• Afghan Women’s Resource Center
• Afghan Bicycle Relief Association
• Caritas Austria
• Caritas Germany
• Caritas Pakistan
• Catholic Relief Services (CRS) – Afghanistan
• Cordaid
• International Catholic Migration Commission
• Revolutionary Afghan Women’s Association
• Shuhada organisation
Types of projects undertaken with our partners include:
• Provisions for basic human needs (drinking water, water purification, food, blankets, shelter and equipment, especially winter kits)
• Refugee resettlement assistance
• Economic alternatives and income-generating activities
• Institutional capacity-building
• Education and literacy training
• Inter-religious dialogue
• Professional training
Populations helped:
• Children
• Women and girls
• Handicapped and maimed persons
• Refugees, internally displaced persons, and nomads
The Development and Peace 2007-2011 program budget for Afghanistan is C$700,000, focused on:
• Reinforcing civil society groups and organisations
• Empowerment of women and women’s groups
Development and Peace is the official international development organization of the Catholic Church in Canada and the Canadian representative of Caritas Internationalis. For more than 40 years, Development and Peace has worked directly with organizations made up of or representing the poor and marginalized in the Global South, and provided in excess of $500 million to 15,000 projects in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. We are presently active with over 200 partners in 33 countries. In Canada, we are a democratic movement for international solidarity - educating the public about the root causes of poverty and mobilizing social action for change - with 13,000 members from coast to coast.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Wanda Potrykus
514 257-8710, ext. 365
wanda.potrykus@devp.org
Development and Peace is the official international development organization
of the Catholic Church in Canada and the Canadian member of Caritas Internationalis.
10 St. Mary Street, Suite 420, Toronto, Ontario CANADA M4Y 1P9
Telephone: (416) 922-1592 | Fax: (416) 922-0957
Toll Free: 1 800 494-1401
E-Mail: ccodp@devp.org | Web: www.devp.org
Montreal
Development and Peace believes and reaffirms that the only way to truly advance the debate on Canada's role in Afghanistan, and to promote the appropriate decisions that must follow, is to place the well-being of the people of Afghanistan at the centre of all analysis and decisions.
1. An insufficient opening to greater diplomacy and more development
Informed and well-documented, the Manley report calls upon Canadian decision-makers to develop a more comprehensive policy, one more in line with the situation in Afghanistan, and a policy that gives diplomacy and development greater importance than does Canada's current response to the situation in this country. Although Development and Peace welcomes this opening, it regrets that the report put so much emphasis on the issues of security and more effective use of Canadian military forces instead of providing analysis and suggestions on how an increased role for diplomacy and development could be achieved.
In addition, given the means, resources and access to documentation afforded the commission, the report is somewhat disappointing. It fails to offer new insights or innovative solutions that could contribute to clear decision making. Many of the solutions offered have already proven inadequate or have demonstrated clear limitations. Simply affirming that Canada needs to develop an overall strategy, without providing at least some guidelines and proposing clear recommendations to bring this about, does not really advance the search for the appropriate solutions.
2. The people of Afghanistan are being neglected
Development and Peace has always believed and reaffirms here that the only way to truly advance the debate on Canada's role in Afghanistan, and to promote the appropriate decisions that must follow this, is to place the well-being of the people of Afghanistan at the core of all analysis and decisions. The rights of women are particularly problematic in Afghanistan. They should benefit from extra-special attention. This is why the goal of building a prosperous and secure Afghanistan for all citizens should not be subverted to international geopolitical considerations. Before all else, the men, women and children of Afghanistan have inalienable rights as human beings, and it is our responsibility as a rich country to stand alongside them and lend them our solidarity.
Afghanistanis’ rights to security are as important as other rights, but the country’s recent history clearly demonstrates that security cannot be achieved through military operations, whether national or international. While diplomatic and development initiatives also play very important roles, the participation of Afghanistanis in the re-building of their country is absolutely indispensable. In the end, Afghanistan can and should not be anything but that which its citizens desire: a strong civil society, well-organised, committed and engaged in determining its own future is a basic requirement to healthy development and proper functioning of a country Thus, the importance of enabling citizens’ early involvement and commitment to democracy and transparency. The Manley Report makes no mention at all of the participation of Afghanistanis in deciding their future, a major failing that is not resolved with references to the government of Afghanistan… for a country is so much more than its government.
3. The failings of Canadian development assistance in Afghanistan
Violence, poverty, and corruption, in addition to the cruel lack of services and infrastructure in Afghanistan demands an intelligent development strategy. It should be a combination of: 1) an immediate response to urgent needs, 2) a re-launching of the economy, a restarting of services and infrastructure rehabilitation, and 3) the building of solid, viable, tolerant and democratic communities in a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country.
The rapid response projects in support of Canadian troops in the Kandahar region, as discussed in the Manley Report, fall far short of the broader development approach that Development and Peace recommends. While it is clear Canadian assistance must bear fruit within a reasonable timeframe and assist the civilian population in the Kandahar region, Canada should not be focusing its assistance so narrowly. Intelligent development action needs to go deeper and further. This, of course, raises the issue of resources. While the Manley Report's assessment acknowledges the imbalance between the resources dedicated to military operations (more than $6 billion) and to development ($1.2 billion), its recommendations omit any reference to this. Given that Canada has the resources to help redress this imbalance: it is imperative it do so, and the Manley Report should have said this.
4. Afghanistani leadership - the forgotten element
Development work in Afghanistan, from emergency to reconstruction to long-term community development, is a complex and difficult task due to an atmosphere of overall insecurity, ethnic and religious differences and the fragility of its government. International aid workers are forced to contend with all sorts of restrictions, not the least of which is their own security, so they are unable to deploy all of their talents and capacities to the full. While they bring to Afghanistan valuable knowledge, expertise, equipment and technical know-how, as well as devotion and compassion, this does not negate the imperative and basic fact that development must be led and managed by Afghanistanis themselves. The government of Afghanistan, national institutions, local and civil society organizations must play a leadership role in this process and CIDA must support them and their diversity. Our experience in war-torn countries, and reconfirmed after 7 years in Afghanistan, illustrates that local organizations, these natural networks of assistance and solidarity and their traditional structures, are best able to support the population with greater security and impact, even in the most remote areas.
