The Change is Coming…

Dear Readers:

We’ve been holding out our big redesign for months now, but it really is going to happen this summer. We also need to find a new host, so if any readers can recommend one, please get in touch.

After the redesign, we will be holding another fund-drive to pay for it. If any readers wish to give us a head start, you know what to do. We will point out that our winter fund drive goal of $5,000 was dropped to $2,000 just to get it over with. So if anyone wants to help make up the difference now, that would be a big help.

As you may have noticed, World War 4 Report was in Peru in March, covering the peasant struggle against mea-scale mining projects. The world is paying little note, but angry peasant and indigenous protests in defense of land, water and autonomy are spreading across the Andes now, from Chile to Colombia. World War 4 Report is providing the most consistent, in-depth coverage of these struggles available in English. If you think this work is important, please let us know.

Since we will probably be switching to a more web-friendly ongoing feature roll, this should really be the last “issue” of our e-magazine. Do you think this is a good move? Even if you can’t make a monetary donation, be in touch with your ideas and criticisms on our work and direction.

We need your support, and your feedback.

Thank you, shukran and gracias,

Bill Weinberg

Send checks payable to World War 4 Report to:

World War 4 Report
121 Fifth Ave. #172
Brooklyn, NY 11217

Or donate by credit card:

Write us at:

feedback (a) ww4report.com

Continue ReadingThe Change is Coming… 

INDIA: PASSIVE RESISTANCE TO MEGA-HYDRO IN ASSAM

by T Navajyoti, World War 4 Report

In Northeast India, which has faced decades of unrest, energy has emerged as a critical issue for the region’s popular movements. The state of Assam particularly has witnessed a series of sustained demonstrations against large river dams, with farmers’ associations, student organizations and civil society groups campaigning tirelessly. But lobbying for big dams is also going on in full pace.

The recent hunger strike by the popular anti-dam activist Akhil Gogoi in Guwahati, Assam’s major city, won much public support. The Indian government’s plans to build some 150 large dams on tributaries of the Brahmaputra River in Arunachal Pradesh, bordering Assam on the north. The tributaries flow down from the Himalayan foothills of Arunachal Pradesh into the plains of the Brahmaputra Valley in Assam. The government hopes to generate 60,000 mega-watts from these dams—a dramatic increase over the 1,700 mega-watts now generated. But Assam’s farmers fear the downstream impacts.

The protesters argue that the geo-seismic situation, and the fragile state of the eastern Himalayas’ erosion-prone mountains and silt-laden rivers should be taken into consideration before approval of these mega-hydroelectric projects. Akhil Gogoi— general secretary of Krishak Mukti Sangram Samity (KMSS) peasants’ organization, and a close comrade of Anna Hazare, the social activist who held a hunger strike against corruption in Delhi last year—started his indefinite hunger strike on May 19 at Lakhidhar Bora Kshetra, the central government building in Guwahati, demanding the immediate halt in construction of all mega-dams. Gogoi was transferred by the authorities to Gawahati Medical College Hospital on May 25 as his health condition deteriorated. He maintained his fast in the hospital bed till May 28 but finally broke his fast following the request of Anna Hazare. Speaking to Gogol by phone in the hospital, Hazare argued that his health was more important than his martyrdom for the anti-dam movement across the country.

Another leading Team Anna member, Arvind Kejriwal, addressed a huge public rally in the city, where he slammed both Assam and Arunachal Pradesh governments for what he called an anti-people attitude, caving to the big dam lobbies to exploit the region’s hydroelectricity potential without accountability. He also condemned the Delhi government for its insensitive approach to the livelihood of millions of indigenous people in the country.

Kejriwal clarified that he is not against river dams. But the projects must not be at the cost of the local people and ecology of any region. The government must not impose such projects without peoples’ participation and consent. Kejriwal received support from National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM). In a statement issued with 20 other local organizations, NAPM hailed “Akhil’s brave struggle for life with dignity and against unjust destructive capitalist development thrust upon people against their will.”

The statement said “NAPM supports all demands raised by KMSS including in halting the construction of all mega dams till an agreement is formalised with the people living in the downstream, releasing all the detained activists unconditionally and also allowing the protesters to pursue their democratic agitations.”

However, addressing a seminar on May 25 in the State capital, T Norbu Thongdok, parliamentary secretary to Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department, argued that “the dams for producing hydro-power are constructed using best of scientific technologies to maximise power production and minimise its hypothetical negative impacts that is being spread throughout the State and neighboring Assam.”

Delivering his inaugural address in the seminar, organised by Indian Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in association with Arunachal Pradesh Energy Development Agency (APEDA) and North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO), the parliamentary secretary also stressed the criticality of energy for the sustainable growth of the nation.

The bureaucrat-turned-politician Thongdok stated that “power is the most important contributing factor of a developed state, so…we should explore all possible avenues to produce power. Since the deposits of fossil fuels are depleting alarmingly, we must conserve energy by making optimum use of it for the future of our nation.” He asserted that harnessing solar, hydro and wind energy is the best option for clean, cheap power.

The seminar emphasised that Arunachal should be energy-efficient by producing adequate power through multiple ways. However, a few speakers also advocated for preserving the state’s natural bio-diversity.

In Assam, KMSS with a number of peasant groups, ethnic organizations and student associations are engaged in a prolonged protest campaign to prevent the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation from carrying construction materials to the 2,000-megawatt Subansiri hydro-electric project site at Lakhimpur on the Assam-Arunachal border, the first of the planned dams. The protests have been ongoing in the area since December 26, 2011.

KMSS claims that the indigenous people of the region must have the right to use of its natural resources, including the rivers. It charges that the government seeks to exploit these resources for the selfish interests of big companies—without any consultations with the people.

Assam’s chief minister Traun Gogoi insists that work on dams will go on irrespective of protests. He even ruled out any
dialogue with Akhil Gogoi during his hunger strike, terming it “anti-development.”

There is no denying of the fact that the ongoing resistance to large river dams has turned into a popular movement in Assam. The activists and their sympathizers are unanimous in their views that the proposed mega hydro-electricity projects in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh would leave a devastating impact on the region, as well as in Bangladesh. They charge that several large hydropower projects were granted “green clearance” without any prior downstream impact assessment by the environment ministry in New Delhi.

—-

From our Daily Report:

Hydro-hubris threatens peace efforts on India-Burma borderlands
World War 4 Report, April 27, 2012

Arunachal Pradesh: pawn in the new Great Game
World War 4 Report, Oct. 17, 2009

Bangladesh Rifles mutiny militarizes India border
World War 4 Report, Feb. 28, 2011

See also:

GUATEMALANS RESIST MEGA-MINES, HYDRO-DAMS
by Nathan Einbinder, Environment News Service
World War 4 Report, December 2008

WHO IS BEHIND THE ASSAM TERROR?
Converging Conflicts in Northeast India
by Nava Thakuria, World War 4 Report
World War 4 Report, April 2009

——————-
Special to World War 4 Report, June. 20, 2012
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingINDIA: PASSIVE RESISTANCE TO MEGA-HYDRO IN ASSAM 

LEFT-LIBERTARIANS: THE LAST OF AN ANCIENT BREED

by Bill Weinberg, The Villager

Last year, I was approached by Peter Lamborn Wilson—the elusive underground intellectual who is a refugee from the Lower East Side—who beseeched me to revive the Libertarian Book Club.

Revolution was shaking the Arab world, although the wave had not yet come to Europe, Wall Street and Oakland. At this propitious time, New York City’s oldest anarchist institution could not be allowed to die, I was implored.

We had worked together in the LBC for years, before Peter left the city and the Book Club became moribund. Old members were getting older, and we lost our longtime office at 339 Lafayette Street, the notorious “Peace Pentagon” run by the pacifist AJ Muste Institute. But more significant, ultimately, was our identity crisis.

The LBC was founded (to the best of anyone’s reckoning) in 1946, by anarchist exiles from fascist Europe, mostly Jews and Italians. At that time, the word “libertarian” was basically synonymous with “anarchist” or “anti-authoritarian”—although with a more intellectual and perhaps slightly euphemistic ring. One of the founders, Jack Frager, had actually known Emma Goldman, so we could claim an unbroken lineage back to the “classical” era of revolutionary anarchism.

Jack was gone before my time, but I did know Valerio Isca—the last of the old-timers. Walking with a cane, in his trademark black beret, he rarely said a word. But I was privileged once to hear him boast in broken English, his face beaming, about how he had fought followers of Mussolini’s Black Shirts in the streets of Brooklyn in the ’30s. He died in 1996. (The words of these heroes can be read in the classic of oral history, Anarchist Voices, by the late Paul Avrich of Queens College, himself a longtime friend of the Book Club.)

I gravitated to the Book Club as a young aspiring radical seeking a sense of heritage and continuity with my forebears, back in the ’80s. I was on the tail end of a “second wave” of New Left types, neo-hippies and anarcho-punks who were revitalizing the LBC at this time. With Workers Solidarity Alliance, a sibling organization dedicated to the principles of anarcho-syndicalism, we moved into the office at 339 Lafayette. Peter Wilson, then producing the Moorish Orthodox Radio Crusade on WBAI, became our new leading light.

Although the Book Club had actually printed a few books over the years, its primary activity was by then a monthly discussion series, hosted by the lefty Jewish fraternal organization Workmen’s Circle in the rec room of one of the Penn South houses.

It was also at about this time that some of the younger members (myself included) began protesting that the word “libertarian” had been appropriated by the free-market right, and sent the wrong message about who we were. Eventually, we decided on a compromise: the ongoing discussion series would be dubbed the Anarchist Forum, while—in stubborn deference to the past—the organization holding the event would continue to be the Libertarian Book Club.

The years of my involvement with the LBC saw the 1988 Tompkins Square Park riot, and subsequent backlash of squatter evictions and gentrification on the Lower East Side; the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe, shortly followed by capitalist restoration; the 1994 Zapatista rebellion in Mexico, which I witnessed first-hand as a journalist; the 1999 Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization, and ensuing anti-globalization campaigns. Despite the hopes represented by Chiapas and Seattle, the general trajectory of society worldwide was to the right—and there was a growing sense that anarchism, especially, was an irrelevant ideological artifact.

Not surprisingly, the LBC’s real decline began after 9-11, with its unleashing of paranoia and war fever. By then, we had lost our meeting space as Workmen’s Circle moved out of the Penn South complex. For a while, we met at the Brecht Forum (a.k.a. the New York Marxist School) in the West Village, and at the Living Theater on Clinton Street. But sometime around five years ago, the Anarchist Forum sputtered out. The Muste Institute, facing the prospect of expensive repairs on the old building at Lafayette Street, rightly requested that we vacate the office.

Last year, at Peter’s urging, the Anarchist Forum rose from the ashes (now office-less, in the age of social media). I organized three discussions, back at the Brecht Forum space. I spoke about anarchist perspectives on the Libyan war and the Arab Spring; Peter gave a talk on the poignant question, “Does Anarchism have a Future in the 21st Century?” And we gave a focus-group screening for Wall Street Occupiers of the soon-to-be-released film Who Bombed Judi Bari?—on the 1990 terror attack in California on ecological defenders struggling to protect some of the last old-growth redwoods from the timber barons.

