Showing posts with label wombats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wombats. Show all posts

Thursday, 2 July 2009

Green Left Weekly turns 800!

Australia's premier left-wing, environmental and social justice newspaper, Green Left Weekly, recently published its 800th issue.

Green Left received numerous birthday greetings from activist, authors, and supporters around the country and around the world - from renowned author and linguist Noam Chomsky and infamous journalist John Pilger to US-Venezuelan author and activist Eva Golinger and NSW Greens MLC Sylvia Hale; from comedian Rod Quantock, solidarity activist and economist Tim Anderson and MUA WA secretary Chris Cain to musician David Rovics, SKA TV manager Debra Weddall and Labour Party Pakistan spokesperson Farooq Tariq.

To read the full list of greetings, visit the Green Left site.

Happy Birthday Green Left Weekly!

From all your favourite cantankerous marsupials of the Revolutionary Wombats Association.

Sunday, 21 December 2008

A Wombat Christmas Message...

... courtesy of Alistair Hulett (currently touring Oz and NZ with David Rovics)...




... the great Billy Bragg...



... and the Manic Street Preachers...


Wednesday, 26 November 2008

Seattle 1999: The WTO Monster Truck Show Movie


The wombats had the opportunity this weekend to watch in full the new film "The Battle in Seattle", a fictionalised account of the anti-WTO protests in Seattle in 1999. We might write our own review of the the movie - which was enjoyable in the sense that it was dramatic, and well-filmed - at a later date. However, as the review below points out (and we agree), the over-personalisation on the lead characters' motivation does as much harm as good.

In response to the film (information about which can be found at
www.battleinseattlemovie.com), activist David Solnit - who helped organise the real protest - has founded the Seattle WTO People’s History Project (www.realbattleinseattle.org) in an effort to raise the profile of the real activists - and the real issues - behind Seattle, and the anti-capitalist movement it was part of.

While the film was enjoyable, it is as much a nostalgia trip for those of us active in those years as it is any good for educating a new layer of activists. It may well (hopefully) inspire people to activity, but it certainly won't help them know what they're protesting against.


For that, resources like Green Left Weekly and LINKS are still vital, especially as the capitalist system behind the WTO, IMF and World Bank crashes against its own contradictions.

The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in New York had a demobilising effect on sections of the movement, a set-back from which we have not yet entirely recovered (world record protests against the Iraq war notwithstanding).


And part of that recovery will require recognising the movement's weakness at the time in knowing what it was against, but not being organised in presenting an alternative. The challenge of left unity - in both a broad and a narrow sense - is still one of the most important ones facing us, and is central to the planet's survival in the face of capitalist ecocide.
***********************************************************************
Sleepwalking Through Seattle

By Brian Cook, InTheseTimes

About halfway through Battle in Seattle, writer/director Stuart Townsend's cinematic dramatization of the 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle, a group of activists are watching a local TV station's coverage of the explosive events on the streets. Upon hearing the confrontations between the protesters and the police dubbed "The Battle in Seattle," one of the activists derisively scoffs, "Battle in Seattle? Sounds like a monster truck show!"

The statement's implicit critique -- of a mainstream media that prefers hyping the salacious rather than examining the substance of complex events, thus reducing them to simplistic, binary clashes -- is on-target. But it's hard to overlook that this scornful line is delivered in a film that is itself titled "Battle in Seattle."

It's a microcosm for the film as a whole -- a well-intentioned effort that ultimately misses the mark, covering its unconventional subject within a drearily conventional framework.

Battle in Seattle sounds like the type of movie that would warm the cockles of any leftist's (or anarchist's) heart. First-time director Townsend -- an actor who you might (or might not) remember from such films as The Best Man and Queen of the Damned -- has clearly done his homework. Though his film is not a documentary, Townsend does a good job outlining the consequences of the labor, environmental, agricultural and patent-law issues at stake in the WTO negotiations.

His protagonists are four direct-action protesters, played by Martin Henderson, Jennifer Carpenter, Michelle Rodriguez and Andre Benjamin, of the band OutKast. Townsend sketches them sympathetically (perhaps too sympathetically), accurately portrays some of their most effective tactics to disrupt the meetings and essentially endorses their dissent. His villains are superficial TV producers, indifferent trade reps, timid politicians and macho policemen, eager to beat the nonviolent protesters. What's not to like?

Sadly, quite a bit. Townsend clearly wishes to counter the caricatures of direct-action anarchists regularly put forth in the media -- best typified by New York Times' Thomas Friedman's dismissal of the Seattle protesters as "a Noah's Ark of flat-earth advocates." (This, of course, came before Friedman himself penned a book titled The World Is Flat.) But in correcting these cartoonish phantoms of the elite's imagination, Townsend creates some of his own, drawing characters who are impossibly good: intelligent, kind, committed, moral and eminently reasonable.

The problem isn't that such characterizations are untrue; the above adjectives would certainly fit the direct-action activists I've met. But, at various times, so might a few others: neurotic, intense, immature, petty, self righteous. (Many also had an admirable indifference -- if not outright hostility -- toward personal appearance and hygiene that, despite the best efforts of the film's costume designer, the phenomenally good-looking cast of Battle in Seattle can't quite pull off.)

Worse than a crime against verisimilitude, this one-dimensional characterization is a dramatic mistake. There's plenty of conflict in Battle in Seattle, but it is nearly completely external -- between police and protesters, "good" NGO representatives and indifferent WTO bureaucrats, etc. But these figures almost all arrive on screen already fully formed, leaving the viewer with lofty ideals to aspire to, not lived (and ongoing) struggles to relate to.