5. Distinguishing military concerns from humanitarian assistance and development issues
The perversion of international assistance into condescending strategies designed to captivate the support of the local population must cease immediately, if development work is to be successfully carried out, and if the people of Afghanistan are to be the principal actors in their own development. Giving the military the responsibility for projects intended to win the "hearts and minds" of the people of Afghanistan, and handing this responsibility to Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) under military command, simply imposes additional and unnecessary risks on national and international development workers. Plus it is a major obstacle to development work over the medium and longer terms. Even if NATO continues to pursue such short-sighted strategy, the Canadian government should exercise leadership and innovation by refusing to adhere to it and give the military responsibility only for activities within their domain. In the end, development work requires competencies and approaches that are outside of military expertise. Unfortunately, the Manley Report does not identify or recognize this problem.
6. Forgetting the national reconciliation and negotiation process
The "hearts and minds" of the people of Afghanistan must instead be mobilized around a national reconciliation initiative. All the major actors currently at war, as well as those who, under certain conditions, are prepared to participate in this initiative, should be invited. Canadian diplomacy has an important role to play in supporting this process with the Afghanistanis, and in promoting it with neighbouring countries such as Pakistan, India, Iran, and with its NATO allies and the United Nations, in addition to pressuring them all to take a more active role in the mediation and negotiation process.
7. The need for a clear debate
Over the coming weeks and months, the Canadian Parliament, government, media and the general public will be discussing what Canada needs and must do in Afghanistan. The Manley Report has already disappointed those expecting innovative ideas and new solutions to this very complex crisis. However, the discussions must continue and they must be thorough. They cannot be limited to legitimate concerns about our military compatriots deployed in the country, nor subordinated to purely geopolitical considerations, however important these may be.
For this reason, we feel called to repeat the obvious question, "And what about the people of Afghanistan?"
Development and Peace in Afghanistan
• DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE has been working continuously in Afghanistan since August 2001, supporting 22 development projects for a total of C$2,140,000.
• Project financing has come from public fundraising campaigns by DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE.
Our principal partners in Afghanistan throughout the years have included:
• Afghan Women’s Education Center
• Afghan Women’s Resource Center
• Afghan Bicycle Relief Association
• Caritas Austria
• Caritas Germany
• Caritas Pakistan
• Catholic Relief Services (CRS) – Afghanistan
• Cordaid
• International Catholic Migration Commission
• Revolutionary Afghan Women’s Association
• Shuhada organisation
Types of projects undertaken with our partners include:
• Provisions for basic human needs (drinking water, water purification, food, blankets, shelter and equipment, especially winter kits)
• Refugee resettlement assistance
• Economic alternatives and income-generating activities
• Institutional capacity-building
• Education and literacy training
• Inter-religious dialogue
• Professional training
Populations helped:
• Children
• Women and girls
• Handicapped and maimed persons
• Refugees, internally displaced persons, and nomads
The Development and Peace 2007-2011 program budget for Afghanistan is C$700,000, focused on:
• Reinforcing civil society groups and organisations
• Empowerment of women and women’s groups
Development and Peace is the official international development organization of the Catholic Church in Canada and the Canadian representative of Caritas Internationalis. For more than 40 years, Development and Peace has worked directly with organizations made up of or representing the poor and marginalized in the Global South, and provided in excess of $500 million to 15,000 projects in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. We are presently active with over 200 partners in 33 countries. In Canada, we are a democratic movement for international solidarity - educating the public about the root causes of poverty and mobilizing social action for change - with 13,000 members from coast to coast.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Wanda Potrykus
514 257-8710, ext. 365
wanda.potrykus@devp.org
Development and Peace is the official international development organization
of the Catholic Church in Canada and the Canadian member of Caritas Internationalis.
10 St. Mary Street, Suite 420, Toronto, Ontario CANADA M4Y 1P9
Telephone: (416) 922-1592 | Fax: (416) 922-0957
Toll Free: 1 800 494-1401
E-Mail: ccodp@devp.org | Web: www.devp.org
GOOD CAPITALIST, BAD CAPITALIST? People's Voice, March 16-31, 2009 issue
GOOD CAPITALIST, BAD CAPITALIST?
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has denounced the unfettered capitalism of the past three decades and called for a new era of "social capitalism". In an essay in The Monthly magazine, Rudd outlined plans to "fix capitalism". "Ironically it now falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself," he wrote.
The "Culture and Life" column of The Guardian, published by the Communist Party of Australia, printed the following commentary on this development.
Prime Minister Rudd's discovery of the ugly face of capitalism should have been a reason to celebrate: a national leader acknowledging the inherent rottenness of the private property/private profit system. But, of course, Rudd was doing no such thing.
His criticisms were not aimed at the system itself, only at the "bad apples" that threatened to spoil the remainder of the barrel. Far from attacking capitalism itself, his remarks were designed to show explicitly that not all capitalists were uncaring, greedy, profiteers.
By sticking the boot (however gently) into the profiteers, Rudd was really promoting the social democrat notion that capitalism has a gentler, more humane side. To believe that a system based on exploiting workers can in any way be seen as humane is to engage in self‑delusion, but it is a belief that the ruling class very much wants working people to accept.
The ruling class would not last long if they acknowledged that the majority of the population - the workers, small farmers, owners of small businesses, pensioners and self‑funded retirees - were all exploited, now would they?
Instead, the ruling class spends a lot of time and energy convincing the mass of the people that they, and the capitalist owners of finance and industry, are "all in this together" and have a common stake in keeping the economy buoyant.
Canny employers give trifling quantities of shares in their companies to their employees; employers draw on workers' super funds as a source of investment capital; in all sorts of ways, subtle and unsubtle, workers are encouraged to think of themselves, not as members of the working class, but as members of the middle class which is perceived as somehow socially superior.
The fluctuations of the stock market, that really reflect the activities of so‑called investors gambling on the rise and fall of share prices rather than reflecting actual production and industrial performance, are reported on the news every night as though every viewer were an investor. But they are never reported in terms of what the figures mean for the workers in a particular industry, despite the fact that the action of employers reacting to the rise or fall of share prices can have a catastrophic effect on workers.
Of course, however much they dress it up, workers are not part of the ruling class; they are not "in business", they do not scoop the cream off the top before paying a part of what is left to their lowly employees.
When imperialism finally overthrew socialism in the Soviet Union in 1991, capitalist pundits nodded sagely and proclaimed that it proved that capitalism was the ultimate form of social development and there could be no further development: it was, they said, "the end of history".
Such unscientific nonsense was soon dispelled: the overthrow of socialism failed to spread from Eastern Europe to Asia, Africa or Latin America. Even in the former Soviet Union itself, three Republics soon returned to the Soviet form of government and society.
Communist parties and the goal of Communism continued to gain ground, until today forty percent of the world's people live in countries where the Communists either are the government or take part in the government. (Remember that next time someone tells you the Communists are "dead".)