Today, when I look at the generic masked protester featured as “Person of the Year” on the cover of Time magazine, I see the anarchist instinct—if not quite the ideology—re-emerging on the world stage. Even anti-capitalism—officially anathema since the fall of the Soviet bloc—is back in popular discourse. Economic grievances (despite the best efforts of the Western media and politicians to obscure this) animated the protests in the Arab world; the wave that began in Tunisia a year ago has swept through Athens, Madrid and Barcelona, London and Birmingham, and finally Manhattan, Oakland and nearly every city in the US. Industrial actions and peasant protests rocked China’s Guangdong province, police massacred striking oil workers occupying a public square in Kazakhstan, and rent protesters erected a street encampment for weeks in downtown Tel Aviv. Students protesting budget cuts repeatedly shut down Santiago and BogotĂĄ. At year’s end, mass protests over contested elections broke out in Russia. And, with several Arab dictators overthrown, the uprisings continue in Syria, Yemen, Egypt and Bahrain. Nigeria appears to be next.

This made it all the more frustrating to see partisans of the “libertarian” Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul maintaining a prominent (if, one hopes, unrepresentative) presence at Zuccotti Park. On the Net, Paul won enthusiasm from leftist talking heads for his anti-war and civil libertarian rhetoric.

There is, of course, a legitimate right-libertarian tradition that takes its tip from Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises rather than Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. But Ron Paul’s positions aren’t even as progressive as those of the Libertarian Party on issues like abortion and immigration. The Libertarian Party at least has a consistent position on personal freedoms, while Paul says he wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned and birthright citizenship expunged from the Constitution. If Paul and his supporters don’t believe in fundamental freedoms like reproductive rights and birthright citizenship, they shouldn’t call themselves “libertarian.” They give the word a bad name.

They seek to restrict rights for women and immigrants, and it makes little difference if the oppressor is Arizona or Alabama rather than the federal government in their “state’s rights” utopia. (Paul has even said he would overturn the Civil Rights Act!) Their “freedom” too often means the “freedom” of the states to deny others their freedom. For those outside the propertied, disproportionately white elite, their utopia would be completely dystopian.

Apart from the inconsistencies on civil liberties issues, the economic prescriptions of the Paulistas would be utterly oppressive for the fabled 99%—the dismantling of OSHA and the EPA; the abolition of the federal minimum wage, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and public education; the sale of the national parks to oil companies. Et cetera.

Left-wing anarchists—libertarian socialists, in the more polite formulation—make no distinction between authoritarian power exercised by state or federal bodies, through governmental or economic means. A landlord, banker or industrialist owns the lives of his wards (tenants, debtors, employees) no less than a public-sector bureaucrat. The state is an entity of capitalism, and you can’t struggle against one without struggling against the other. An unheeded lesson of the Cold War is how state “socialism” inevitably degenerates into capitalism.

We seek inspiration in such historical episodes as the Zapatistas in Mexico (1910-19), Makhnovists in the Ukraine (1917-21), Spanish anarchists in Catalonia (1936-7), and Zapatistas in Mexico again (1994-date)—peasants and workers who took back the land and the factories, building socialism from below, without commissars or politburos.

But nor (we hope) are we mere history buffs or impractical dreamers. Contrary to the right-wing libertarians, we recognize that as long as we live under capitalism, individual liberties are best served by massive public restraints on its workings. This need not be seen as reformism or an abdication of revolutionary aspirations. The British Marxist historian EP Thompson wrote of a principle of “moral economy“—the pressure that common people can bring to wrest a better deal from the system. New York tenants certainly understand this about rent control laws—or they should, anyway.

There can be unity between left and right libertarians around issues of personal freedom—opposing the surveillance state, Internet censorship, the war on drugs. In fact, a few right-libertarians (albeit, the long-haired, cannabis-smoking type) did gravitate to the LBC in the ’80s. And some of the books the LBC published were written by co-founder Enrico Arrigoni, an Italian veteran of the Spanish Civil War, who became an “individualist” in reaction against Stalinism.

But politicians like Paul shouldn’t be allowed to usurp the “libertarian” label—and the left-libertarian tradition shouldn’t be erased from history. The memory of fighters like Valerio Isca should not be allowed to die.

More than that—can the left reclaim the libertarian legacy from the right? With Occupy Wall Street, the left has very effectively taken back the populist imperative from the right, which had cornered the political protest market with the Tea Party. Now its challenge is to take back the libertarian imperative—to reclaim the mantle of freedom.

A part of the problem is that the face of the “left” in New York City (and much of the country) has long been dominated by neo-Stalinist and utterly authoritarian outfits like the Workers World Party (operating through front groups like the International Action Center), which avidly cheer on dictators who affect an anti-US pose, and cynically use popular movements for party-building. (They are making a particular play for OWS right now through an “Occupy 4 Jobs” campaign.) Not surprisingly, they are thoroughly compliant with the increasingly draconian NYPD control of street protests behind metal barricades.

A libertarian left movement wouldn’t have to adhere rigidly to 19th century anarchist dogmas. But it would have to be fundamentally serious about freedom—rooting for the protesters, not the despots, in Syria and Iran and China and Russia; unequivocal on “libertine” or “lifestyle” issues like (yes) cannabis legalization; testing the limits of police control rather than acquiescing in it; and functioning (as OWS does) with an ethic of internal democracy.

I don’t know if the Libertarian Book Club’s Anarchist Forum series will resume in 2012. But, for the sake of humanity’s future, the libertarian left tradition deserves a political renaissance. And now, for the first time in my conscious life, I think it stands a fighting chance to get one.

—-

This story first ran, in slightly edited form, Jan. 19 in New York’s The Villager.

From our Daily Report:

Left media establishment lords it over Occupy movement
World War 4 Report, Feb. 8, 2012

“Anonymous” hack of neo-Nazi A3P reveals Ron Paul link!
World War 4 Report, Feb. 1, 2012

OWS: Yes, we are anti-capitalist!
World War 4 Report, Nov. 6, 2011

——————-

Reprinted by World War 4 Report, Feb. 1, 2012
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingLEFT-LIBERTARIANS: THE LAST OF AN ANCIENT BREED 

‘THIS LAND IS OURS!’

Land Theft as Legacy of Genocide in Guatemala

by Frauke Decoodt, World War 4 Report

“This land is ours! It does not belong to the State. It is ours, as indigenous people!” So said 20-year-old Guatemalan Lorena SĂĄnchez on May 3, 2011 when a state representative from Fondo de Tierras, a government department regulating access to land, arrived in Tzalbal to tell its people they are living on state property.

Tzalbal, a village of fourteen settlements, is located deep in the Cuchumatanes mountains. Tzalbal is home to the Ixil, a native Mayan people. The Ixiles live in the municipalities of Nebaj, Chajul and Cotzal, in the northwestern department of QuichĂŠ. Tzalbal lies the municipality of Nebaj.

The villagers had no idea that their land had been nationalised in 1984—a fact that was concealed from them for 28 years. They are perplexed, shocked, and angry. In the 1980s, the area was scorched with genocide and state repression, and the majority of Ixiles were forced to flee their land.

The genocide of the Maya-Ixil People
During the 36 -year conflict in Guatemala, 98% of the 7,000 victims in the Ixil region, were Ixiles. A sixth of the Ixil population was assassinated by the army, and 70% of their villages were obliterated. Most Ixiles fled to the mountains; many died due to cold, starvation and disease.

Although the Ixil area was one of the worst affected, the whole of Guatemala suffered during the conflict that raged until 1996, which saw 12% of the population displaced and more than 200,000 killed or disappeared. The state army was responsible for 93% of the atrocities and 626 massacres. Approximately 83% of the victims were indigenous.

Post-conflict investigations from Guatemala’s Catholic Church and the United Nations have established that during the 1980s the state committed genocide in Guatemala.

A people displaced from its lands
Though the genocide can be explained by the racism towards and the dehumanization of the indigenous people who comprise more than 60% of the Guatemalan population, one cannot fully understand the pattern and formation of the genocide in Guatemala without taking into account the importance of land.

The residents of Tzalbal comprehend, only too well, the intimate relationship between land and conflict. Patricio RodrĂ­guez is only 66 years old but the wisdom of age and the harsh experience of poverty and conflict are inscribed on his face. Patricio points out that their present conditions are “because of the war, the repression, the massacres of the government in the eighties. So many years they burned our houses, they killed our animals and destroyed our milpas [small plots of maize]. Because so many people had been killed, we fled to the mountains to save our lives. The army then thought this land was abandoned, empty. But we deserted our land because of the repression. Now we are starting to realise that during the armed conflict they stole from us. And to legalize their theft they made a law.”

The conflict for the land and the land for the conflict
It is the unequal distribution of the land in a principally agricultural society like that of Guatemala that has been the primary cause of poverty and conflict. In 1964, 62% of the land lay in the hands of just 2% of the national population, whereas 87% of citizens barely had sufficient land for subsistence farming.

Since independence, the Guatemalan state apparatus has largely served the interests of the Guatamalan oligarchy, in effect becoming a guarantor of land and cheap indigenous labor. These guarantees have always been provided through the use of violence and the legal system.

In the “Guatemalan Spring” that began in 1944, the state began to serve the interests of the majority of its rural population, eventually introducing an agrarian reform program. However, in 1954 these reforms were quashed in a coup d’ etat, with the support from the United States of America.

The equal redistribution of the land was one of the main demands of numerous indigenous, peasant and guerilla movements that rose from the 1960s through the 1980s. Violent repression of these movements has allowed unequal land distribution to be maintained and expanded. As the post-conflict investigations by the Catholic Church and the United Nations established, land became a gain of the conflict.

After their accession to power in 1954 the army generals decided that the state apparatus should not only serve the oligarchy but also their own interests. One of their primary interests was land; their means to acquire it was through violence and laws, or what were euphemistically known as “development projects.”

An assembly to inform the community
If one explores the chronology of law drafting and violent events that engulfed the region it becomes very clear how the state usurped indigenous lands. For the locals, it became clear when they researched their case.

Ronaldo GuttiĂŠrez is the young “indigenous mayor,” the communitarian authority of Tzalbal. Wearing the typical red jacket emblazoned with black embroidery of the Ixiles, he explains to me in a quiet voice and broken Spanish that after the state representative left he called a meeting of the representatives of the other thirteen settlements. With the help of others, they investigated the case and decided they would organise a popular assembly to inform the whole community.

On October 6, the community hall fills with people and the sounds of Guatemalan marimba music. A painting remembering the atrocities of the conflict adorns the outside wall. About seven hundred Ixil are present, the majority of the men wear their typical straw hats, some wear their red jackets. A fair amount of women are also present, all wearing embroided blouses or huipiles and traditional traje skirts. Some, mainly older women, wear colourful ribbons knotted in their hair.