What's more, it leavens the film with a tediously dull earnestness that does a disservice to the very protesters Battle in Seattle means to salute. Say what you want about the international grassroots movement that's arisen to disrupt the anti-democratic practices of elite institutions like the WTO, but its participants are rarely (solely) earnest and never dull. (Indeed, I would say they are objectively pro-fun.) These activists might put their bodies in front of police truncheons to express their beliefs, but many of them do so while dressed in ridiculously imaginative costumes, all the while screaming dada chants, like "The Pizza. United. Will Never Be Divided," or the delightfully meta "Three Word Chant! Three Word Chant!"

The only time such playfulness appears on screen in Battle in Seattle is when Townsend intercuts footage of the actual WTO protests with his reenactments. The boisterousness and ingenuity on display by the real-life participants arrive like breaths of fresh air, providing all too fleeting relief from the staid conventions that the film's fictional narrative adheres to.

Chief among those conventions is Townsend's shameless use of melodrama, which reaches a nadir of banality in a subplot involving a cop (played by Woody Harrelson) and his pregnant wife (Charlize Theron), who is caught up in a swirl of protesters and -- in an "ironic twist" -- is punched by another cop in the stomach. When she (inevitably) suffers a miscarriage, one half expects Townsend to fully embrace cliché and have her sob, "And I was going to name her Justice!"

Townsend uses the same schtick with his protesting protagonists, giving them dramatic backstories that help "explain" why they are so gosh darned angry at the WTO. (Apparently, it wouldn't be believable enough for them to be motivated solely by the existence of corporate sweatshops, the extinction of species or a world in which the richest 1 percent of the population has roughly the same amount of income as the poorest 60 percent.) They must instead have been "personally" affected by the WTO's policies.

In the case of the lead organizer Jay (Henderson), this means that his brother was killed while protesting a timber company. (This is presumably based on the real-life death of the EarthFirst! activist David Chain, who was killed in 1998 when a logger felled a tree that landed on top of him.) As the film's production notes explain, "For these protesters, this is very personal and the stakes are higher than mere politics."

But with this elevation of personal grievances over "mere politics," Battle in Seattle follows the same logic of the neoliberal ideology at the heart of groups like the WTO, an ideology that privileges personal freedom (and individual wealth) over any collective political action that aims to redistribute wealth or natural resources more equitably and sustainably.

Of course, personal freedom and more equitable wealth are not necessarily at odds with one another. Indeed, they are mutually reinforcing. But the film's focus on the personal rather than the political obscures the protests' most important legacy.

This comes through clearly at the film's end, which shows our four protagonists walking toward the horizon, together again, after three of them have been released from jail. The scene has the feel of a comedy, as it's classically defined: a re-uniting of the social world, after it has been torn apart.

But what makes the WTO protests most significant -- and this isn't meant to belittle or slight the very real and empowering sense of solidarity that its individual participants may have experienced -- is their tragic element, again as classically defined. The protesters ruptured the WTO's "New World Order," creating a break that exists to this day. (There have been very few agreements reached at WTO meetings since Seattle.) It's only by focusing on this initial political fissure that we can see the slim utopian space, where, perhaps, we can truly be ourselves.

Wednesday, 22 October 2008

Wombat Day! Wombats of the world unite!

Although they have lost many of the true traditions (and have substituted lollies and chocolate for more honest fare), the website called Wombania still holds on to the memory of that most important of days: Wombat Day!

In the Autumn of 2005, the Grand Wombat Council, under the wise leadership of President Wombat, realized that the world needed a special day to commemorate the often overlooked Australian wombat. October 22nd was chosen, and the very first Wombat Day was observed on October 22, 2005. Wombat Day is alternatively known as "Hug a Wombie Day" and "Wombats of the World Unite Day."

The above note is mistaken, of course. Wombat day is centuries older that the internet, or any friendly humans. It is in fact a celebration of the wombat socialist victory, when we cast of the yoke of bush capitalism. Ever since that day, the victory of vombatid decency and good-will over greed and despoliation has been a major celebration in wombat culture. Karl Marx - an honourary wombat - was so inspired, he took one of our slogans for his own movement: "Workers of the world - unite!"

Of course, those wastrel, lumpen, koalas don't appreciate it - they're too busy getting high on eucalyptus. But the order of the Bush has been kept in balance now for countless generations. In balance, that is, until you humans brought your crisis-ridden system into our ecosystems, threatening world-shattering strife and destruction.

So, in these days of human capitalist crisis (much like the final days of the giant kangaroo market) and environmental jeopardy, the wombats invite you to join us in declaring: "Workers and Wombats of the World - Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!"

And if you are serious about fighting for justice (and potatoes - we just love potatoes) - make sure you come down to Geelong on December 5-7!

Thursday, 11 September 2008

Update on the Electricity Sell-off

With the recent turmoil in NSW Government, there was some uncertainty as to whether the new Rees/ Tebbutt ALP government would continue with the policy of selling off the electricity it inherited from the Iemma/ Costa circus. On September 5, Nathan Rees indicated that he intended to follow through with the sale of the retail arm of the power industry.

Since then, Unions NSW asked the Power to the People group to call off a rally it had planned on September 20, which has now been replaced with a large campaigning stall and a speak out/ media stunt outside of Parliament on September 23, the first sitting day of the Parliamentary session.