This continuing shift in the world towards the Left is crucial to understanding Rudd's criticism of what he would like us to believe are the "excesses" of extremist or rogue capitalists. The bourgeoisie can no longer ignore or deny the growing mass support globally for progressive leaders, policies and programs.
Through propaganda, distortion and lying, the bourgeoisie will try to represent those progressive policies as part of its own agenda. But even when the people are taken in by such ruses, they eventually will see through them and, with the help of the Communists, discover the correct path once again.
The greed, waste and, let's face it, inefficiency of capitalism prevents it from ever satisfying humanity's needs and aspirations. Only socialism is capable of doing that.
As more and more people come to understand that basic fact, capitalism is steadily losing its grip on the world. The global financial crisis has added impetus to people's questioning of the prevailing social system.
Capitalism's only solution to the crisis, giving great wads of public money to the major capitalist institutions, does not sit at all well with the people, whose pensions, jobs and mortgages are being threatened, or have even been destroyed, by the greed of those same institutions.
Rudd's role is to convince people that the crisis is the work of "bad" capitalists and that there are "good" capitalists around who can be trusted with our money. Meanwhile, capitalism's strategy in this crisis is to maintain its profitability, by laying off workers or closing plants and by getting the State to use public money to prop up capitalist corporations.
As the State uses public money, the working people's money, to pull these ailing corporations out of the hole they've dug themselves into, the rescued capitalists expect to resume where they left off. They have no intention of using their profits to repay the public money they were given: that was to "help the economy to get back on its feet".
The people will be expected to be grateful to the big banks and other corporations for their "dedication" to reviving the economy. Surely it would by churlish of the people to want their money, their jobs and their houses back too?
Or would it? Somehow, I don't think so.
(This article is from the March 16-31, 2009, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St., Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has denounced the unfettered capitalism of the past three decades and called for a new era of "social capitalism". In an essay in The Monthly magazine, Rudd outlined plans to "fix capitalism". "Ironically it now falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself," he wrote.
The "Culture and Life" column of The Guardian, published by the Communist Party of Australia, printed the following commentary on this development.
Prime Minister Rudd's discovery of the ugly face of capitalism should have been a reason to celebrate: a national leader acknowledging the inherent rottenness of the private property/private profit system. But, of course, Rudd was doing no such thing.
His criticisms were not aimed at the system itself, only at the "bad apples" that threatened to spoil the remainder of the barrel. Far from attacking capitalism itself, his remarks were designed to show explicitly that not all capitalists were uncaring, greedy, profiteers.
By sticking the boot (however gently) into the profiteers, Rudd was really promoting the social democrat notion that capitalism has a gentler, more humane side. To believe that a system based on exploiting workers can in any way be seen as humane is to engage in self‑delusion, but it is a belief that the ruling class very much wants working people to accept.
The ruling class would not last long if they acknowledged that the majority of the population - the workers, small farmers, owners of small businesses, pensioners and self‑funded retirees - were all exploited, now would they?
Instead, the ruling class spends a lot of time and energy convincing the mass of the people that they, and the capitalist owners of finance and industry, are "all in this together" and have a common stake in keeping the economy buoyant.
Canny employers give trifling quantities of shares in their companies to their employees; employers draw on workers' super funds as a source of investment capital; in all sorts of ways, subtle and unsubtle, workers are encouraged to think of themselves, not as members of the working class, but as members of the middle class which is perceived as somehow socially superior.
The fluctuations of the stock market, that really reflect the activities of so‑called investors gambling on the rise and fall of share prices rather than reflecting actual production and industrial performance, are reported on the news every night as though every viewer were an investor. But they are never reported in terms of what the figures mean for the workers in a particular industry, despite the fact that the action of employers reacting to the rise or fall of share prices can have a catastrophic effect on workers.
Of course, however much they dress it up, workers are not part of the ruling class; they are not "in business", they do not scoop the cream off the top before paying a part of what is left to their lowly employees.
When imperialism finally overthrew socialism in the Soviet Union in 1991, capitalist pundits nodded sagely and proclaimed that it proved that capitalism was the ultimate form of social development and there could be no further development: it was, they said, "the end of history".
Such unscientific nonsense was soon dispelled: the overthrow of socialism failed to spread from Eastern Europe to Asia, Africa or Latin America. Even in the former Soviet Union itself, three Republics soon returned to the Soviet form of government and society.
Communist parties and the goal of Communism continued to gain ground, until today forty percent of the world's people live in countries where the Communists either are the government or take part in the government. (Remember that next time someone tells you the Communists are "dead".)
This continuing shift in the world towards the Left is crucial to understanding Rudd's criticism of what he would like us to believe are the "excesses" of extremist or rogue capitalists. The bourgeoisie can no longer ignore or deny the growing mass support globally for progressive leaders, policies and programs.
Through propaganda, distortion and lying, the bourgeoisie will try to represent those progressive policies as part of its own agenda. But even when the people are taken in by such ruses, they eventually will see through them and, with the help of the Communists, discover the correct path once again.
The greed, waste and, let's face it, inefficiency of capitalism prevents it from ever satisfying humanity's needs and aspirations. Only socialism is capable of doing that.
As more and more people come to understand that basic fact, capitalism is steadily losing its grip on the world. The global financial crisis has added impetus to people's questioning of the prevailing social system.
Capitalism's only solution to the crisis, giving great wads of public money to the major capitalist institutions, does not sit at all well with the people, whose pensions, jobs and mortgages are being threatened, or have even been destroyed, by the greed of those same institutions.
Rudd's role is to convince people that the crisis is the work of "bad" capitalists and that there are "good" capitalists around who can be trusted with our money. Meanwhile, capitalism's strategy in this crisis is to maintain its profitability, by laying off workers or closing plants and by getting the State to use public money to prop up capitalist corporations.
As the State uses public money, the working people's money, to pull these ailing corporations out of the hole they've dug themselves into, the rescued capitalists expect to resume where they left off. They have no intention of using their profits to repay the public money they were given: that was to "help the economy to get back on its feet".
The people will be expected to be grateful to the big banks and other corporations for their "dedication" to reviving the economy. Surely it would by churlish of the people to want their money, their jobs and their houses back too?
Or would it? Somehow, I don't think so.
(This article is from the March 16-31, 2009, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St., Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)
Harper’s budget: Money for war, nothing for E.I. or jobs
Socialist Worker issue 503 l 11 February 2009
by P.R. WRIGHT
The minority Harper government has accepted the reality of deficit financing, and is trumpeting its so-called stimulus package.
But even the most generous reading of the package suggests it is woefully inadequate—a mere 1.1 per cent of GDP, and just over half of the two per cent recommended by the International Monetary Fund.