The laws of war
RamĂłn Cadena, a lawyer from the International Commission of Jurists, is one of the people that offered to help investigating the case of Tzalbal. At the assembly he explains that the root of the problem is a law called “Decreto No. 60-70,” passed in 1970 by General Carlos Arana Osorio who declared “the establishment of Agrarian Development Zones of Public Interest and National Urgency.” Quiche was one of many northern departments declared a “Development Zone.”

The “public interest” was the colossal project called the “Franja Transversal del Norte”—Northern Transversal Strip—which converted a group of generals and their allies into gigantic land owners. Together with the following “National Development Plans” of 1971 to 1982, these projects aimed to promote the production and exportation of petroleum, minerals, electric energy, monoculture crops, and precious timber in the north of the country.

It should be noted that the departments mentioned in these laws were also the ones that suffered most massacres. I was informed by the lawyer RamĂłn Cadena that these laws are the basis for the theft of the land and natural resources of the indigenous people. They are also the root of the war that was unleashed by the government of Guatemala against the peoples of Guatemala. State violence and repression were undertaken in parallel to the “Development Plans.”

Another law that sealed the destiny of Tzalbal is “Decreto Ley No. 134-83,” ordained in 1983 by General Oscar Humberto Mejia Victores. With this law, the army measured and territorially reorganized the Ixil region in order to establish the “model villages ” and legalize nationalization.

Like many other villages, Tzalbal was converted into a “model village” or “center of development.” Instead of the randomly scattered houses of an indigenous village, houses were rebuilt in a pattern where its inhabitants would be easy to control. The people that were not massacred and did not flee to the mountains, or who returned because they could not bear the harsh conditions in the mountains, were resettled in these villages. Many inhabitants refer to these villages as “concentration camps.”

‎”Civil Self-defense Patrols” or PACs, were established in the model villages. These were militarised civil vigilantes organized by the army. By 1985, more than a million men collaborated with the army in the PACs. Failure to participate flagged one as a suspect subversive, which often had lethal consequences.

In 1983, as ordered in Decreto Ley No. 134-83, the PACs of Tzalbal were forced to measure their land. In front of the whole assembly, a courageous man stands and explains how the army had promised them land if they would measure the boundaries. But they were cheated. The land was measured to be nationalized.

RamĂłn Cadena concludes that on May 11, 1984, the state officially dismembered the original land title of 1903 and seized approximately 1495 hectares of Tzalbal land.

The laws that legalized the usurpation of indigenous land, Decreto No. 60-70 and Decreto No. 134-83, are laws emitted during wartime; locals refered to them as “laws of war.” ?The peace accords were only signed in 1996. In a communiquĂŠ released after their assembly, the communities demanded that their constitutional right to possess the land be reinstated.

History repeats itself…
After so many development projects, development laws and “centers of development,” the indigenous population of Guatemala is rather suspicious of any initiative that bears the name “development.” The gold mine in San Marcos department is said to bring development, as is the the cement factory in San Juan SacatepĂŠquez. Both seem to bring more development to its owners then to the local population.

The laws passed during the war remain in force, and other new laws have since been added which open opportunities in new territories or reinforce control over the land already seized. Such is the case with the Law for Public-Private Alliances, which allows the state to legalize land evictions for the sake of “public interest.” Under the Development Plan of the present government of President Álvaro Colom the economic development of the “Franja Transversal del Norte” continues, adding amongst other regions PetĂŠn rainforest and the Pacific Coast. The evictions of peasants and indigenous communities continue.

Mega-projects continue to flood Guatemala like the hydroelectric dams that are slated to inundate its indigenous lands. Such is the case with recently approved “Oregano” project, a hydroelectric dam that will inundate land of the Chortis living in the municipality of JocotĂĄn, near the Honduran border. Electric energy is indispensable for big industries like mining companies, oil refineries, and the massive monoculture plantations of sugar, oil palm trees, bananas or coffee. And of course one needs gigantic roads and a large infrastructure to transport all this produce.

The same unequal land distribution continues. According to the last census of 2003, almost 80 percent of the productive land remains in the hands of less then eight percent of Guatemala’s population of 14 million. More than 45 percent have not enough land for subsistence farming. Not surprisingly, half the population lives in poverty and 17 percent in extreme poverty.

And many of the same people remain in power. “It was Tito who was the commander of the army, he was the chief,” explains 20-year-old Lorena, in a low and preoccupied voice. Tito is seared in the collective memory as commander of the Nebaj military base in 1982 and 1983. “General Tito” is the local nickname of Otto PĂŠrez Molina—the presidential candidate who won the elections held on Nov. 6. A villager remembers: “It was he that obliged us to measure the land, he was in command when our land was stolen from us .”

The fear remains too. When one speaks of Otto PĂŠrez, one does it anonymously.

Finally, the same indigenous peoples also remain, still fighting for their land. As Lorena insists, “We have natural resources to defend; as indigenous people we have a right to defend our water, our forests, our rivers.” Old Patricio RodrĂ­guez asserts that multinationals “should return to their own lands with the plans they have…”

In unity, the struggle continues
I am told Tzalbal is the first village to find out that their land was nationalized, and the first to publicly denounce this, and to demand, unconditionally, that their land be returned. Nonetheless, the case of Tzalbal is illustrative of what the conflict in Guatemala was about. This conflict was about land.

‎The methods used to acquire land in Tzalbal are also familiar. The natives of Tzalbal appear to be the unwilling actors in a drama that always seems to repeat itself in Guatemala. A drama which has run for more than 500 years where invaders—whether Spanish, military or “representative” democratic governments—steal the land of the indigenous peoples through laws and violence.

But the struggle of the communities persists. In the assembly, the words “worried” and “capitalism” are heard over and over. But the community hall is filled with a militant conviction. United, the gathered Ixiles shout, “We don’t want another master!,” “Overturn the law ! Give us back our land!”

When I ask Patricio RodrĂ­guez how he thinks they will recover their land, he responds, “through unity, through demonstrations, through national and international organizations concerned with our rights. We will get our land back, bit by bit, step by step.”

Gregorio, the man responsible for Tzalbal’s drinking water continues, “All together, we will go to congress, to the ministries, until they take us into account. As they stole from the community, they have to return the land, without any conditions, in the name of the community. Because it is unquestionable, the land is from our forefathers, from our great grandfathers that have passed away; they left the land to us as we are their children ” .

For safety reasons the names of the interviewees in Tzabal were changed.

—-

This story and accompanying photo first appeared Oct. 21 on Frauke Decoodt’s blog.

From our Daily Report:

Guatemala: president-elect accused in 1980s genocide
World War 4 Report, Nov. 8, 2011

Guatemala: thousands march against cement plant
World War 4 Report, July 29, 2009

See related story, this issue:

1954 REVISITED
Justice and Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala
by Paul Imison, Upside Down World
World War 4 Report, December 2011

See also:

GUATEMALANS RESIST MEGA-MINES, HYDRO-DAMS
by Nathan Einbinder, Environment News Service
World War 4 Report, April 2009

——————-
Special to World War 4 Report, Dec. 1, 2011
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue Reading‘THIS LAND IS OURS!’ 

1954 REVISITED

Justice and Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala

by Paul Imison, Upside Down World

The news barely raised a murmur in the US media and the BBC covered it only fleetingly, but last week the Guatemalan government of Álvaro Colom formally apologized to the family of former president Jacobo Árbenz who was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1954 and later died in exile in Mexico. The apology came after a lengthy case in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) that ended in a “friendly settlement” between the Guatemalan state and Árbenz’s heirs.

Through the settlement, the Guatemalan state recognizes its responsibility for “failing to comply with its obligation to guarantee, respect, and protect the human rights of the victims to a fair trial, to property, to equal protection before the law, and to judicial protection, which are protected in the American Convention on Human Rights and which were violated against former President Juan Jacobo Árbenz GuzmĂĄn, his wife, MarĂ­a Cristina Vilanova, and his children…”

The coup against Árbenz—one of the most infamous that the CIA executed during the Cold War—directly led to the brutal thirty-year civil war that left up to 250,000 Guatemalans dead or disappeared. The conflict saw a right-wing military dictatorship carry out a savage counterinsurgency against anybody vaguely associated with the “left,” including students, journalists and labor unionists, but particularly the country’s majority indigenous population. Some 83% of victims of the violence were indigenous Mayans. Death squads routinely massacred Guatemalan peasants, including women and children, in a strategy since classified as genocide by the UN-sponsored Historical Clarification Commission.

The great tragedy of the 1954 coup and all that followed is that the Guatemalan military and the CIA overthrew a democratically-elected reformist with the interests of the country’s impoverished majority at heart. Following the 1944 “October Revolution” that ousted the dictator Jorge Ubico, Guatemala had entered a politically progressive era known as the “Ten Years of Spring.” Jacobo Árbenz, elected in 1950 with 65% of the vote, took the liberal policies of his predecessor Juan JosĂŠ ArĂŠvalo a step further by promising to enact agrarian reform to raise the living standards of the primarily rural population.

The other great tragedy is that the coup against Árbenz came about at the whim of one major US corporation: the United Fruit Company, which since the early 1900s had been the largest employer in Central America, buying up vast tracts of land and wielding huge political sway in the region (the origin of the term “banana republic”). By the 1940s, United Fruit held controlling shares in Guatemala’s railroad, seaport, electricity, and telecommunications utilities. The company also owned some 70% of the country’s arable land, of which it utilized a mere 12%.

The agrarian reform passed by Árbenz gave his government power to expropriate only that land which was uncultivated and which belonged to estates larger than 672 acres; land that would then be allocated to individual families via agrarian councils. Árbenz offered compensation to United Fruit and other powerful landowners amounting to the value of the land claimed in their tax assessments, which were often hugely understated. A landowner himself through his wife, Árbenz gave up 1,700 acres of his own holdings in the process.

In response, the United Fruit Company sought to portray Árbenz as a communist and lobbied the US government to have him removed from power. Ironically, Árbenz had stated in his inaugural address as president that his aim was to transform Guatemala from “a backward country with a predominantly feudal economy into a modern capitalist state.” Unfortunately, the US Congress of the day contained many United Fruit shareholders, who were making a steal off the corporation’s dominance and opposed Guatemala’s moves towards economic independence.

The subsequent plot, known as Operation PBSUCCESS, was the brainchild of John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, and his brother, head of the CIA Allen Welsh Dulles—both of whom happened to be shareholders in United Fruit. The inspiration was Operation Ajax, the elaborate and highly successful plot the CIA had used to overthrow Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh – another democratically-elected reformist – a year earlier. Operation Ajax in fact became a template for many a CIA-backed coups in the following years—including the Bay of Pigs Invasion—and its execution is the origin of US-Iran hostilities that persist to this day.