On September 9, the Employment & Industrial Relations, Industry & Infrastructure and Finance & Economic committees of the ALP (comprising representatives of around twenty ALP-affiliated unions) met to consider the issue, and have reaffirmed their opposition to the sell-off.

The next meeting which will have a bearing on the direction of the campaign against the sell-off is this Friday, September 12, when the NSW ALP Administrative Committee meets, and which, according to assistant-secretary Luke Foley (August 29 edition of Stateline) will decide on “whether that plan complies with the ALP platform”.

The Wombats will keep everyone informed of developments as they unfold (see below for upcoming actions).


NEW MODEL MOTION
(Note: This motion has already been carried unanimously by the Concord Hospital Banch of the NSW Nurses Association)

Stop the Sell-Off


This meeting of ______________________ (union/workplace/organisation) calls on the NSW State Government, the Premier and cabinet to respect the opinions of 86% of people in NSW, and to abandon, once and for all, any plans to privatise NSW electricity (including retail, generation and distribution).

We express our concern with recent media reports that the sell-off of electricity retail may still be on the government's agenda, and we commit to active solidarity and support with the continuing union and community campaign against the sell-off.

While affirming our opposition to the sell-off of electricity retail, we also acknowledge the threats against other public services such as transport, including Sydney Ferries, rail maintenance, roads, and water, and commit to support an ongoing campaign to save our public services and to keep them in public hands.

Moved by: _____________________________

Seconded by: ___________________________

FURTHER INFORMATION

Upcoming activities:

Saturday September 20 - Power to the People stall, collection of petitions, banner-signing from 11am at Town Hall Square
Monday, September 22 - Next Meeting of Power to the People. 6pm, level 1, AMWU Council Room, Tom Mann Building, Devonshire St, City.
Tuesday, September 23 - Power to the People lunchtime action outside NSW Parliament on the first day of sitting.

Telephone Colin Drane on 0419 698 396 for further information

Monday, 1 September 2008

Climate Action Now (or we're all going to die)!

Well, more or less. It may take some of us a while before we get there though, and in the meantime, the ecological disasters spawned by capitalism are going to make it decidedly uncomfortable for us to get by. So, want to save the world? Now's your chance!
Not even wombats are immune to irrational, immediate, overwhelming, global catastrophe, so here's to catching your attention...


Climate action: ‘As fast as humanly possible’

David Spratt co-wrote Climate Code Red: The Case for Emergency Action with Philip Sutton. The book has been recently published and a review can be read in GLW #764. Spratt spoke to Green Left Weekly’s Ben Courtice about the need to move beyond “business as usual” immediately if we’re to avert climate catastrophe.

Your book suggests that ‘business as usual’ economics won’t fix the problem. What does it mean to abandon business as usual economics in outline?


The essence of the solution is to recognise the need, based on the scientific imperatives, to de-carbonise the economy as fast as humanly possible, for the state and society to plan and support a rapid transition far beyond the speed at which market mechanisms can effectively work. Given the emergency speed at which this must be done, simply using price mechanisms will lead to a policy failure with catastrophic consequences for most people and most species.

It is fatuous to believe that simple pricing/market mechanisms can achieve the wholesale restructuring of society in the decade or two we have to achieve this task before the falling dominoes of carbon cycle feedbacks start crashing around our ears, signalling that we have left it too late to stop the climate catastrophe sweeping far beyond the capacity of human action to further affect its trajectory.

The traditional environmental organisations have been timid in embracing the radical ideas that flow from the recognition that we are truly in an emergency. Do you think these groups will come on board with the ‘emergency’ approach?

Many of the peak environment organisations are still setting policies and plans based on political convenience rather than on science-based analysis. The dilemma for the peak green groups is that they will get squeezed by the scientific imperatives and the scientists on the one side (such as NASA climate scientist James Hansen) and the grassroots climate and environment groups on the other, who are moving to the climate emergency position. Hansen’s challenge of a 325 ppm target [to reduce atmospheric CO2 to, at most, 325 parts per million] is being studiously ignored in most cases.

In a comment for Climate Code Red, Hansen now says that: “Recent greenhouse gas emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of our control, with great dangers for humans and other creatures. There is already enough carbon in the Earth’s atmosphere for massive ice sheets such as West Antarctica to eventually melt away, and ensure that sea levels will rise metres in coming decades.

“Climate zones such as the tropics and temperate regions will continue to shift, and the oceans will become more acidic, endangering much marine life. We must begin to move rapidly to the post-fossil fuel clean energy system. Moreover, we must remove some carbon that has collected in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.”

Hansen and seven fellow scientists have circulated a paper making the precautionary case for global cooling and a swift return to 325 ppm atmospheric carbon. The response, according to former US Greenpeace deputy director Ken Ward, has been “a deafening silence” from most climate lobby groups.

If the peak green groups maintain their old positions and put a relationship to government ahead of the science and what they once considered “their” base they will become irrelevant, or simply an obstacle, to the campaign for action at emergency speed. At the moment they are way to the conservative side of Gore, and some of them are more conservative than Garnaut. This is scandalous.

Do you think that large industrial/financial interests can be convinced into taking action by the scope of the emergency or are they likely to play a sabotaging role?

Some will get it (already get it — have a look at T. Boone Pickens!) and most will not. Those who get it will prosper, the others will have to be bitterly fought over such issues as the coal industry. We have to expect that the elite will not be homogenous on the rapid transition question, as the Al Gore/T. Boone Pickens “zero emissions in 10 years” for electricity initiative illustrates.

The Garnaut report’s recommendations are woefully inadequate in many activists’ opinion. What do you think are the weakest aspects of Garnaut’s approach?