It is also clear that any new spending that might benefit ordinary workers and their families will have to be forcibly pried from the Conservatives’ clamped fists. And not surprisingly, the federal Liberals have resumed their role in propping up the Tories and their Budget.
The 2009 Federal Budget introduced more broad-based tax cuts costing $2 billion per year and permanently reducing the future capacity of the federal government. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, “while those who recently lost their jobs get no support, the tax cuts announced in the budget are a windfall for the wealthy.”
Households with incomes over $150,000 per year will receive $900 in tax breaks. By contrast, low-income Canadians will receive a maximum of $33.
Even the much-touted home renovation tax credit will only accrue to homeowners wealthy enough to take advantage of it, since households must spend more than $10,000 on the project to actually receive the maximum $1,350 credit, and the project must be undertaken between January 27, 2009 and February 1, 2010.
And Harper made no effort to tie the tax credits to green initiatives to make homes more energy efficient. The $7 billion earmarked for infrastructure spending over the next two years is predicated on matching funds provided by provincial governments and the private sector.
For instance, the $4 billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund must be matched by provincial governments before it can flow.
The $2 billion allocated for college and university infrastructure will only flow if the colleges and universities can match it dollar-for-dollar with funding from other sources.
Given the constraints on provincial coffers as unemployment rises, and given the profitability crisis in the private sector, it is doubtful whether the matching funding will materialize.
If this is the case, then the federal government will be absolved of any meaningful contribution to infrastructure spending.
On the environment, there is precious little. The biggest sums of money—$300 million and $250 million—were allocated to support nuclear energy and unproven carbon capture technology, respectively.
An additional $10 million was allocated to bio-fuel research. The development of bio-fuel has already threatened food production globally, and it produces as many harmful emissions in its production as combustion engines.
Nothing was allocated to wind power, which could both stimulate manufacturing and create jobs, while reducing dependence on carbon-emitting fuel.
And despite the hype, the Budget clearly included real dollar cuts. The Equalization program was reduced by about $7 billion (about the same amount as “allocated” to infrastructure spending).
In response, Conservative Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams denounced the projected $1.5 billion loss to his province and demanded that Liberal Members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador vote against the Budget, splitting the federal Liberals on Leader Michael Ignatieff’s first parliamentary vote under his leadership.
Finally, the Budget continues a freeze on public-sector workers and weakens pay equity claims.
Meanwhile Harper’s military budget remains untouched.
The nearly $500 billion allocated for military spending over the next 20 years won’t be affected by the economic crisis. The war in Afghanistan, which a majority of Canadians oppose, is already projected to cost $10 billion more than expected.
Harper and his Liberal backers have shown they expect workers to take the short end of the stick in this crisis. But there is an appetite across the country for a fight.
Expand Employment Insurance provisions, not the war: this is where the fight must now go.
by P.R. WRIGHT
The minority Harper government has accepted the reality of deficit financing, and is trumpeting its so-called stimulus package.
But even the most generous reading of the package suggests it is woefully inadequate—a mere 1.1 per cent of GDP, and just over half of the two per cent recommended by the International Monetary Fund.
It is also clear that any new spending that might benefit ordinary workers and their families will have to be forcibly pried from the Conservatives’ clamped fists. And not surprisingly, the federal Liberals have resumed their role in propping up the Tories and their Budget.
The 2009 Federal Budget introduced more broad-based tax cuts costing $2 billion per year and permanently reducing the future capacity of the federal government. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, “while those who recently lost their jobs get no support, the tax cuts announced in the budget are a windfall for the wealthy.”
Households with incomes over $150,000 per year will receive $900 in tax breaks. By contrast, low-income Canadians will receive a maximum of $33.
Even the much-touted home renovation tax credit will only accrue to homeowners wealthy enough to take advantage of it, since households must spend more than $10,000 on the project to actually receive the maximum $1,350 credit, and the project must be undertaken between January 27, 2009 and February 1, 2010.
And Harper made no effort to tie the tax credits to green initiatives to make homes more energy efficient. The $7 billion earmarked for infrastructure spending over the next two years is predicated on matching funds provided by provincial governments and the private sector.
For instance, the $4 billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund must be matched by provincial governments before it can flow.
The $2 billion allocated for college and university infrastructure will only flow if the colleges and universities can match it dollar-for-dollar with funding from other sources.
Given the constraints on provincial coffers as unemployment rises, and given the profitability crisis in the private sector, it is doubtful whether the matching funding will materialize.
If this is the case, then the federal government will be absolved of any meaningful contribution to infrastructure spending.
On the environment, there is precious little. The biggest sums of money—$300 million and $250 million—were allocated to support nuclear energy and unproven carbon capture technology, respectively.
An additional $10 million was allocated to bio-fuel research. The development of bio-fuel has already threatened food production globally, and it produces as many harmful emissions in its production as combustion engines.
Nothing was allocated to wind power, which could both stimulate manufacturing and create jobs, while reducing dependence on carbon-emitting fuel.
And despite the hype, the Budget clearly included real dollar cuts. The Equalization program was reduced by about $7 billion (about the same amount as “allocated” to infrastructure spending).
In response, Conservative Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams denounced the projected $1.5 billion loss to his province and demanded that Liberal Members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador vote against the Budget, splitting the federal Liberals on Leader Michael Ignatieff’s first parliamentary vote under his leadership.
Finally, the Budget continues a freeze on public-sector workers and weakens pay equity claims.
Meanwhile Harper’s military budget remains untouched.
The nearly $500 billion allocated for military spending over the next 20 years won’t be affected by the economic crisis. The war in Afghanistan, which a majority of Canadians oppose, is already projected to cost $10 billion more than expected.
Harper and his Liberal backers have shown they expect workers to take the short end of the stick in this crisis. But there is an appetite across the country for a fight.
Expand Employment Insurance provisions, not the war: this is where the fight must now go.
The Troops Aren’t Coming Home, By Aaron Glantz
Monday, March 30, 2009.
It may seem counter-intuitive but by September of this year dovish Democrat Barack Obama will have actually sent more troops into combat than his hawkish predecessor George W. Bush.
How can this be?
After all, Barack Obama announced this month a phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq by August 2010. (After the drawdown, a large force of as many as 50,000 troops — about one-third of what is there now — will remain with a new, noncombat mission: train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel and conduct anti-terror operations.)
But the time-line of the drawdown is back-loaded with the first US troops not scheduled to come home until this September – and even then our force in Iraq will only be reduced by 12,000.
At that point, approximately 135,000 US troops will still occupy the country. That’s the same number that invaded Iraq back in March 2003.