The first move, as in Iran, was to convince the US press and public that Árbenz’s nationalist policies were the fruit of an alliance with the Soviet Union. Five years before the Cuban Revolution, Allen Dulles dubbed Guatemala a “Soviet beachhead in the western hemisphere.” In reality, the US later abandoned a post-coup plan called PBHISTORY intended to associate Árbenz with Moscow as they simply could not find sufficient evidence of an alliance.

Operation PBSUCCESS also utilized psychological warfare within Guatemala as the CIA hijacked the country’s airwaves to broadcast anti-communist messages and airdropped leaflets urging Guatemalans to turn against Árbenz. The Catholic Church viewed communism as “God’s enemy” and readily supported the coup. Árbenz resigned as president on June 27, 1954, after opportunistic generals, fearing a US invasion was imminent, turned against him. [A CIA-organized right-wing mercenary army did invade the country from Honduras, and US Air Force warplanes bombed the capital.—WW4 Report]

Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, whom the US had replace Árbenz as president, was assassinated in 1957, but the Guatemalan military clung onto power for nearly 30 years—banning political opposition, labor unions and social movements, and waging a brutal war against dissidents of the regime, from rural peasants to the middle-class. Guerrilla groups such as the Armed Rebel Forces (FAR) sprung up in the 1960s but were powerless to bring down the regime, whose heavily-armed death squads were trained and funded by Washington.

After the UN Peace Accords of 1996 between the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG) guerrillas and the National Advancement Party (PAN) administration of President Álvaro Arzú Irigoyen, the UN-backed Historical Clarification Commission attributed 93% of atrocities that took place during the civil war to the Guatemalan military and only 3% to left-wing guerrillas. The conflict left around 200,000 people dead and over 40,000 missing as well as creating some 1 million refugees.

Last week, in what The New York Times described as a “muted ceremony” in Guatemala City’s National Palace, President Álvaro Colom told Árbenz’s son Juan Jacobo: “That day [the coup] changed Guatemala and we have not recuperated from it yet. It was a crime to Guatemalan society and it was an act of aggression to a government starting its democratic spring.” In addition, the Guatemalan government will revise Árbenz’s legacy within the national school curriculum and he gets a highway and a hall of the National Museum of History named after him.

Ironically, Colom himself was elected on a progressive platform in 2007 as part of the social-democratic National Unity of Hope, but the masses who voted for him have since largely lost faith in his policies. Far from emulating the “Ten Years of Spring,” Colom’s tenure has seen the US-Central America free trade agreement (DR-CAFTA)—which Jacobo Árbenz would have fiercely opposed—have the same devastating effect on Guatemala’s rural population as NAFTA had on Mexico’s.

Although the constant and savage violence of the civil war is over, reports of human rights abuses by the military and the forced displacement of rural inhabitants are ever-present, while Guatemala is the second most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists after Colombia.

According to UN figures, roughly half of the country’s 13 million people live in poverty and 17% in extreme poverty. Despite the nation’s vast potential for food security, the neoliberal mentality prevails and a wealthy 5% controls 80% of farmland, an almost unperceivable change from the injustice that Árbenz and Guatemala’s liberal revolution railed against.

—-

This story first ran Oct. 28 on Upside Down World.

Resources:

An Apology for a Guatemalan Coup, 57 Years Later
New York Times, Oct. 20, 2011

Guatemala: Memory of Silence
Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, 1999
Online at the American Association for the Advancement of Science

From our Daily Report:

Guatemala: president-elect accused in 1980s genocide
World War 4 Report, Nov. 8, 2011

See also:

GUATEMALA: GENOCIDE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFY
by Thaddeus al Nakba, Upside Down World
World War 4 Report, June 2008

——————-
Reprinted by World War 4 Report, Dec. 1, 2011
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue Reading1954 REVISITED 

WILL ASEAN BETRAY BURMA’S PRO-DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT?

by Nava Thakuria, World War 4 Report

Burma’s elevation as the “would-be chair” of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has irked many—primarily the pro-democracy Burmese and their sympathizers in Asia. Terming the recent initiative of ASEAN to grant Burma the 2014 chair as “premature as the authorities have failed to fulfill key promises of reform,” a number of organizations argued that the “decision might even embolden them [the Burmese government] to continue committing human rights abuses with total impunity.”

“We call for ASEAN to keep its options open on reversing its decision on Burma’s chairing the regional bloc if the military-led government backslides on promises concerning human rights and democracy,” said the statement issued by the organizations. They also asserted that ASEAN’s decision to deliberately ignore the new war in Kachin state and escalation of military attacks in eastern Burma this year is a betrayal of its international and regional obligations to the wellbeing of ASEAN citizens. Southeast Asian leaders meeting in Bali for the 19th ASEAN Summit in November agreed to allow Burma to assume the chairmanship, and allow the country to host the annual meeting in 2014.

ASEAN’s move comes one year after elections were held in Burma for the first time since 1990. The National League for Democracy (NLD), Burma’s main opposition party, boycotted in protest of bureaucratic hurdles to candidate registration that assured a leading role to military-backed parties. Nonetheless, Burma has since then showcased some changes. As the military-ruled country was put under a semi-democratic regime, the government lifted the house arrest of opposition leader and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. Thousands prisoners, some of them NLD leaders, were also released from the jails. Recent reports from Rangoon reveal that Suu Kyi may contest a by-election in the coming days after completing formalities with the government.

The Burmese government led by the former general Thein Sein asked its pro-democracy activists in exile around the world to return to their country. Some of the exiles have reportedly returned, although many still have apprehension about the democratic commitment of the present Burmese regime.

The northeast of India, primarily the state of Mizoram, supports nearly 80,000 Burmese Chin people who have left their country fleeing repression. Some 20,000 other Burmese are living in India as laborers, domestic workers and petty vendors, suffering acute poverty and insecurity. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees officers in New Delhi has registered only few thousand Burmese refugees in India, facilitating some support to them. The Burmese government with its changing image wants the economic sanctions imposed by the US and various European nations to be lifted. Recently, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon accepted an invitation from Burma to visit the country in the near future. US President Barack Obama announced at Bali that his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be visiting Burma in the coming days.

Nonetheless, the ASEAN decision to offer the chair to Burma invited criticism from various political observers who argued that the country should have been offered the opportunity only after the administration at Naypyitaw initiates significant democratic changes and improves its human rights record.

“The ASEAN leaders must be prepared to face the national and regional consequences of its premature decision, including increased displacement, undocumented migration and drug production that results from its ill-timed decision to grant Burma the 2014 chair,” added the statement, which was signed by the Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma, the Asian Centre for Human Rights, the International Federation for Human Rights, the South Asia Forum for Human Rights, the All Student and Youth Congress of Burma, All Women’s Action Society, the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, the Asian Indigenous Women’s Network, the Burma Centre Delhi, the Forum for Democracy in Burma, the Human Rights Education Institute of Burma, the Women’s League of Burma, and others.

“We are extremely disappointed that ASEAN did not use the unique opportunity it had to influence the Thein Sein government to take meaningful steps towards democratic transition, peace, and national reconciliation,” asserted the statement.

Added Khin Ohmar, coordinator of Burma Partnership and chairperson of the Network for Democracy and Development: “ASEAN has never been a strong promoter of peace and democracy in Burma. Even in 2006 when Burma was due to take up the chair, it was under pressure from the West and not ASEAN itself that Burma forfeited its turn after Western nations threatened to boycott the bloc’s meetings.”

She charged that ASEAN’s decision also failed to take into consideration that the regime has not taken any steps to end the longest running civil war in the world, but has instead deployed more troops in ethnic-nationality areas, nor has it shown any willingness to engage in genuine and inclusive political dialogue with opposition forces in the country.

Human rights violations and atrocities in northeastern Burma have significantly increased since the supposed reformer President Thein Sein came to power in March 2011. Between August 2010 and July 2011, the Burmese regime forced at least 112,000 people—the highest estimate in a decade—to flee their homes in eastern Burma. In addition, over 20,000 fled their homes as a result of Burmese army offensives in Kachin state and northern Shan state. The government has released a few high-profile prisoners, but there are believed to be over 1,600 political prisoners still behind bars—despite the recent denials of Burmese Information Minister Kyaw Hsan that there are any political prisoners in Burma. The new parliament has refused to repeal oppressive laws that facilitated the imprisonment of political dissidents, and in fact adopted new restrictive laws that disenfranchise many activists convicted in the past.

Debbie Stothard, coordinator of Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma claims that narcotics production and trafficking continues to run rampant throughout Burma with active support of the regime. Speaking to this writer from Bangkok, Stothard asserted that Burma is the second largest producer of opium in the world. In some areas of Shan state under the control of the military-led government, opium cultivation has increased by nearly 80% within the last two years, creating a greater threat to the security of neighboring states, she added.

In short, these critics maintain, the Thein Sein government has embarked on a series of largely cosmetic changes with the aim of gaining international legitimacy—but the reality on the ground remains almost the same.

—-

Resources:

Western states dismiss Burma’s election
BBC News, Nov. 8, 2010

Meth madness behind Mekong massacre?
Global Ganja Report, Nov. 1, 2011

Burma prepares offensive against Shan State Army
Global Ganja Report, March 26, 2010

From our Daily Report:

Obama’s Australia deployment signals new cold war with China?
World War 4 Report, Nov. 19, 2011

See also:

INDIA-BURMA ALIGNMENT AGAINST ETHNIC GUERILLAS
New Delhi Betrays the Pro-Democracy Movement
by Nava Thakuria, World War 4 Report
World War 4 Report, October 2011

——————-
Special to World War 4 Report, Dec. 1, 2011
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingWILL ASEAN BETRAY BURMA’S PRO-DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT? 

“THEIR CHILDREN ARE LIKE OUR CHILDREN”

The Mosque that Sheltered Jews

by Annette Herskovits, Turning Wheel

“Yesterday at dawn, the Jews of Paris were arrested. The old, the women, and the children. In exile like ourselves, workers like ourselves. They are our brothers. Their children are like our own children. The one who encounters one of his children must give that child shelter and protection for as long as misfortune—or sorrow—lasts. Oh, man of my country, your heart is generous.”

— A tract read to immigrant Algerian workers in Paris, asking them to help shelter Jewish children

There is in the center of Paris a handsome mosque with a tall slender minaret and lovely gardens. It was built in the 1920s, as an expression of gratitude from France for the over half-million Muslims from its African possessions who fought alongside the French in the 1914-1918 war. About 100,000 of them died in the trenches.

During World War II, when the Germans occupied France, the mosque sheltered resistance fighters and North Africans who had escaped from German POW camps. (The French had recruited 340,000 North African troops into the French army in 1939.) When the French police started rounding up Jews and delivering them to the German occupiers, the mosque sheltered Jews as well, most of them children.

The Nazi program called for eliminating all Jews, of any age. More than 11,600 Jewish children under 16, including 2,000 younger than six, were deported from France to be murdered at camps in eastern Europe. Still, 83% of the Jewish children living in France in 1939 survived. Most were “hidden”—that is, given non-Jewish identities to keep them out of the authorities’ reach. This required massive help from the French people.