One large contradiction is that Garnaut is modelling “middle of the road” impacts, yet in his recent public meetings has talked about the “bad possibilities” with “immense impacts” and “highly adverse outcomes”, and then says there is a “10% chance” of these occurring. In fact, its more like 95% given the present trajectory of the climate and political inertia!

The Garnaut modelling is for targets for temperatures rises of at least two and three degrees. But two degrees is not a real target because, as Adelaide university Professor Barry Brook told a recent conference in Canberra, “two degrees has the potential to lead to three or four degrees because of carbon-cycle feedbacks.”

And a three-degree rise would destroy the Barrier Reef, Australia’s tropical rainforests and wetlands, cause widespread desertification, a mass extinction and a sea-level rise of perhaps 25 metres. At three degrees the climate will kick into a new state and run away from the human capacity to live with it. Tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of people would not survive.

In chapter two of his report, Garnaut notes the limitations of the modelling process and elaborates on why only what he calls “currently measurable market impacts” are being modelled. So, for example, the loss of the Queensland tourism industry because of the destruction of the Barrier Reef is not being modelled!

Thus Garnaut is modelling what will not happen and will not model what is going to happen!

How do you think the debate has progressed in the last 12 months?

That is the good news. Twelve months ago Climate Code Red would have been dismissed as crazy by many. The response to it now shows how much the understanding of the scientific imperatives has changed.

From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #765 3 September 2008.

Thursday, 14 August 2008

Income, votes, parties and Election '07

This tidbit from Australian Policy Online. If you like you psephology with more mental exercise and meat on the bone, the wombats suggest you head on over to Possum Comitatus.

PARTIES

Income played a role in the last election - but not quite the one you'd expect, writes BRIAN COSTAR

TUCKED away on page 101 of a very informative Parliamentary Library analysis of the 2007 federal election is a table which dissects the two-party preferred vote at the 2007 federal election by four socioeconomic groups. A simplified version appears above. Remarkably, the only category in which the “Tories” bested the “socialists” was the one that includes the least well-off citizens. As an American physicist used to ask: “Why is it so?” Well, it doesn’t have much to do with a change of sentiment among the “working class.” Largely it’s because the Coalition does better in rural and regional Australia than does Labor. On the eve of the 2007 election, sixteen of the twenty electorates with the most families earning less than $650 per week were classified regional or rural. Thirteen of these were held by the Coalition, six by Labor and one by an independent. Labor emerged from the 2007 election as the party of the middle class, and now rivals the Coalition among “upper class” voters as well. What would Ben Chifley and Robert Menzies make of this?

Source of table: Scott Bennett and Stephen Barber, Commonwealth Election 2007, Parliamentary Library, 2008

Wednesday, 18 June 2008

Online classes: reading Capital with David Harvey


Via Socialist Unity blog, the wombats are delighted to point readers to this excellent new resource on the web.

David Harvey, the Marxist urban theorist and geographer, has been teaching a course on Marx’s Capital (Vol. 1) to postgraduate students at CUNY and John Hopkins University for more than thirty years. This is a (slightly) famous course and several noteable Marxist academics have taken it at one point or another.

This year, Harvey is making the whole course available online for free.

Each of the lectures, including questions and discussion from his postgraduate students, is being filmed and put on his website soon afterwards. The course consists of 13 two hour lectures. The first two are already up, an introductory lecture and a lecture dealing with Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. The idea is that people will read two chapters of Capital and then listen to the lecture before moving on to the next two, as if you were taking his class in CUNY. If anyone is thinking about reading or re-reading Capital this will probably be of great assistance. Harvey is a very interesting thinker and also an engaging lecturer and he knows Capital inside out. 26 hours of lectures look like they will be a fantastic resource. The third lecture is due to go online in three days.

Here it is: http://www.davidharvey.org

Friday, 13 June 2008

Germany: Die Linke hold historic first conference

On the weekend of 24-25 May, Germany's new left-wing party "Die Linke" ("The Left") held it's first ever conference in Cottbus. Below is an article from Green Left Weekly summarising some of the conference (although a lot more went on, I'm sure).

For more information Die Linke also has some material
in english on their website, some of which has been reproduced in LINKS, and the wombats have covered the rise of Die Linke here before (as a quick search will show).

**************************************************

Germany's Die Linke: ‘We have the wind of history in our sails’

By Duroyan Fertl

May 30, 2008 -- After a year of stellar successes, almost 600 delegates from Germany’s new left-wing party, Die Linke, came together for the party’s first ever congress, held in the east German city of Cottbus on May 25 and 26. Former East German communist Lothar Bisky and former Social Democratic Party (SPD) national president Oscar Lafontaine, once dubbed by the media as “Europe’s most dangerous man”, were re-elected as co-chairs of the party, and a social justice-oriented platform was adopted for the coming period, which includes state elections in Bavaria this September and federal elections next year.

Die Linke was officially formed in 2007 as a fusion between the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS — the successor to the former East German ruling party) and a collection of militants, unionists and socialists from the west organised as the Electoral Alternative for Jobs and Social Justice (WASG). Die Linke now has almost 80,000 members.

Anti-neoliberal revolt

The PDS, still popular in the east, had failed to win electoral support in the west. However, the anti-social “Hartz IV” laws of the SPD government of Gerhard Schroder led to a grass-roots rebellion against the SPD in the west. Thousands of militant unionists and community activists revolted against Schroder’s neoliberal policies, forming the WASG. They were joined by Lafontaine and a left-wing split from the SPD in the lead up to the 2005 federal elections.