At the same time, Obama announced Friday he’s sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan – 17,000 combat troops plus another 4,000 to train Afghan forces and advise the Afghan government.
What this means is that under President Barack Obama the Global War on Terror is not winding down as many people expected. It is escalating.
We should all be ready for the human and economic consequences.
Aaron Glantz is a National Examiner.
It may seem counter-intuitive but by September of this year dovish Democrat Barack Obama will have actually sent more troops into combat than his hawkish predecessor George W. Bush.
How can this be?
After all, Barack Obama announced this month a phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq by August 2010. (After the drawdown, a large force of as many as 50,000 troops — about one-third of what is there now — will remain with a new, noncombat mission: train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel and conduct anti-terror operations.)
But the time-line of the drawdown is back-loaded with the first US troops not scheduled to come home until this September – and even then our force in Iraq will only be reduced by 12,000.
At that point, approximately 135,000 US troops will still occupy the country. That’s the same number that invaded Iraq back in March 2003.
At the same time, Obama announced Friday he’s sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan – 17,000 combat troops plus another 4,000 to train Afghan forces and advise the Afghan government.
What this means is that under President Barack Obama the Global War on Terror is not winding down as many people expected. It is escalating.
We should all be ready for the human and economic consequences.
Aaron Glantz is a National Examiner.
Israel: An interview with Hadash MP and communist Dov Khenin
http://links.org.au/node/968
March 8, 2009 -- Dov Khenin is a member of Israel's parliament (the Knesset) representing Hadash, the alliance led by the Communist Party of Israel. In November 2008, Khenin stood as mayoral candidate for Israel's biggest city Tel Aviv, where he received almost 35% of the vote. Dov Khenin talks to the editors of the British socialist journal 21st Century Socialism about the Middle East conflict and prospects for a renewal of the left in Israel. He also discusses the issues to be overcome in a negotiated Middle East settlement, international solidarity with the Palestinian people and the need for socialism in the 21st century. This interview has been posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal with permission, in the interests of informing our readers of all shades of left opinion in occupied Palestine.
... the new generation of young Israelis are more open to new ideas, new thinking, more open to criticism, to social and environmental and political criticism of Israeli society and politics.
21st Century Socialism: What was the Israeli establishment aiming to achieve with the recent attack on Gaza and the continuing siege, and what have they achieved?
Dov Khenin: Their logic is that the only way to solve problems is through force, and if force cannot solve something then you should use more force. This is the inner logic of the Israeli establishment's attitude towards the Middle East conflict and to the Palestinians especially. Of course, this cannot really achieve anything, it is just a further escalation of the vicious circle of hate and blood which is the disaster of the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Do you see aspects of the current situation, with the election of Barack Obama in the United States and in the changing forces in Israel, Palestine and the Middle East, which could lead to a breakthrough towards peace?
Well, concerning the politics of the Obama administration, it is to early to tell what they are willing to do here in the Middle East. I think it is high time for the United States to realise that the current policy as conducted by the Bush administration caused a lot of damage to American influence here in the Middle East. So I do believe that the Americans should change their attitude. Are they willing to do so? It is too early to really know.
Now, concerning Israel and Palestine, the situation is very dialectical. On the one hand, the rise of the extreme right wing in Israel, and the rise of Hamas as the administration in Gaza, are both developments in the direction of further escalation, and further deterioration of the situation in the Middle East. However, at the very same time, I do believe that most Israelis and most Palestinians are really tired of this very long conflict, and there are forces underneath in both peoples that would like a change of course, the real beginning of a political process here.
Could you comment on the recent general election in Israel, including the performance of the left?
The elections gave an electoral picture of the complete deadlock of the Labour and Kadima government, in both political and social-economic issues. So Israeli voters really punished both Kadima and Labour, and elected a right-wing government, without any real enhusiasm. The moderate Zionists including Meretz fared very badly.
We should make a very clear defining line between the old left, what we call the moderate Zionist parties, who had a crushing defeat in this election, partly because of their indecision, vis-a-vis the Gaza war for example. They supported the war at the beginning, then they hesitated for a while. Hadash really strengthened its vote both in the Jewish parts of Israel and in the Arabic population. Of course, Hadash is still a very small party. We have only four out of 120 MPs.
There is a need for a new left in Israeli politics; it is not only a need but it is also a possibility. We can see the signs of this possibility with the relative success of Hadash in both Jewish and Arab parts of Israel. But of course the challenge for the recreation of the new Israeli left is a very important one and it is still ahead of us. The way to re-establish and rebuild a powerful new Israeli left is only beginning.
In November 2008 you stood for election as mayoral candidate for Tel Aviv. Could you describe the election campaign and why you were so successful in attracting votes?
Tel Aviv is a very important place in Israel; it is not only the economic and social centre of Israeli society, it is also the cultural centre of Israel society. Tel Aviv is also the richest of all the Israeli cities.
In the recent municipal election, the incumbent mayor Ron Huldai was supported not only by his own party, which is the Labour Party, but also by the Kadima Party, which was the party of government in Israel at the time of the municipal elections; he was supported also by the right-wing Likud party, also by the religious parties, he was supported by all parties of the extreme right. And indirectly he was also supported by the Meretz Party, the Zionist moderate party, with former member of the Knesset Yaël Dayan being a member of his electoral list in the Tel Aviv municipal elections. Yaël Dayan was a very important figure in the national leadership of Meretz. So on paper, Ron Huldai, the current mayor of Tel Aviv, was a very sure candidate for the elections, and he ran a campaign with a lot of money.
The interesting phenomonon was that we succeeded with the ``City for All'' movement to achieve nearly 35% of the vote for the mayorship in Tel Aviv. Of course not enough to win the mayorship, but it was a very big success for a local movement that ran for the elections without money, with the support only of the enthusiasm of volunteers; we had approximately 2500 volunteers working for us all around the city, which in Israeli terms is a very very big number. And the most interesting phenomenon was we got the votes of about 75% of young people below 35.
The elections in Tel Aviv were not conducted only on municipal issues. From the very beginning of the election campaign, my opponents, including the Labour Party MPs, attacked me personally, very sharply, because of what they called my anti-Zionist positions, my support for the young people refusing to serve in the Israel army -- which is a kind of very holy thing in Israeli society -- my political attitude to the national anthem of Israel (you know, this anthem really does not allow Arabs to sing it, because it speaks about the Jewish spirit which we have in ourselves). So all these political, and you may say also ideological issues, were on the front pages of every Israeli newspaper all through the campaign period of the municipal elections.
And even so, I got 35% of the votes.