Hiding children entailed a complex, extended organization. Rescuers had to get hold of the children, which often meant absconding them from detention centers or Jewish children’s homes in full view of the Nazi occupiers. They had to procure false papers, find shelter (in foster homes, boarding schools, convents), raise funds to pay for upkeep, and send the payments without attracting attention.

They had to keep records, in code, of the children’s true and false names and whereabouts, bring the children to their hiding places in small groups, and visit them regularly to ascertain that they were well treated. Many who participated in this work—both Jews and non-Jews—perished.

Innumerable French citizens provided aid of a less active kind: they remained silent, even when they suspected that children were fugitives. Many of the children were recent immigrants who spoke French with an accent and did not “look” French. A child might disclose his or her true name when surprised—or in defiance. Most at risk were very young children who needed repeated coaching.

I know this because I was a hidden child. When my parents were deported from Paris to Auschwitz in June of 1943, never to return, my 13-year-old sister and myself, just turned four, were in a foster home in the French countryside. With no more money coming for our keep and the danger to people sheltering Jews, our foster parents balked at keeping us. In the fall, I found myself hiding in a shabby Paris hotel room with my 17-year-old brother. My sister became a maid for a French family.

But by winter, thanks to my brother’s astuteness and courage, my sister and I were taken in charge by a clandestine child rescue network, a secular organization in which Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and communist men and women participated. The organization saved 500 children, including my sister and me. As for my brother, he survived by his wits.

I learned of Muslims who helped rescue Jewish children only recently, in the newsletter of Enfants CachĂŠs (Hidden Children), an association of Jews who survived the Holocaust in France as children.

The mosque-based resistance network consisted of people from Algeria’s mountainous Kabylia regions. Kabyls are one of several North African groups who have preserved their Berber language and culture; the Berbers inhabited North Africa before the Arabs invaded and introduced Islam in the 7th century. At least 95% of Algerian immigrants to France came from Kabylia. In their networks, the Kabyls communicated in their Berber dialect, Tamazight, making infiltration almost impossible.

The soul of the network was the mosque’s rector, Si Kaddour Benghabrit, a man with three nationalities—Algerian, Moroccan, and French—who moved with ease in all three worlds, and whose Islam was tolerant and inclusive.

More than 1,700 people are thought to have found short-term shelter in apartments on or near the grounds of the mosque. Benghabrit set up an alert system that allowed fugitives to disappear swiftly in case of a raid—if necessary to the prayer room’s women’s section, where men were normally not admitted. He wrote numerous false birth certificates making Jewish children into Muslims.

Access to Paris’ sewers directly beneath the mosque’s grounds provided an escape path, as did the mosque’s proximity to the city’s central wine market on the Seine, where barges laden with wine barrels came and went. One woman recalled being taken out of Paris on a barge; a Kabyl at the helm took fugitives concealed in his cargo to the south of France, where they could be smuggled to Algeria or Spain.

The French League against Racism and Anti-Semitism has asked Israel’s Yad Vashem Institute to recognize Benghabrit as one of “The Righteous among the Nations,” a title honoring non-Jews who risked their lives to rescue Jews during the Holocaust. Benghabrit would be the first Muslim to earn this distinction.

***

In these times of mutual hatred, a hatred that is sustained by distorted views of the “other,” the story of Muslims saving Jewish children struck me as one Jews and Arabs especially should hear. This history strengthens my sense that mutuality and harmony make up the natural fabric of human relations. Division and cruelty are like torn places in that fabric. Surely, at certain times and places the tearing can be so thorough that it seems the fabric is not there. But that is an illusion.

My friend Mathis Szykowski, also a Holocaust survivor and a hidden child, testifies to this: “It must be said and repeated that in any account of survival, there are many people who will help, at great risk to themselves, people who appear almost mysteriously, whom you trust instinctively. No one can survive such circumstances by themselves. So it becomes obvious that in life as in death, we are all interdependent.” A human being whose mind has not been distorted by ideology will instinctively help another in danger, especially a child.

Again and again over the years, I have heard stories of help that appeared unexpectedly, almost mysteriously, during those dark days. A friend recalls that when she was 11, living in Czechoslovakia, her parents were taken away by the Gestapo. By chance, she and her nine-year-old sister had been left behind, so they went to Gestapo headquarters themselves and told the guard they wanted to be reunited with their parents. The guard said “Go away!” several times, speaking softly so as not to be overheard, until they left. Somehow they survived. The SS guard had saved their lives.

Enmities between peoples come and go depending on intricate historical, psychological, and economic forces. Political powers will conceal or twist reality to suit their own ends. For most of the 1,400 years since Islam’s birth, Jews and Muslims lived in relative harmony in Arab lands.

Like the Christians, Jews were dhimmis (protected people): Islam protected their lives, property, and right to worship. Jews enjoyed no such rights in the Christian world until the French Revolution. To be sure, dhimmis were placed below Muslims—they had to pay a special tax, could not ride horses, etc.—but the application of these restrictions varied; with enlightened rulers, the Jews prospered.

In his book Le PassĂŠ d’une Discorde: Juifs et Arabes du VIIe Siècle Ă  Nos Jours (The Days Before the Breach: Jews and Arabs from the 7th Century to Today), Israeli historian Michel Abitbol writes about “the historical drama which, in less than half a century, ended two thousand years of Jewish life in the Arab countries.” And he describes the “resplendent Judeo-Arab civilization, one whose inexhaustible intellectual and religious riches nourished the entire Jewish world until the dawn of modern times.”

***

On July 16, 1942, Paris police set out to arrest 28,000 Jews on orders of the French Vichy collaborationist government. They had in hand names and addresses, obtained from a census of Jews the Germans had ordered soon after they occupied France. That day and the next, the police fanned out through the city, packing the arrested Jews into requisitioned city buses. They found only 13,000—largely because some police officers had spread the word ahead of time and many Jews had fled. More than 4,000 children aged 2 to 16 were among those arrested.

On the second day, a tract was circulated through the miserable hotels that were home to immigrant Algerian workers. The tract, in Tamazight, was read out loud to the mostly illiterate men: “Yesterday at dawn, the Jews of Paris were arrested. The old, the women, and the children. In exile like ourselves, workers like ourselves. They are our brothers. Their children are like our own children. The one who encounters one of his children must give that child shelter and protection for as long as misfortune—or sorrow—lasts. Oh, man of my country, your heart is generous.”

We can’t know how much help these men were able to give.

***

Most of the children captured in that July raid were taken with their mothers to camps near Paris. There, French police used truncheons and water hoses to separate mothers from the younger children.

The adolescents and their mothers were taken to Drancy (the French camp from where trains departed for the east) and then deported to Auschwitz. The 3,500 younger children left behind had been taken on the initiative of Vichy’s prime minister, Pierre Laval—the Germans had not requested it. The Vichy government waited for Berlin to authorize their deportation. When approval came, the children were packed into boxcars, each with a few adults. All were killed in the gas chambers on arrival.

The thought of such moments of ultimate darkness used to obscure the entire world for me. As I have pieced together the many stories I have heard and read over the years, I became able to simultaneously see light shining in many places. The story of the Muslims who saved Jewish children is one that affirmed that vision.

The words of the Kabyl tract read to poor immigrant men taught me to trust whispers of unity: Those dead children are like myself. They are like my own children. So are the Israeli children killed in bombed-out buses. So are Iraqi children lost as “collateral damage” and the million Palestinian children who every day must struggle with fear—of Israeli soldiers with machine guns, tanks, bulldozers, helicopters, rockets—and the many dead and wounded among them.

With gratitude to Derri Berkani, whose film Une Resistance Inconnu: La MosquĂŠe de Paris introduced me to this story.

—-

This article initially appeared in Turning Wheel, the journal of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, and later ran in the February 2005 edition of the San Francisco Bay Area’s Street Spirit.

Resources:

International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism
http://www.licra.org

From our Daily Report:

Paris: 1961 massacre of Algerians commemorated —and officially denied
World War 4 Report, Oct. 21, 2011

See also:

THE MOSQUE CONTROVERSY —IN CHINA
by Sarkis Pogossian, World War 4 Report
World War 4 Report, September 2010

HOLOCAUST DENIAL IN THE ARAB WORLD
Why It Is On the Rise
by Gilbert Achcar and Pierre Puchot, Mediapart
World War 4 Report, January 2010

——————-
Reprinted by World War 4 Report, Nov. 1, 2011
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue Reading“THEIR CHILDREN ARE LIKE OUR CHILDREN” 

CO-RESISTANCE VS. CO-EXISTENCE

by Maath Musleh, Ma’an News Agency

For decades, many powers worked on portraying the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a problem of co-existence. Millions have been pumped into co-existence projects, projects that have just reinforced relations between the oppressor and the oppressed.

If any had had a little time to read history, they would know that Palestine was actually the land of co-existence for hundreds of years.

It’s the land that hosted the Armenians when they were massacred by the Turks. It’s the land that embraced the Jews who were oppressed in Europe. And the co-resistance that takes place daily here is a clear example that there isn’t any co-existence problem. The real problem is Zionism.

Zionism is not only the enemy of the Palestinians and Arabs, but also, the enemy of the Jews worldwide.

A lot of Jews who were born with Israeli citizenship have realized that Zionism and the Israeli regime is their enemy. It’s our common enemy. Thus, the trend of co-resistance has been evolving for years in Palestine. Jews carrying Israeli citizenship have been part of the popular resistance taking place in Palestine. Co-resistance is a danger to the state of Israel.

Even the mainstream media has been avoiding recognizing those activists as Israelis. The Israeli media refers to them as just “Anarchists.”

Co-resisting with Israeli citizens has been also a sensitive topic in the Palestinian community. A lot of activists fear to fall in the trap of normalization. The basis to this fear is true. The PA and its supporters tried on several occasions to counter Palestinian activists that diverted from the PA’s political path with rumors. They used the fact that Palestinian activists co-operate with their Israeli counterparts to spread distorted rumors of their involvement in normalization work. The involvement of the left Zionists in several demonstrations has added more vagueness to the issue.

We have to be open about the subject now more than ever. We have to set the standards for our co-resistance. Yes we do co-operate with the Jewish citizens of the State of Israel. But the standards of this co-operation are clear. We work together with every Israeli that opposes Zionism and fully recognizes the Palestinian rights, freedom, equality, and the right of the return.

Together with them we co-resist the Israeli occupation and the Zionist enemy. Together we call for the rights of the Palestinians that have been disregarded not only by Israel and western powers, but also by Arab regimes. Some Arab regimes have either prioritized their business interests or just simply lost belief in the possibility of achieving the full Palestinian rights. We still have the belief.

And those rights are indivisible. These are basic human rights. You either believe in it, or you don’t. Freedom, equality, and the right of the return.

As Zionism is also the enemy of the Jews, those Israelis have the right to resist it. Those activists are not only there for solidarity. It’s also their war. The Palestinians who try to portray the co-resistance as normalization have to first go down to the front line and resist. We have nothing to hide. Our work of co-resistance is under the sun. It’s not underground. And we oppose co-operating with the leftist Zionists who take part in demonstrations or call themselves peace activists.