After the PDS-WASG joint ticket out-polled the Greens in these elections — winning 54 seats — the two groups fused into Die Linke. Having won representation in 10 out of 16 state parliaments, it is now Germany’s third largest party, after the right-wing Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the centre-left SPD. While it is polling at around 14% nationally, in Saarland, Lafontaine’s home state, Die Linke has reached 29%, almost double the support for the SPD.

Die Linke’s success can be attributed in part to the failure of Germany — with Europe’s strongest economy — to translate economic gains into social benefits. While the neoliberal policies of the CDU/SPD “grand-coalition” government have cut unemployment, they have done so by increasing the working poor — forcing many people into extremely low-paying jobs.

According to a government report, up to 18% of Germans were living in poverty in 2005, and a quarter of the population earns less than US$24,000 per year. The country has also been rocked by a series of tax avoidance scandals, while the gap between rich and poor continues to widen drastically.

While this travesty continues, Die Linke has begun to set the political agenda. Their policies, such as introducing a minimum wage, higher taxes for the rich, and paid maternity leave — once considered taboo among the other parties — have suddenly re-appeared on the mainstream national agenda in an attempt to neutralise Die Linke’s popular appeal.

As a result, Lafontaine is now referred to by many as “Germany’s secret chancellor”.

At the Cottbus conference, Lafontaine gave an electrifying speech laden with references to Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and the Polish-born revolutionary Rosa Luxembourg. He slammed the “perversity of financial market-driven capitalism” for causing unemployment and poverty in the name of profit, and argued that fighting the influence of markets is “the central question of our times”.

In April, Lafontaine also proposed including sections from the Communist Manifesto in Die Linke’s program. Conference delegates also called for greater public expenditure on health, education and environmental repair, a ban on layoffs by profitable firms and higher property, corporate and inheritance taxes.

Die Linke remains the only German party opposed to the war in Afghanistan, and Lafontaine — who has called US President George Bush a terrorist and praised Venezuela’s socialist President Hugo Chavez — railed against NATO at the conference, calling it a US-led machine that violates human rights around the world.

Die Linke is also the only German party to oppose the new European Union constitution, on the grounds that it is entirely pro-business, and was the sole opposition in the Bundestag (the national parliament) to a recent proposal to increase politicians’ salaries.

‘Extremists’

The rise of Die Linke has lit a fire under big business, which is worried about a left-turn in Germany, and the German media has led an ongoing attack on the party. The security services have taken part in the onslaught — a recent security report decried “extremist” elements within Die Linke.

While these attacks have failed to dampen support for Die Linke, the party has vulnerabilities. Where it has entered coalition government with the SPD, in eastern states like Berlin, Die Linke has joined in the implementation of neoliberal policies, causing a revolt by local members.

While in the west, the SPD has refused to deal with Die Linke, the left-wing party remains open to coalitions with the SPD. There is a danger that Die Linke might be drawn into fruitless governing coalitions unless the party adopts a set of clear policies in relation to the question.

There is a potential fault line in Die Linke between a more moderate wing and a radical wing that includes Lafontaine, many unionists and a number of smaller, explicitly socialist platforms. The direction Die Linke takes will be determined in the struggle to forge a party with a platform that seems to genuinely put people before profits, both in the streets and in coming elections.

Until then, as Lafontaine argued in Cottbus – “the wind of history is in our sails”.

From International News, Green Left Weekly issue #753 4 June 2008.

Thursday, 29 May 2008

Petras - Homage to Manuel Marulanda

From Dissident Voice, the Wombats are reproducing James Petras' obituary to FARC leader Manuel "Tirofijo" Marulanda (right), who - it has recently been confirmed - died in March.

Petras often takes positions that most rational revolutionaries would balk at (and some of these can be seen in this article, especially his snide insinuations about Cuba and Che Guevara), but he is at least consistent in his support for the FARC.

This is despite the liberal "consensus" that has dictated that the FARC are narco-terrorists, while somehow Uribe and his paramilitary friends, are pure as driven snow democrats .{For more on this particular gem, check out BoRev.net}.

It's all worth the read, at the very least...

***********************************************************


Pedro Antonio Marin, better know as Manuel Marulanda and ‘Tiro Fijo (Sure Shot)’, was the leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-Peoples Army (FARC-EP). He was without a doubt the greatest revolutionary peasant leader in the history of the Americas. Over a period of 60 years he organized peasant movements, rural communities and, when all legal democratic channels were effectively (and brutally) closed, he built the most powerful sustained guerrilla army and supporting underground militias in Latin America. The FARC at its peak between 1999-2005 numbered nearly 20,000 fighters, several hundred thousand peasant-activists, hundreds of village and urban militia units. Even today despite the regime’s forced displacement of 3 million peasants resulting from scorched earth policies and scores of massacres, the FARC has between 10,000-15,000 guerrillas in its numerous ‘fronts distributed throughout the country.

What make Marulanda’s achievements so significant are his organizational abilities, strategic acuity and his intransigent and principled programmatic positions consisting of support of popular demands. Marulanda, more than any other guerrilla leader, had unmatched rapport with the rural poor, the landless, the subsistence cultivators and the rural refugees over three generations.