And City for All, the movement we established in Tel Aviv, which is a kind of red-green alliance, is the strongest movement inside the Tel Aviv municipality following the election. So this really shows the possibilities existing within Israeli society. You know, seeing Israeli society from abroad, you may see mostly problems, problems and dangers. But understanding Israeli society from within, you see not only problems, but also possibilities. You see the new generation of young Israelis are more open to new ideas, new thinking, more open to criticism, to social and environmental and political criticism of Israeli society and politics. So the experience of City for All really shows up that the building of a new left in Israeli society is not only very much needed, but is also very very possible.
It seems from here that from the increasing Israeli repression in the Occupied Territories, the war on Lebanon, the war on Gaza, that Zionism is slipping into a moral crisis, that its increasingly shrill justifications for Israel's actions are being rejected more and more by the international community. Israel is being compared to apartheid South Africa, do you think that is a fair comparison?
Well, I think that the current situation is leading to some very bad places. You know, historical comparisons are very limited; every situation is specific. And you cannot really compare very different places and histories. But without any doubt, the current politics of the Israeli establishment is leading Israel into terrible places. It will lead to the growing isolation of Israel in the world if it continues.
There is a movement in many countries to push for a boycott of Israel, of academic institutions, of Israeli goods, trade and so on. What is the position of Hadash?
Khenin: We do support a boycott of things produced in the Israeli settlements, we are for a boycott of products from the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. However, I do not believe that an indiscriminate boycott of Israel and Israelis will help to improve the situation in any way. You know, the right-wing establishment in Israel use these kinds of boycotts to prove once more to the Israelis that all the world is against us, that people do not make any clear marking line between moderates and extremists, that all the world is anti-Semitic and so on. So an indiscriminate boycott I don't think is very helpful.
What is your view on the internal divisions of the Palestinians, between Fatah, Hamas and so forth?
I think the internal division inside the Palestinian people is a disaster, and another disaster is the rise of Hamas and fundamentalistic extremism inside the Palestinian people. I think the Israeli establishment has a lot to blame for this development, because the peace forces inside the Palestinian people cannot really show their people any achievements, anything being achieved by the way of negotiations and of settlement. The situation in the Occupied Territories is only deteriorating. So the right-wing Palestinians, the Palestinians who oppose the two-state solution, can say to their people that the way of negotiations does not lead anyone to any progress.
What does Israel need to do to create a just and lasting settlement?
Well, first of all Israel should open real and serious dialogue with the Palestinians, with Syria and with the Arab League, based on the Arab Peace Initiative. I think that concerning the Palestinian Occupied Territories, Israel should immediately cease building and expanding the settlements. You know, with all these recent deals, building of the settlements continued at very great speed; it was under Labour defence ministers and under Kadima administrations, that Israel continued building these settlements at record speed. So Israel should immediately cease building the settlements; Israel should re-open all the kinds of blockages in the Palestinian territories; Israel should establish a ceasefire with Gaza, including the opening of the blockade on Gaza. Israel should agree on the exhange of prisoners and detainees, including bringing back Gilad Shalit to his home and his family.
These are the first and very important steps that Israel should take right now.
The Israeli government position, which has also had support from the United States, is that because of the divisions among the Palestinians, and Hamas being in government in Gaza, that effectively they have nobody to negotiate with. What is your view on this?
I think this is very far from reality. The Palestinian sections all agreed to give Abu Mazen a mandate to conduct negotiations with Israel. This was also part of the prisoners' document, initiated by all the leaders of the Palestinians in Israeli prisons, including the leaders who belong to Hamas. So there is a real possibility to have a political dialogue with the Palestinian leadership. The thing is that the Israeli establishment is not willing to pay the price for a peace settlement in the Middle East. That is, withdrawing from the Palestinian territories, establishing a Palestinian state, with Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and Western Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
In terms of achieving a two-state solution, one of the stumbling blocks is the removal of the Israeli settlements, which would involve a large population transfer of Jewish settlers from the West Bank into Israel. Then there is the issue of Jerusalem, and also the right of return of the Palestinian refugees who are currently scattered across the Arab world.
Speaking about the settlements, we support the dismantlement of the settlements. This is realistic. You know, we had settlements in Gaza, and we had settlements in Sinai. Then Israel abolished the settlements that existed there. Speaking about Jerusalem, the situation there is very complicated. There should be put in place some arrangement that would leave Israeli neighbourhoods under Israeli control, and all Palestinian neighbourhoods under Palestinian control. As a a matter of fact, we understand that there is a willingness among the Palestinian leaders to have a practical solution to the concrete line of the border in Jerusalem.
Speaking about the refugee issue, we believe that Israel should recognise the rights of the refugees, and that the issue of a practical solution should be part of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. There is a basic recognition of rights on the one hand, and there is a practical political solution based on agreement between the political leaderships of the two peoples on the other hand.
What is Hadash's attitude to the Palestinian armed struggle against Israel, and in particular to the firing of rockets into Israel? Does Hadash see a difference between the rocket attacks and other forms of armed struggle such as attacks on the Israeli military?
Our position is against any kind of attacks on civilians. We see attacking the civilian population as as a war crime and we resolutely condemn it. Generally speaking, the Palestinians have the right to oppose the occupation, but the the thing that should have a lot of weight here is the practical result of every form of opposition to occupation. There are some forms of opposition to occupation which may only strengthen the occupation; and therefore they are not helpful, they do not lead the freedom struggle into any kind of achievement.
How can international supporters of the Palestinians best express their solidarity?
Well, there are a lot of ways to express solidarity nowadays: demonstrations, public pressure on governments; because the Israeli establishment relies very heavily on the total support it gets from both the US administration and from European governments. So it is very important for people in Europe and in the United States to put pressure on their own government to support different policies, which will really help an Israeli and Palestinian just peace here in the Middle East.
Hadash, which significantly increased its vote among both Arab and Jewish communities in the recent Israeli general election, has a social program, which includes for instance the rights of women and sexual minorities. Was that an important element in the election campaign of Hadash?
All the issues of a socal nature -- you mention women, sexual minorities and so on -- were a part of our program. Some people could argue that we should stress them more broadly in our campaign, but they were a part of our program, and a part of the issues that we dealt with in our campaign.
A final question. You are also a member of the leadership of the Communist Party of Israel which is the main component of Hadash. We are in the 21st century, 18 years after the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union. Does the Communist Party of Israel have a future, and what do you see as its ideological and philosphical message?