Those left Zionists do not care about the Palestinian rights. They just understood that the occupations’ and settlers’ practices will harm their Zionist dream, a dream that disenfranchises the Palestinians of their rights in their homeland.

The State of Israel clearly does not speak for the Jews. Its practices have started a new wave of hatred towards the Jews worldwide. To help end that wave, the anti-Zionist Jews should file a lawsuit against the State of Israel to forbid it from speaking in the name of Jews. A lot of them have said it before, “Not in our name.” But this shout should be louder. And legal actions should be taken. The concept of co-resistance will continue to grow larger.

The anti-Zionist Israeli activists are heroes and their courage is admirable. Those activists have been marginalized in their own communities. They went through a lot of troubles. They have been always on the front lines. They have been beaten up, shot at, and arrested. They come week after week knowing that they put their own lives in danger. They do it because they have the belief, the belief in rights and humanity.

They have principles, and for that I respect them a lot more than many of my people who have given up. Yes, we co-operate with those activists. They’re our comrades. And this is co-resistance.

—-

Maath Musleh is a Palestinian from Jerusalem and an activist in the Palestinian youth movement. He is a freelance social media consultant and producer.

This story first appeared July 14 on Ma’an News Agency

Resources:

New Jewish Resistance
http://newjewishresistance.org

From our Daily Report:

Israelis march in Jerusalem for an independent Palestine
World War 4 Report, July 16, 2011

See also:

ISRAEL & PALESTINE: COMBATANTS FOR PEACE SPEAK OUT
by Bassam Aramin, Sara Burke and Yaniv Reshef, Peacework
World War 4 Report, January 2010

——————-
Reprinted by World War 4 Report, Nov. 1, 2011
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingCO-RESISTANCE VS. CO-EXISTENCE 

INDIA-BURMA ALIGNMENT AGAINST ETHNIC GUERILLAS

by Nava Thakuria, World War 4 Report

The militant outfits of Northeast India, who are operating from the jungles of northern Burma (Myanmar), have a hard time ahead. As India and Burma have strengthened their strategic relationship, it is understood that Indian separatist groups will face more attacks in Burmese soil. Burmese President Thein Sein’s October visit to India is seen as a signal that the crackdown on the separatists may go intensive in the coming weeks

One of the active armed groups of India, the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), has admitted that their camps in Burma have been facing offensives from the Burmese military in recent weeks. ULFA military chief Paresh Baruah is reported to have received bullet wounds. The news cannot be confirmed by the Burmese government at Nay Pie Taw, which has little visibility in these remote areas which have in reality been ruled by the arms and drug mafias for decades now. The ULFA report indicates that the Burmese regime may now be moving to clear the region of militant groups.

The Sagaing region (formerly a “division”) of Burma is used for shelter by many militant groups, including the ULFA, the SS Khaplang-led faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland, the Manipur People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) of Manipur, and the People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK). They each have hundreds of trained cadres in their hideouts in the jungles of northern Burma.

In response to reports, the ULFA asserted that its leader Paresh Baruah had not received any injuries in the offensive, and released a photograph of the elusive ULFA leader. The email statement charged that that the Indian central government in New Delhi had paid a huge amount of arms and money to the Burmese regime to open its offensive against the ULFA.

It is public record that the Indian government had recently supplied 52 military trucks loaded with arms and ammunition to the Burmese government. India has sought to build a strategic and military relationship with the Burmese regime even after receiving brickbats from the international community. Expressing resentment at India’s continued military relationship with Nay Pie Taw, hundreds of pro-democracy Burmese activists and various Indian civil society groups demonstrated in New Delhi on July 22, arguing that “supplying arms to the most brutal military dictatorship may have grave consequences to millions of innocent lives.”

The demonstrators also sent a memorandum to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh urging him to renew New Delhi’s support of the Burmese people’s movement for restoration of peace and democracy in Burma. Till the early ’90s, the Indian government supported the democratic movement led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. But later it changed the course and started engaging the military regime then known as the State Peace and Development Council. “We believe that India is a nation founded on sound democratic principles and time and again India has proven to uphold the principles of constitutionally elected governments,” the statement read. “Further, as a nation committed to playing an important, if not pivotal role in maintaining peace in the region, it is unbecoming…to supply arms to countries known for abusing military power.” The letter was signed by nearly hundred Indian civil society groups and Burmese dissident leaders.

The ULFA, which was born in 1979 to win Assam’s independence from India, today is a divided house, as its chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa with his followers have joined in the peace process with New Delhi. However, ULFA’s commander-in-chief Paresh Baruah continues sticking to the primary demand for a Swadhin Asom (Sovereign Assam). The intransigent leader is said to have left Bangladesh recently and now is believed to reside somewhere in Burma-China border areas, where from he leads his self-proclaimed “armed struggle.”

Paresh Baruah’s close associate Arunoday Dahotiya issues e-mails on behalf of the UFLA. He flatly charged that New Delhi “paid a special economic package worth as high as Indian Rupees 20,000 crores [1 crore = 10 million] to flush out the rebel camps from the Burmese soil. Additionally, the Burmese government is offered [by Indian government] Rs 100 crore to kill Paresh Baruah.”

It additionally charged that New Delhi has before paid neighboring countries for such purposes. The Indian government paid a 1,000-crore Rs package to Bhutan to destroy ULFA camps there, Arunoday Dahotiya claimed. Indeed, Bhutanese troops flushed out the ULFA camps in December 2003.

The Indian government is also said to have offered money to the Bangladeshi government with a request to take actions against the ULFA leaders and cadres taking shelter in that country. Accordingly, Dhaka handed over many militant leaders—including ULFA chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa—to the Indian authorities in 2009. Though India and Bangladesh do not have an extradition treaty, the Bangladeshi authorities arrested the militant leaders and secretly handed them over to India. No official statement was issued by the Bangladesh government on the matter, and even the Bangladeshi newspapers had to depend on India’s media to report about on the issue.

Whatever the truth of the UFLA’s claims, Burmese pro-democracy dissidents as well as separatist guerillas may find themselves betrayed by New Delhi’s growing alignment with the military regime.

—-

From our Daily Report:

Burma: eco-dissidents score win over state hydro-hurbis
World War 4 Report, Oct. 2, 2011

India: more terror in Assam
World War 4 Report, Dec. 23, 2008

Maoist terror in Bhutan?
World War 4 Report, Jan. 24, 2008

Oil cartel eyes Nagaland; factional strife in guerilla struggle
World War 4 Report, April 13, 2007

Burma resumes crackdown on Naga guerillas
World War 4 Report, Jan. 12, 2006

From our Archive:

India: “Ultra” Terror Explodes in Northeast
World War 4 Report, October 2004

US-India Terror Summit: Who is the Enemy?
World War 4 Report, September 2004

See also:

WHO IS BEHIND THE ASSAM TERROR?
Converging Conflicts in Northeast India
by Nava Thakuria, World War 4 Report
World War 4 Report, December 2008

——————-
Special to World War 4 Report, Nov. 1, 2011
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingINDIA-BURMA ALIGNMENT AGAINST ETHNIC GUERILLAS 

CONCRETE AND FROM BELOW

US Solidarity with Iran

by Raha Iranian Feminist Collective, WIN Magazine

As members of a feminist collective founded in part to support the massive post-election protests in Iran in 2009 while opposing all forms of US intervention, we take this opportunity to reflect on the meaning and practice of transnational solidarity between US-based activists and sections of Iranian society. Both protests against and expressions of support for Ahmadinejad are articulated under the banner of support for the “Iranian people.”

In particular, critics of the Iranian regime have advocated the use of “targeted sanctions” against human rights violators in the Iranian government as a method of solidarity. Despite their name, these sanctions trickle down to punish broader sections of the population. They also stand as a stunning example of US power and hypocrisy, since no country dares sanction the United States for its illegal wars, torture practices, and program of extrajudicial assassinations. Some “anti-imperialist” activists not only oppose war and sanctions on Iran but also defend Ahmadinejad as a populist president expressing the will of the majority of the Iranian people.

In fact, Ahmadinejad’s aggressive neo-liberal economic policies represent a right-wing attack on living standards and on various social welfare provisions established after the revolution. We offer an alternative notion of and method for building international solidarity “from below,” one that offers a way out of “lesser evil” politics and turns the focus away from the state and onto those movement activists in the streets.

“Targeted” Sanctions
From 1990 until 2003, a US-led UN coalition placed crippling financial and trade sanctions on Iraq in an ostensible effort to weaken Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian regime. Sanctions, we were told, amounted to a humane way of combating intransigent authoritarianism around the world while avoiding mass bloodshed. The complete collapse of the Iraqi economy during 13 years of sanctions coupled with the inability of ordinary Iraqi people to access banned items necessary for their day-to-day survival—such as ambulances and generators—led to over half a million Iraqi civilian deaths. Furthermore, the sanctions were an utter failure in their purported primary goal—thwarting the Hussein regime while avoiding full-scale war. Finally, in March 2003, the United States and a small “coalition of the willing” began a full-scale military intervention in Iraq, which has shredded the fabric of Iraqi society and left a network of permanent US military bases—and Western oil companies—behind.

Some form of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran has been in place with little effect for more than 30 years. But since President Barack Obama took office, the sanctions have been amped up. In June 2010, a US-led UN coalition passed the fourth round of economic and trade sanctions against the Islamic Republic since 2006. The stated goal: limiting Iran’s nuclear program. Soon after, the European Union imposed its own set of economic sanctions. A month later, with the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), President Obama signed into law the most extensive sanctions regime Iran has ever seen.

It should not be surprising, given the United States’ historic attempts to control Iranian oil, that CISADA’s primary target is the management of the Iranian petroleum industry. These sanctions would penalize any foreign company that sells Iran refined petroleum products, which are a necessity for the country’s primary industry, as well as for the everyday functioning of modern life. This winter, shortages of imported refined gasoline forced the Iranian government to convert petro-chemical plants into makeshift refineries that produce fuel loaded with dangerous particles. As a result, the capital city of Tehran has been plagued by unprecedented levels of pollution, shutting down schools and businesses for days at a time and leading to skyrocketing rates of respiratory illnesses and at least 3,641 pollution-related deaths.

Parts and supplies for a great deal of machinery—and not only those potentially associated with nuclear industry—are denied entry into Iran; indeed, one of the deadly examples of the effects of these sanctions in recent years has been the spate of crashes by commercial Iranian aircraft due to faulty or out-of-date parts.

No member of any Iran-based opposition group—from leaders of the “green” movement, to activists in the women’s and student movement, to labor organizers—has called for or supported the US/UN/EU sanctions against the Islamic Republic. On the contrary, leaders from virtually all of these groups have vocally opposed the implementation of sanctions precisely because they have witnessed the Iranian state grow stronger, and the wellbeing of ordinary Iranians suffer, as a result. The US government’s long record of either complicity with or silence regarding the treatment of dissidents in Iran—from the 1950s when it helped train the brutal SAVAK torture squads right through to the post-election crackdown in 2009—makes it nothing if not hypocritical on the issue of human rights in Iran.