Beginning in 1964 with two-dozen peasants fleeing villages devastated by a US directed military offensive Marulanda methodically built a revolutionary guerrilla army without either foreign financial or material contributions. Marulanda, more than any other guerrilla leader, was a great rural political teacher. Marulanda’s superb organizing skills were honed on the basis of his intimate ties with peasants — he grew up in a poor peasant family, lived among them cultivating and organizing, and spoke their language addressing their most basic daily needs and future hopes. Conceptually and through daily trial and error, Marulanda worked out a series of strategic political–military operations based on his brilliant understanding of the geographic and human terrain. Between 1964 to his recent death, Marulanda defeated or evaded at least seven major military offensives financed by over $7 billion dollars in US military aid, involving thousands of US ‘Green Berets’, Special Forces, mercenaries, over 250,000 Colombians Armed Forces and 35,000 member paramilitary death squads.

Unlike Cuba or Nicarangua, Marulanda built an organized mass base and trained a largely rural leadership; he openly declared his socialist program and never received political or material support from so-called ‘progressive capitalists’. Colombia’s armed forces were a formidable, highly trained and disciplined repressive apparatus, bolstered by murderous death squads, unlike Batista’s and Somoza’s corrupt and rapacious gangsters, who plundered and retreated under pressure. Marulanda, unlike many better-known ‘poster-boy’ guerrillas, was a virtual unknown among the elegant leftist editors in London, the nostalgic Parisian sixty-eighters and the New York Socialist scholars. Marulanda spent his time exclusively in ‘Colombia profunda’, the deep Colombia, preferring to converse and teach peasants and learn their grievances, rather than giving interviews to adventure-seeking Western journalists. Instead of writing grandiloquent ‘manifestos’ and striking photogenic poses, he preferred the steady, unromantic but eminently effective grassroots pedagogy of the disinherited. Marulanda traveled from virtually inaccessible valleys to mountain ranges, from jungles to plains, organizing, fighting… recruiting and training new leaders. He eschewed tripping off to ‘World Forums’ or following the route of international leftist tourists. He never visited a foreign capital and, it is said, never set foot in the nation’s capital, Bogota. But he had a vast and profound knowledge of the demands of the Afro-Colombians of the Coast, the Indio-Colombians of the mountains and jungles, the land claims of millions of displaced peasants, the names and addresses of abusive landlords who brutalized and raped peasants and their kin.

Throughout the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s numerous guerrilla movements raised arms, fought with greater or lesser capacity and disappeared — killed, surrended (some even turned collaborator) or became immersed in electoral wheeling and dealing. Few in number, they fought in the name of non-existent ‘peoples armies’; most were intellectuals who were more familiar with European narratives than the micro-history and popular culture and legends of the people they tried to organize. They were isolated, encircled and obliterated, perhaps leaving a well-publicized legacy of exemplary sacrifice, but changing nothing on the ground.

In contrast, Marulanda took the best punches thrown by the counter-insurgency Presidents in Bogota and Washington and returned them in spades. For every village that was razed, Marulanda recruited dozens of angry and destitute peasant fighters and patiently trained them to be cadres and commanders. More than any guerrilla army, the FARC became an army of the whole people: one-third of the commanders were women, over seventy percent were peasants although intellectuals and professionals joined and were trained by movement-led cadres. Marulanda was revered for his singularly simple life style: he shared the drenching rain under plastic canopies. He was deeply respected by millions of peasants, but he never in any way cultivated a personality cult-figure: He was too irreverent and modest, preferring to delegate important tasks to a collective leadership, with a good deal of regional autonomy and tactical flexibility. He accepted a diversity of views on tactics, even when he profoundly disagreed. In the early 1980’s, many cadre and leaders decided to try the electoral route, signed a ‘peace agreement’ with the Colombian President, formed an electoral party – the Patriotic Union – and successfully elected numerous mayors and representatives. They even gained a substantial vote in Presidential elections. Marulanda did not publicly oppose the accord but he did not lay down his arms and ‘go down from the mountains to the city’. Much better than the professionals and trade unionists who ran for office, Marulanda understood the profoundly authoritarian and brutal character of the oligarchy and its politicians. He clearly knew that Colombia’s rulers would never accept any land reform just because a ‘few illiterate peasants voted them out of office.’ By 1987 over 5,000 members of the Patriotic Union had been slaughtered by the oligarchy’s death squads, including three presidential candidates, a dozen elected congressmen and women and scores of mayors and city councilors. Those who survived fled to the jungles and rejoined the armed struggle or fled into exile.

Marulanda was a master in evading many encirclement and annihilation campaigns, especially those designed by the best and the brightest from the US Fort Bragg Special Forces counter-insurgency center and the School of the Americas. By the end of the 1990’s the FARC had extended its control to over half the country and was blocking highways and attacking military bases only 40 miles from the capital. Severely weakened, the then President Pastrana finally agreed to serious peace negotiations in which the FARC demanded a de-militarized zone and an agenda that included basic structural changes in the state, economy and society.

Unlike the Central American guerrillas who traded arms for elected office, Marulanda insisted on land redistribution, dismantling of the death squads and dismissal of Colombian generals involved in massacres, a mixed economy largely based on public ownership of strategic economic sectors and large-scale funding for peasants to develop alternative crops to coca, prior to laying down arms.

In Washington President Clinton was hysterical and at first opposed the peace negotiations — especially the reform agenda as well as the open public debates and forums widely attended by Colombian civil society and organized by the FARC in the de-militarized zone. Marulanda’s embrace of democratic debate, demilitarization and structural changes puts the lie to the charge by Western and Latin American social democrats and center-left academics that he was a ‘militarist’. Washington probed to see if they could repeat the Central American peace process — co-opt the FARC leaders with the promise of electoral office and privilege in exchange for selling out the peasants and poor Colombians. At the same time Clinton, with bi-partisan support, pushed through a massive $2 billion dollar appropriation bill to fund the biggest and bloodiest counter-insurgency program since the war in Indochina, dubbed ‘Plan Colombia’. Abruptly ending the peace process, President Pastrana rushed troops into the demilitarized zone to capture the FARC secretariat, but Marulanda and his comrades were long gone.