Well, for me communism is the idea that we live in a very, very unjust world and that we should very radically change it. Of course, there was a very big attempt to change the world in the 20th century, an attempt that really failed very miserably. And a lot of people learned from this failure that changing the world is not possible. I do not agree with that idea. I do believe that changing the world is very needed, today no less than yesterday, even more than yesterday. We live in a world with a very big crisis -- social, economic and environmental. And therefore this world needs very radical, revolutionary change.
However, we should learn from the history of the 20th century; we should not repeat the mistakes, both the political mistakes and the theoretical mistakes of 20th century socialism. We should realise that socialism is not possible without democracy. Democracy is part and parcel of what is socialism about. Actually, socialism is about more democracy -- it is about more democracy in the economy and in social issues, and also it is about more democracy in politics, with the aim of taking politics from the hold of big capital.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the failure of 20th century socialism, but the lesson is not that change is impossible.
March 8, 2009 -- Dov Khenin is a member of Israel's parliament (the Knesset) representing Hadash, the alliance led by the Communist Party of Israel. In November 2008, Khenin stood as mayoral candidate for Israel's biggest city Tel Aviv, where he received almost 35% of the vote. Dov Khenin talks to the editors of the British socialist journal 21st Century Socialism about the Middle East conflict and prospects for a renewal of the left in Israel. He also discusses the issues to be overcome in a negotiated Middle East settlement, international solidarity with the Palestinian people and the need for socialism in the 21st century. This interview has been posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal with permission, in the interests of informing our readers of all shades of left opinion in occupied Palestine.
... the new generation of young Israelis are more open to new ideas, new thinking, more open to criticism, to social and environmental and political criticism of Israeli society and politics.
21st Century Socialism: What was the Israeli establishment aiming to achieve with the recent attack on Gaza and the continuing siege, and what have they achieved?
Dov Khenin: Their logic is that the only way to solve problems is through force, and if force cannot solve something then you should use more force. This is the inner logic of the Israeli establishment's attitude towards the Middle East conflict and to the Palestinians especially. Of course, this cannot really achieve anything, it is just a further escalation of the vicious circle of hate and blood which is the disaster of the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Do you see aspects of the current situation, with the election of Barack Obama in the United States and in the changing forces in Israel, Palestine and the Middle East, which could lead to a breakthrough towards peace?
Well, concerning the politics of the Obama administration, it is to early to tell what they are willing to do here in the Middle East. I think it is high time for the United States to realise that the current policy as conducted by the Bush administration caused a lot of damage to American influence here in the Middle East. So I do believe that the Americans should change their attitude. Are they willing to do so? It is too early to really know.
Now, concerning Israel and Palestine, the situation is very dialectical. On the one hand, the rise of the extreme right wing in Israel, and the rise of Hamas as the administration in Gaza, are both developments in the direction of further escalation, and further deterioration of the situation in the Middle East. However, at the very same time, I do believe that most Israelis and most Palestinians are really tired of this very long conflict, and there are forces underneath in both peoples that would like a change of course, the real beginning of a political process here.
Could you comment on the recent general election in Israel, including the performance of the left?
The elections gave an electoral picture of the complete deadlock of the Labour and Kadima government, in both political and social-economic issues. So Israeli voters really punished both Kadima and Labour, and elected a right-wing government, without any real enhusiasm. The moderate Zionists including Meretz fared very badly.
We should make a very clear defining line between the old left, what we call the moderate Zionist parties, who had a crushing defeat in this election, partly because of their indecision, vis-a-vis the Gaza war for example. They supported the war at the beginning, then they hesitated for a while. Hadash really strengthened its vote both in the Jewish parts of Israel and in the Arabic population. Of course, Hadash is still a very small party. We have only four out of 120 MPs.
There is a need for a new left in Israeli politics; it is not only a need but it is also a possibility. We can see the signs of this possibility with the relative success of Hadash in both Jewish and Arab parts of Israel. But of course the challenge for the recreation of the new Israeli left is a very important one and it is still ahead of us. The way to re-establish and rebuild a powerful new Israeli left is only beginning.
In November 2008 you stood for election as mayoral candidate for Tel Aviv. Could you describe the election campaign and why you were so successful in attracting votes?
Tel Aviv is a very important place in Israel; it is not only the economic and social centre of Israeli society, it is also the cultural centre of Israel society. Tel Aviv is also the richest of all the Israeli cities.
In the recent municipal election, the incumbent mayor Ron Huldai was supported not only by his own party, which is the Labour Party, but also by the Kadima Party, which was the party of government in Israel at the time of the municipal elections; he was supported also by the right-wing Likud party, also by the religious parties, he was supported by all parties of the extreme right. And indirectly he was also supported by the Meretz Party, the Zionist moderate party, with former member of the Knesset Yaël Dayan being a member of his electoral list in the Tel Aviv municipal elections. Yaël Dayan was a very important figure in the national leadership of Meretz. So on paper, Ron Huldai, the current mayor of Tel Aviv, was a very sure candidate for the elections, and he ran a campaign with a lot of money.
The interesting phenomonon was that we succeeded with the ``City for All'' movement to achieve nearly 35% of the vote for the mayorship in Tel Aviv. Of course not enough to win the mayorship, but it was a very big success for a local movement that ran for the elections without money, with the support only of the enthusiasm of volunteers; we had approximately 2500 volunteers working for us all around the city, which in Israeli terms is a very very big number. And the most interesting phenomenon was we got the votes of about 75% of young people below 35.
The elections in Tel Aviv were not conducted only on municipal issues. From the very beginning of the election campaign, my opponents, including the Labour Party MPs, attacked me personally, very sharply, because of what they called my anti-Zionist positions, my support for the young people refusing to serve in the Israel army -- which is a kind of very holy thing in Israeli society -- my political attitude to the national anthem of Israel (you know, this anthem really does not allow Arabs to sing it, because it speaks about the Jewish spirit which we have in ourselves). So all these political, and you may say also ideological issues, were on the front pages of every Israeli newspaper all through the campaign period of the municipal elections.
And even so, I got 35% of the votes.
And City for All, the movement we established in Tel Aviv, which is a kind of red-green alliance, is the strongest movement inside the Tel Aviv municipality following the election. So this really shows the possibilities existing within Israeli society. You know, seeing Israeli society from abroad, you may see mostly problems, problems and dangers. But understanding Israeli society from within, you see not only problems, but also possibilities. You see the new generation of young Israelis are more open to new ideas, new thinking, more open to criticism, to social and environmental and political criticism of Israeli society and politics. So the experience of City for All really shows up that the building of a new left in Israeli society is not only very much needed, but is also very very possible.