The Spectrum of Support
In stark contrast to the range of groups protesting the Iranian president and the Islamic Republic’s policies, some 130 activists from antiwar, labor and anti-racist organizations took an altogether different approach in September 2010, attending a dinner with Ahmadinejad hosted by the Iranian Mission to the United Nations. According to one attendee, the goal of the dinner was to “share our hopes for peace and justice with the Iranian people through their president and his wife.” During two and half hours of speeches, activists embraced Ahmadinejad as an ally and partner in the global struggle for peace and, with few exceptions, ignored the fact that his administration is responsible for a brutal crackdown on dissent.

Rather than listening to the millions of Iranians who protested unfair elections and political repression, these activists heard only the siren song of Ahmadinejad’s “anti-imperialist” stance, his vehement criticism of Israel, and his statements about US government complicity with the September 11 attacks. Many of these groups are numerically small organizations with histories of denying atrocities carried out by heads of state that oppose US domination.

One of the most bewildering misrepresentations of Ahmadinejad outside Iran has been around his economic policies, which are often represented by the US left as populist or even pro-working class. In reality, the extent and speed of privatization in Iran under Ahmadinejad has been unprecedented and disastrous for the majority of the Iranian people. Recently, despite vast opposition even from the parliament, the government annulled gasoline and food subsidies that have been in place for decades. The massive unregulated import of foreign products, especially from China, has made it impossible for agricultural and industrial domestic producers to survive. These hasty and haphazard developments have severely destabilized Iran’s economy in the past few years, leading to rocketing inflation (25–30 percent) and growing poverty. Unemployment is very high; no official statistics are available, but rough estimates are around 30 percent, creating fertile ground for recruitment into the state’s military and police apparatus (similar to the “poverty draft” in the United States).

Anti-Imperialist?
The 1978–79 revolution was one of the most inspiring popular uprisings against imperialism and homegrown despotism the world has seen, successfully wresting Iran away from US control over Iranian oilfields and ending its role as a watchdog for US interests in the region. Denunciations of US imperialism were a unifying rallying cry and formed a key pillar of revolutionary ideology. However, in the more than 30 years since, the Iranian government has, like all nations, ruthlessly pursued its interests on the world stage. Despite its anti-American/anti-imperialist rhetoric, Iran cannot survive without capital investment from and trade with other “imperial” nations, without integration into a world market that is ordered according to the relative military and economic strength of various states.

The Iranian government’s support for Palestinians scores it major points with many leftists in the United States and around the world. While the Iranian government does send material aid to Palestinians suffering under Israeli blockades and in refugee camps in Lebanon, it has also manipulated the situation for purposes that have nothing to do with Palestinian liberation. Using money to buy support from Palestinians and financing and arming the Hezbollah army in Lebanon are crucial ways the Islamic Republic exerts its influence in the region.

Currently no form of independent organizing, political or economic, is tolerated in Iran. Attempts at organizing workers and labor unions have been particularly subject to violent repression. No opposition parties are allowed to function. No independent media—no newspapers, magazines, or radio or television stations—can survive, other than websites that must constantly battle government censorship. The prisons are full of journalists and activists from across Iranian society. Prisoners are deprived of any rights or a fair trial, a violation of Iranian law. Iran has the second-highest number of executions among all countries and the highest number per capita. In January 2011, executions soared to a rate of one every eight hours.

The women’s movement has been another major target of repression in the past few years. Dozens of activists have been arrested and imprisoned for conducting peaceful campaigns for legal equality; many have been forced to flee the country, and many more are continually harassed and threatened. Women collecting signatures on a petition demanding the right to divorce and to child custody are often unfairly accused of disturbing public order, threatening national security, and insulting religious values.

Ahmadinejad’s anti-immigrant positions and policies are the harshest of any administration in the past few decades. The largest forced return of Afghan immigrants happened under his government, ripping families apart and forcing thousands across the border (with many deaths reported in winter due to severe cold). Marriage between Iranians and Afghan immigrants is not allowed, and Afghan children do not have any rights, not even to attend school. Moreover, government has been repressive toward different ethnic groups in Iran, particularly Kurds. It is promoting a militarist Shia-Islamist-nationalist agenda and escalating Shia-Sunni divisions.

Despite the many differences between the individuals and groups represented at that dinner with Ahmadinejad, what the overwhelming majority of them have in common is a mistaken idea of what it means to be anti-imperialist or antiwar. Part of the confusion may stem from a distorted notion of what it means to speak from inside “the belly of the beast.” In other words, the argument goes, those of us in the United States have a foremost responsibility to oppose the actual and threatened atrocities of our own government, not to sit in hypocritical judgment over other, lesser state powers. But in the case of the vicious crackdown on all forms of dissent inside Iran, not judging is, in practice, silent complicity. If anti-imperialism means the right to criticize only the US government, we end up with a politics that is, ironically, so US-centric as to undermine the possibility of international solidarity with people who have to simultaneously stand up to their own dictatorial governments and to the behemoth of US power.

Solidarity: Concrete and from Below
There is no contradiction between opposing every instance of U.S. meddling in Iran—and every other country—and supporting the popular, democratic struggles of ordinary Iranians against dictatorship. Effective international solidarity requires that the two go hand in hand, for example, by linking the struggles of political prisoners in Iran with those of political prisoners in the United States, not by counterposing them.

Internationalism has to start from below, from the differently articulated aspirations of mass movements against state militarism, dictatorship, economic crisis, and gender, sexual, religious, class, and ethnic oppression, in Iran, in the United States, and all over the world. For activists in the United States, this means being against sanctions on Iran, whether they are in the name of “human rights” or the nuclear issue. It means refusing to cast the United States as the land of progress and freedom while Iran is demonized as backward and oppressive. Solidarity is not charity or pity; it flows from an understanding of mutual—though far from identical—struggle.

For solidarity to be effective, it must be concrete. US-based activists need to educate ourselves about Iran’s historic and contemporary social movements and, as much as possible, build relationships with those involved in various opposition groups and activities in Iran so that our support is thoughtful, appropriate to the context, and, ideally, in response to specific requests initiated from within Iran. It is our hope that these struggles may be increasingly linked as social justice activists in the United States and Iran find productive ways of working together, as well as in our different contexts and locations, toward the similar goals of greater democracy and human liberation.

—-

Raha Iranian Feminist Collective is a New York City-based group of Iranian and Iranian-American women working toword gender and sexual justice and opposed to militarism and imperialism. They believe that all genuine liberation comes from below. Contact them at rahanyc[at]gmail.com.

A longer version of this article appeared Feb. 19 in Jadaliyya, the online magazine of the Arab Studies Institute. This version ran in the Spring edition of WIN, the magazine of the War Resisters League.

From our Daily Report:

Iran: contract workers demand rights
World War 4 Report, June 9, 2011

Idiot leftists schmooze Ahmadinejad
World War 4 Report, Sept. 25, 2010

See also:

SELLING IRAN
Ahmadinejad, Privatization and a Bus Diver Who Said No
by Billy Wharton, Dissident Voice
World War 4 Report, July 2009

——————-
Reprinted by World War 4 Report, July 1, 2011
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingCONCRETE AND FROM BELOW 

ROOTS OF EGYPT’S REVOLUTION

Labor Unions and the Uprising in Tahrir Square

by Dan Read, Toward Freedom

Kamal Abbas
Kamal Abbas comes across as a modest man. As coordinator of the Center for Trade Union and Workers’ Services (CTUWS) in Egypt, nearly twenty years of activism under repressive conditions seem to him little reason to boast. Others beg to differ.

Kamal recently arrived in the UK as part of a speaking tour to visit with British activists and trade unionists. His talks focused on the victory won four months ago when Abbas and his fellow activists overthrew long-hated President Hosni Mubarak.

“What we witnessed in Egypt and Tunisia, and now in Libya, Syria and Yemen, is that the struggle for freedom is not limited to one nation,” said Kamal, his quietly spoken Arabic relayed via a translator to an enthralled London audience.

Abbas’ story, however, begins way before the tumultuous events witnessed in Tahrir square; it is part of a legacy of resistance that goes back decades. Under the regime of former President Mubarak, grass-roots workers’ organizations in Egypt had to operate in conditions that could at best be described as “semi-legal.” This had been the rule since 1957, when President Nassar had ordained it necessary for all Egyptian unions to join a single organization, known as the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF).

This became the norm in much of the Arab world, where mainstream union leaders held to a tradition that saw the state as being integral to the functioning of the labor movement. In the case of Egypt, the ETUF tried to hold onto its government-approved monopoly, even at the expense of other, independent and democratic initiatives such as the CTUWS.

“The Egyptian trade unions were a lot like those in the Stalinist countries,” said Eric Lee, international trade union activist and founder of the LaborStart campaign website. “They were a state-controlled federation. It was a complete monopoly; you could not form an independent trade union. And the federation just supported the state—if the state supported privatizations they the federation supported privatizations.”

It was not unheard of for disillusioned workers to seek their own solutions to wider problems of poverty, unemployment and draconian government measures. Kamal Abbas himself began his time as a worker activist when he participated in a strike at the steel works in Helwan, just south of Cairo. The strike was put down with several deaths, yet despite brutal repression, the ETUF did little to help the workers’ cause. Abbas and others then decide to start a new, grass-roots workers organization.

“The situation for trade unions in Egypt was difficult,” Abbas explained. “The official federation was dominated by the government since its establishment. However, in 1990 we managed to form the CTUWS and for the next twenty years were advocating and defending workers’ rights such as the right to strike and form independent trade unions.”

Unsurprisingly, then President Mubarak did not look kindly on such endeavors. Kamal and those like him were frequently harassed and arrested by security forces. In 2007, the organization came under particularly heavy pressure due to their involvement in on-going strikes in the textile sector. Although less than a year later over twenty thousand workers were again on strike, the CTUWS headquarters in Helwan was shut down, alongside several other branch offices.

In this instance the ETUF directly turned on the CTUWS, attacking them in the media and blaming them for the onset of industrial unrest. The CTUWS in turn claimed they had a responsibility to defend the workers, yet coupled with increased government scrutiny over CTUWS moves to annul state interference in internal trade union elections, the union was largely forced underground.

“They had endless difficulties,” Eric Lee said. “Kamal was in and out of jail often. What the union was clever about was that they looked for international support from early on. They knew that international support would help them survive the onslaughts. But they faced constant repression. When I attended a meeting with them last year, only nine months before the regime was overthrown, they said to all of us ‘you are aware that at any moment the police could burst in and arrest everyone.’ That was the atmosphere, even as recently as a year ago.”

Uprising
The Arab Spring appeared to catch Western commentators off guard. Given that the mainstream media appeared to want to avoid reporting on events such as the 2006-2007 textile strikes, this is perhaps unsurprising.