Between 2002 to the present the FARC alternated from offensive attacks and defensive retreats — mostly the latter since 2006. With an unprecedented degree of US financing and advanced technological support, the newly elected narco-partner and death squad organizer, President Alvaro Uribe took charge of a scorched earth policy to savage the Colombian countryside. Between his election in 2002 and re-election in 2006, over 15,000 peasants, trade unionists, human rights workers, journalists and other critics were murdered. Entire regions of the countryside were emptied — like the US Operation Phoenix in Viet Nam, farmland was poisoned by toxic herbicides. Over 250,000 armed forces and their partners in the paramilitary death squads decimated vast stretches of the Colombian countryside where the FARC exercised hegemony. Scores of US-supplied helicopter gun-ships blasted the jungles in vast search and destroy missions — (which had nothing to do with coca production or the shipment of cocaine to the United States). By destroying all popular opposition and organizations throughout the countryside and displacing millions Uribe was able to push the FARC back toward more defensible remote regions. Marulanda, as in the past, adopted a strategy of defensive tactical retreat, giving up territory in order to safeguard the guerrillas’ capacity to fight another day.

Unlike other guerrilla movements, the FARC did not receive any material support form the outside: Fidel Castro publicly repudiated armed struggle and looked to diplomatic and trade ties with center-left administrations and even better relations with the brutal Uribe. After 2001, the Bush White House labeled the FARC a ‘terrorist organization’ putting pressure on Ecuador and Venezuela to tighten cross-border movements of the FARC in search of supply chains. The ‘center-left’ in Colombia was totally divided between those who gave ‘critical support’ to Uribe’s total war against the FARC and those who ineffectively protested the repression.

It is hard to imagine any guerrilla movement surviving under conditions of massive US financed counter-insurgency, quarter million US-armed soldiers, millions displaced from its mass base and a psychopathic President allied directly to a 35,000 member chain-saw death squads. However Marulanda, cool and determined, directed the tactical retreat; the idea of negotiating a capitulation never entered his mind nor that of the FARC secretariat.

The FARC does not have contiguous frontiers with a supporting country like Vietnam had with China; nor the arms supply from a USSR, nor the international mass support of Western solidarity groups like the Sandinistas. We live in times where supporting peasant-led national liberation movements is not ‘fashionable’, where recognizing the genius of peasant revolutionary leaders who build and sustain authentic mass peoples armies is taboo in the pretentious, loquacious and impotent World Social Formus — which ‘world’ routinely excludes peasant militants and for whom ‘social’ means the perpetual exchange of e-mails between foundations funded by NGO.

It is in this hardly auspicious environment facing US and Colombian Presidents intent on Pyrrhic victories, that we can appreciate the political genius and personal integrity of Latin America’s greatest peasant revolutionary, Manuel Marulanda. His death will not generate posters or tee shirts for middle class college students, but he will live forever in the hearts and minds of millions of peasants in Colombia. He will be remembered forever as ‘Tiro Fijo’: the legend who was killed a dozen times and yet returned to the villages to share their simple lives. The only leader who was truly ‘one of them’, the one who confronted the Yankee military and mercenary machine for a half-century and was never captured or defeated.

He defied them all — those in their mansions, presidential palaces, military bases, torture chambers, and bourgeois editorial offices: He died at after 60 years of struggle of natural causes in the arms of his beloved peasant comrades.

Tiro Fijo presente!

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50-year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in Brazil and Argentina, and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed Books). Petras’ forthcoming book, Zionism and US Militarism, is due from Clarity Press, Atlanta, in August 2008. He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu. Read other articles by James, or visit James's website.

Monday, 28 April 2008

Socialist Party - "Greens: Open letter to Solidarity"

With good reason - given our advocacy of greater left unity in Australia - the wombats tend to keep a close eye on the (often small) far-left groups that are around, and what moves they make in the right (or wrong) direction.

The latest such example is the open letter (republished below) from the Socialist Party (a small, Melbourne-based organisation with the curious honour of having Australia's only elected socialist - Yarra councillor Steve Jolly) to the group now known as Solidarity (formed after the reunification of 3 of Australia's 4 IST groups - Solidarity, the International Socialist Organisation, and Socialist Action Group).

There is nothing new about the SP's approach (the wombats have covered it - and related news -before - here, here, here, and here - and Socialist Alliance has written similar letters), but it provides a good example of what's wrong with Solidarity's (and Socialist Alternative's for that matter) approach. In place of building a dignified and potentially quite robust socialist space on the left of Australian politics, both groups substitute riding on the coat-tails of the Greens (to be fair to SAlt, they are so dismissive of electoral politics as to be almost anarchoid, and the "coat-tails" reference probably doesn't explain their approach at all).

Of course, the SP might have more weight to their arguments if they were part of a larger left, that wasn't focused to such an excessive degree on Yarra and Jolly's re-election. The Socialist Alliance and Socialist Party collaborated to a very limited, but fruitful, degree in the elections last year. Although this was not much more than keeping off each other's "turf", it oughtto be a hint to the SP that they can, and should, think strongly about greater left collaboration.