It seems from here that from the increasing Israeli repression in the Occupied Territories, the war on Lebanon, the war on Gaza, that Zionism is slipping into a moral crisis, that its increasingly shrill justifications for Israel's actions are being rejected more and more by the international community. Israel is being compared to apartheid South Africa, do you think that is a fair comparison?
Well, I think that the current situation is leading to some very bad places. You know, historical comparisons are very limited; every situation is specific. And you cannot really compare very different places and histories. But without any doubt, the current politics of the Israeli establishment is leading Israel into terrible places. It will lead to the growing isolation of Israel in the world if it continues.
There is a movement in many countries to push for a boycott of Israel, of academic institutions, of Israeli goods, trade and so on. What is the position of Hadash?
Khenin: We do support a boycott of things produced in the Israeli settlements, we are for a boycott of products from the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. However, I do not believe that an indiscriminate boycott of Israel and Israelis will help to improve the situation in any way. You know, the right-wing establishment in Israel use these kinds of boycotts to prove once more to the Israelis that all the world is against us, that people do not make any clear marking line between moderates and extremists, that all the world is anti-Semitic and so on. So an indiscriminate boycott I don't think is very helpful.
What is your view on the internal divisions of the Palestinians, between Fatah, Hamas and so forth?
I think the internal division inside the Palestinian people is a disaster, and another disaster is the rise of Hamas and fundamentalistic extremism inside the Palestinian people. I think the Israeli establishment has a lot to blame for this development, because the peace forces inside the Palestinian people cannot really show their people any achievements, anything being achieved by the way of negotiations and of settlement. The situation in the Occupied Territories is only deteriorating. So the right-wing Palestinians, the Palestinians who oppose the two-state solution, can say to their people that the way of negotiations does not lead anyone to any progress.
What does Israel need to do to create a just and lasting settlement?
Well, first of all Israel should open real and serious dialogue with the Palestinians, with Syria and with the Arab League, based on the Arab Peace Initiative. I think that concerning the Palestinian Occupied Territories, Israel should immediately cease building and expanding the settlements. You know, with all these recent deals, building of the settlements continued at very great speed; it was under Labour defence ministers and under Kadima administrations, that Israel continued building these settlements at record speed. So Israel should immediately cease building the settlements; Israel should re-open all the kinds of blockages in the Palestinian territories; Israel should establish a ceasefire with Gaza, including the opening of the blockade on Gaza. Israel should agree on the exhange of prisoners and detainees, including bringing back Gilad Shalit to his home and his family.
These are the first and very important steps that Israel should take right now.
The Israeli government position, which has also had support from the United States, is that because of the divisions among the Palestinians, and Hamas being in government in Gaza, that effectively they have nobody to negotiate with. What is your view on this?
I think this is very far from reality. The Palestinian sections all agreed to give Abu Mazen a mandate to conduct negotiations with Israel. This was also part of the prisoners' document, initiated by all the leaders of the Palestinians in Israeli prisons, including the leaders who belong to Hamas. So there is a real possibility to have a political dialogue with the Palestinian leadership. The thing is that the Israeli establishment is not willing to pay the price for a peace settlement in the Middle East. That is, withdrawing from the Palestinian territories, establishing a Palestinian state, with Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and Western Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
In terms of achieving a two-state solution, one of the stumbling blocks is the removal of the Israeli settlements, which would involve a large population transfer of Jewish settlers from the West Bank into Israel. Then there is the issue of Jerusalem, and also the right of return of the Palestinian refugees who are currently scattered across the Arab world.
Speaking about the settlements, we support the dismantlement of the settlements. This is realistic. You know, we had settlements in Gaza, and we had settlements in Sinai. Then Israel abolished the settlements that existed there. Speaking about Jerusalem, the situation there is very complicated. There should be put in place some arrangement that would leave Israeli neighbourhoods under Israeli control, and all Palestinian neighbourhoods under Palestinian control. As a a matter of fact, we understand that there is a willingness among the Palestinian leaders to have a practical solution to the concrete line of the border in Jerusalem.
Speaking about the refugee issue, we believe that Israel should recognise the rights of the refugees, and that the issue of a practical solution should be part of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. There is a basic recognition of rights on the one hand, and there is a practical political solution based on agreement between the political leaderships of the two peoples on the other hand.
What is Hadash's attitude to the Palestinian armed struggle against Israel, and in particular to the firing of rockets into Israel? Does Hadash see a difference between the rocket attacks and other forms of armed struggle such as attacks on the Israeli military?
Our position is against any kind of attacks on civilians. We see attacking the civilian population as as a war crime and we resolutely condemn it. Generally speaking, the Palestinians have the right to oppose the occupation, but the the thing that should have a lot of weight here is the practical result of every form of opposition to occupation. There are some forms of opposition to occupation which may only strengthen the occupation; and therefore they are not helpful, they do not lead the freedom struggle into any kind of achievement.
How can international supporters of the Palestinians best express their solidarity?
Well, there are a lot of ways to express solidarity nowadays: demonstrations, public pressure on governments; because the Israeli establishment relies very heavily on the total support it gets from both the US administration and from European governments. So it is very important for people in Europe and in the United States to put pressure on their own government to support different policies, which will really help an Israeli and Palestinian just peace here in the Middle East.
Hadash, which significantly increased its vote among both Arab and Jewish communities in the recent Israeli general election, has a social program, which includes for instance the rights of women and sexual minorities. Was that an important element in the election campaign of Hadash?
All the issues of a socal nature -- you mention women, sexual minorities and so on -- were a part of our program. Some people could argue that we should stress them more broadly in our campaign, but they were a part of our program, and a part of the issues that we dealt with in our campaign.
A final question. You are also a member of the leadership of the Communist Party of Israel which is the main component of Hadash. We are in the 21st century, 18 years after the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union. Does the Communist Party of Israel have a future, and what do you see as its ideological and philosphical message?
Well, for me communism is the idea that we live in a very, very unjust world and that we should very radically change it. Of course, there was a very big attempt to change the world in the 20th century, an attempt that really failed very miserably. And a lot of people learned from this failure that changing the world is not possible. I do not agree with that idea. I do believe that changing the world is very needed, today no less than yesterday, even more than yesterday. We live in a world with a very big crisis -- social, economic and environmental. And therefore this world needs very radical, revolutionary change.
However, we should learn from the history of the 20th century; we should not repeat the mistakes, both the political mistakes and the theoretical mistakes of 20th century socialism. We should realise that socialism is not possible without democracy. Democracy is part and parcel of what is socialism about. Actually, socialism is about more democracy -- it is about more democracy in the economy and in social issues, and also it is about more democracy in politics, with the aim of taking politics from the hold of big capital.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the failure of 20th century socialism, but the lesson is not that change is impossible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