Revolutions, however, do not appear out of thin air. “People who think that revolutions come out of nowhere have never studied revolutions,” said Lee. “Many international activists knew that Egypt was absolutely bubbling in turmoil. When I was there last year I knew very little about Egypt—the Solidarity Centre which is the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy arm—was there in strength, they had been backing the CTUWS for some time. And they were distributing a book which had some academic material about the Egyptian working class which covered right up to about a year ago.”

The book described the past decade’s union struggle which led to a wave of strikes which continued for the last five years. The strike, explained Lee, “involved millions and millions of workers, and enormous street demonstrations—they had ten thousand workers camped outside the Prime Minister’s office. This proved that society was losing its grip—the police couldn’’ control the streets, ten thousand workers camped out is a very significant protest and this wasn’t picked up on most of the global media; they just weren’t looking for it. Trade unionists who were involved did know about it.”

When mass street protests erupted last January, however, the CTUWS began to play a decisive role. As demonstrators took to the streets in their thousands and huge swathes of the urban working class came out on strike, Tahrir square became world famous as the focal point for revolution. It was in this square that Kamal Abbas made his first appeal for a new federation of trade unions.

“On January 30th we met with representative of other independent trade union organizations and we discussed forming a new federation,” said Abbas. “We then made an announcement in Tahrir square, calling for a new federation. But at the time we had no idea what would happen. Since then this call has been responded to by the workers. The challenge now that the revolution has succeeded is to be able to build a society of social justice.”

During this time, the old ETUF largely ignored the protest movement and instead committed itself to “monitoring” the labor force for signs of discontent. In the process, they effectively signed their death warrant as an alleged workers’ organization by showing clearly which side they were on.

Additionally, the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions (ICATU)—a conservative body influenced by Muamour Gadaffi—appears to have taken a back seat in the face of independent unionism. Having long pursued a policy of Arab nationalism that saw non-Arabs in the Middle East excluded from membership, some have called for the ICATU’s disbandment and the formation of a more ethnically inclusive body.

“ICATU does not accept unions that are not Arab,” said Lee. “So people like the Kurds are not welcome, Iranians are not welcome and of course the Israelis are not welcome. Not only that, but the Palestinians are not welcome. The Palestine General Federation of trade unions, which is generally accepted to be the Palestinian labor movement, has never been a member of ICATU because ICATU deemed they were tainted by collaboration with Zionism.”

ICATU, arguably now something of a relic which fails to represent the true ethnic diversity of the Middle East, now stands to be swept away by a new tide of popular trade unionism standing in a different tradition than that of Arab nationalism and state control.

Hope for the future now takes precedence in the minds of a population long accustomed to living under a repressive government. With the military government having made moves to ban strikes and curtail workers’ organizations, Egyptians are generally feeling optimistic about future possibilities.

“This revolution in Egypt started with the uprising of young people, which shows that this revolution has a great future,” said Abbas.

It remains to be seen how far the Arab Spring may continue, considering the convoluted situation in Libya and the savage repression in Yemen and Syria. Given that the Egyptian and Tunisian former presidents in particular were long-supported by western powers, another question is what relationship the new Egypt may pursue with their former imperial partners in the west.

Abbas believes that the political situation may have changed fundamentally with the entry of popular protest and upheaval. “The policy-makers of Europe and America have been shown that the people in the Middle East are not satisfied with dictatorships. This revolution has really forced them to acknowledge that the people themselves can act in their own interests.”

—-

Dan Read is a freelance writer in Britain. Photo of Abbas by Hossam el-Hamalawy.

This story first ran June 22 on Toward Freedom.

From our Daily Report:

Egypt: protesters clash with security forces in Tahrir Square —again
World War 4 Report, June 29, 2011

Egypt: Suez Canal zone workers go on strike again
World War 4 Report, Feb. 20, 2011

See also:

INTERNATIONALISM, LIBYA AND THE ARAB REVOLTS
by Pierre Beaudet, Viento Sur
World War 4 Report, March 2011

——————-
Reprinted by World War 4 Report, July 1, 2011
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingROOTS OF EGYPT’S REVOLUTION 

THE TWO WARS IN LIBYA

Revolutionary Struggle and NATO Intervention

by Art Young, Green Left Weekly

Two wars are being waged simultaneously in Libya. One has grown out of a revolutionary struggle for democracy. The other is an attempt by imperialism to strengthen its domination of the country.

Both wars appear to share the goal of “regime change,” but they stand at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

The regime change that the revolutionary struggle seeks to achieve is the overthrow of the Muammar Gaddafi dictatorship and the establishment of a system of democratic rule.

As is the case elsewhere in the Arab world, the struggle for democracy in Libya encompasses diverse layers of society. The more thorough the democratic transformation, the stronger will be the position of Libyan workers and their allies in the ensuing social struggles.

The Libyan struggle for democracy is an integral part of the great Arab awakening of 2011, a movement of millions of people that threatens the imperialist status quo.

Victory or defeat in Libya will have a huge impact on revolutionary struggles across the region. It deserves our wholehearted support.

The military form of the struggle (now with many aspects of a civil war) was largely imposed on the movement by Gaddafi’s regime.

During the first couple of weeks, the liberation struggle took the form of largely spontaneous uprisings in one city after another, spreading quickly across the country.

Sections of the army and major regime figures defected. The pro-Gaddafi forces were paralysed by the movement’s speed and power, and the readiness of many to die for the cause of freedom.

It looked like Libya would follow the path of Tunisia and Egypt. But Gaddafi had other ideas—and the resources to implement them.

He unleashed a systematic bloodbath. The insurgents were forced to take up arms to defend themselves as best they could.

Gaddafi’s forces took no quarter, murdering many peaceful demonstrators and reducing entire cities to rubble. Gradually, they gained the upper hand and began to march toward Benghazi, the heart of the insurrection.

The United States and NATO are waging a very different war. It only took a few days for them to transform the supposed United Nations-sponsored police action to protect civilians into an all-out war against Libya.

The “regime change” they want is to replace the Gaddafi clique with clients who can defend their interests more reliably. The NATO allies also hope to cow the rebellious Arab peoples with a demonstration of how foreign powers can still frustrate their attempts to win freedom.

This is a reactionary war without an ounce of progressive, humanitarian content.

Resolution 1973 of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), adopted on March 17, gave the green light to foreign intervention in Libya.

A wide-ranging debate in liberal and left-wing circles has ensued. Figures such as Gilbert Achcar and Juan Cole supported the resolution’s call for a no-fly zone to protect civilians.

I was in the other camp, but the debate over the no-fly zone has been superseded by subsequent events.

There is little value in continuing to discuss whether the intervention authorised by the UNSC resolution “saved” Benghazi from imminent massacre, whether one may in principle somewhere at some time support foreign intervention, or whether certain historical precedents apply in this case.

The Libyan people are not facing an abstract no-fly zone. They are the victims of a far-reaching imperialist assault that includes cruise missile attacks, a naval blockade, bombing of military and strategic infrastructure targets, close-in air attacks (the so-called no-drive zone) and any other facilities and assets the NATO commanders wish to destroy.

A growing number of reports attest to the presence of “boots on the ground” of special forces from France, Britain and the US.

This assault on the Libyan people was the real objective behind the smokescreen of a no-fly zone. The UNSC resolution was carefully worded to allow for an open-ended escalation of the conflict.

The fighting in Libya has produced a somewhat unstable equilibrium.

On the eve of the foreign intervention, the rebellion was reeling from a string of military defeats. Now the rebel forces have consolidated their position in Benghazi, the country’s second-largest city, and in the cities and towns further east.

West of Benghazi, a see-saw battle continues on the road from Ajdabiya to Brega.

Further west, Misurata, the third-largest city located between the Gaddafi strongholds of Tripoli and Surt, remains largely in the hands of the insurgent local population, which has resisted weeks of merciless heavy bombardment from loyalist forces.

The Gaddafi loyalists have consolidated their hold on the western part of the country, often through ruthless repression.

However, the pro-democracy forces have paid a huge political price for the respite that they have achieved in the east. The imperialists have succeeded in entangling Libya’s war for democratic freedoms with their war against the country’s sovereignty.

The rebel bands are far too weak to defeat the loyalists without military assistance from the outside powers.

The air war and the advance or retreat of the rebels on the ground appears as complementary activities of a single strategy. It strains credulity to believe that the fighting and bombing are not being closely coordinated.

The indigenous character of the struggle risks being overshadowed by the great powers’ war of aggression. Meanwhile, the imperialists lay claim to the mantle of the freedom fighters.

We should not close our eyes to the political retreat from the moral high ground, independent of the ebbs and flows of the military struggle.

Whether the insurgency could have pursued another course is a different matter. They had to contend with many constraints over which they had little or no control—not only Gaddafi’s murderous refusal to yield an inch, but also the specific history, culture and social structure of Libya.

They were forced to wage their struggle under conditions much less favourable than those faced by their counterparts in Egypt.

It is also apparent that the imperialist war has greatly strengthened Gaddafi’s political standing in Libya and internationally. It has allowed him to appear as the defender of the unity and sovereignty of Libya, thereby appealing to wavering elements and strengthening the resolve of his loyalists.

The disintegration of the dictator’s forces came to an end and the loyalist counteroffensive began just as the NATO powers’ threats of war reached their peak.

Gaddafi’s hand is further strengthened by the “collateral damage” produced by the Western air attacks. Despite the silence of the mainstream media, the civilian victims are no doubt many.

Does the entanglement of the two wars mean the revolutionary democratic struggle has been defeated?

Has the anti-Gaddafi rebel movement been reduced to a simple appendage of the NATO forces who aim to conquer and rule Libya in the interests of imperialism? Are the rebels the new quislings?

That is one possible outcome. But in my opinion such a conclusion is premature.

It is also unduly pessimistic. The revolutionary struggle for democracy is still alive and its future course remains an open question.

We should note the repeated complaints from the British and US leaders that they “do not know” the leaders in Benghazi. Of course they know them.

They are saying that they do not trust them—they are not sure that the rebels’ armed base will submit to the big powers’ plans for the country or that the Benghazi leaders will be able to keep their base under control, above all in the context of the wave of change sweeping the region.

Moreover, the continuing resistance in Misurata and the lengthy resistance in Zawiyah, a city just west of Tripoli, attest to the deep-rooted, plebeian, and nation-wide character of the freedom struggle.

Future developments in the region, particularly in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt, will also influence the struggle’s outcome.

—-

Art Young is a long-time socialist and solidarity activist based in Toronto, Canada.

This story, abridged from Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, first ran April 17 on Australia’s Green Left Weekly.

From our Daily Report:

Qaddafi shells Misrata, calls for ceasefire
World War 4 Report, April 30, 2011

See related story, this issue:

SYRIA: THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL
by Rene Wadlow, Transcend Media Service
World War 4 Report, May 2011

——————-
Reprinted by World War 4 Report, May 1, 2011
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingTHE TWO WARS IN LIBYA