The wombats rather doubt that CWI/ IST collaboration in Australia is going to take place anytime soon without a rather large unity project in-between, and the only one of those with any legs at the moment is the Socialist Alliance.

The original of this letter can be found here.

******************************************************************************************

Dear Solidarity comrades,
During last years federal election campaign the Socialist Party challenged the Australian section of the International Socialist Tendency (IST), then called the International Socialist Organisation (ISO), to a debate around the topic of ‘How should socialists relate to the Greens?’

The ISO declined to debate us and proceeded to support the Greens in the election. Their support was not limited to cheer leading from the columns of their newspaper but included handing out ‘how to vote’ cards for the Greens in the seat of Melbourne where SP stood a candidate!

Since then the ISO has merged with Solidarity and the Socialist Action Group and has been renamed Solidarity. From all reports Solidarity is now the official section of the IST in Australia.

We understand that both the Socialist Action Group and Solidarity also supported the Greens in the 2007 federal election campaign and that part of the political foundation of the merger that took place was ongoing support for the Greens in elections.

It was somewhat surprising then for us when we read the following article in the paper of Solidarity’s sister organisation in Britain called Socialist Worker. The article actually echoes many of the points that we made to the ISO during last years election campaign. Read it for yourself.

Can the Greens be a radical alternative to the mainstream?
By Anindya Bhattacharyya
Taken from the online version of Socialist Worker issue 2097 dated 19 April 2008

Many people are frustrated with the three mainstream political parties and would like to see a left wing alternative to their pro-business agenda. The Green Party is widely touted as an organisation that could fill this role.

It is certainly true that the Green Party includes many individual activists on the left. The Green MEP Caroline Lucas, for instance, has played a solid role in the anti-war movement.

Yet despite this, the Greens do not present themselves as a left wing party, nor do they as an organisation play any kind of systematic role in left wing movements against war, racism and neoliberalism.

This distancing is quite deliberate. “If we positioned ourselves as explicitly left it would be dangerous, with no guarantee of success,” says Chris Rose, the Green Party’s national election agent.

And however “left” they may appear on paper, in power the Greens can act very differently. Jenny Jones, a Green member of the London assembly, strongly backed Metropolitan police chief Ian Blair over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Sian Berry, the Green candidate for London mayor, echoes the mainstream parties in calling for more police officers (albeit of the “community” variety).

In Leeds the Greens even went into coalition with the Tories and the Liberal Democrats on the city’s council for two years.

This was justified by Chris Rose as follows: “We say none of the mainstream parties are worth anything. So, if the situation demands it, it doesn’t really matter which one we work with, just what the outcome is.”

Elsewhere in Europe, where Green parties are more established, their record is similarly chequered. In France the Green Party lined up with the establishment in supporting the neoliberal European Union constitution.

In Germany, Green MPs have given unstinting support to the war in Afghanistan – despite a party congress decision to oppose German troops being sent to join Nato forces there.

The tendency of Green parties to drift to the right and their penchant for remaining aloof from mass movements have a common foundation.

They reflect the fact that the Greens are essentially a middle class party with some left wing opinions, rather than being a political organisation rooted in the working class.
This means that while Greens may hold “progressive” views on many issues, they have little to say about the class struggle between the majority of people who work for a living and the minority that rules the world.

It means that the Greens look to individualist solutions to issues such as climate change and world poverty, such as adopting a “green lifestyle” or promoting “ethical consumerism”.

Ultimately it means that while individual Greens can play a left wing role on certain issues, the party as a whole will never become a serious working class alternative to the pro-business parties.

They cannot connect with the swathes of ordinary people who are hit by low pay, poor housing and cuts to public services – and who want to fight back.

That radical political alternative must be built from below, by activists who campaign in trade unions and the mass movements against privatisation and war – and who look to the power of workers to transform society.

Read the article online here

The question we would have for the Solidarity comrades is if you are in fact maintaining your electoral support for the Greens what is the difference between the Greens in Britain and the Greens in Australia? Are they so different that a different approach to them is required? Is the situation in Britain so vastly different to that in Australia?

You told us last year that “Unfortunately, we found some of your characterisations of the Greens as sectarian and wrong”. Does this mean the characterisations that your British comrades have of the Greens are also sectarian and wrong?

You said “We support the Greens because they represent a very important layer of people that firmly rejects the Labor Party’s political sell-outs. Most Greens supporters reject Labor’s capitulation to neo-liberalism and support the kind of social democratic policies that were once expected from the Labor Party. But you don’t seem to have recognised this significant point.” It seems your British comrades have also failed ‘to recognise this significant point’!

The truth is that, leaving aside our difference with the British IST over tactics in the upcoming elections, we think the analysis put by the British IST comrades in relation to the Greens is far more in tune with reality than the oppurtunistic position that you have put here in Australia.

If we are wrong and you have in fact changed your position we would welcome that shift. But if you are in fact planning on supporting the Greens in the upcoming council elections in Victoria we would like to renew our challenge for you to debate us on the question of ‘How should socialists relate to the Greens’.

It is not the case that the socialist vote in these council elections will be negligible. In fact we will be defending our position on Yarra Council. We would be interested to know if the comrades from Solidarity will be supporting fellow socialists or if they will again be campaigning against us in support (as your British comrades put it) of the middle class Greens? We look forward to your reply.

Comradely

Anthony Main
On behalf of the Socialist Party


Wednesday, 23 April 2008

Correa - My Hands are Clean and Bloodless, Something Uribe Can’t Say

Further on that Correa interview - the wombats have decided to repost it here in full, as it deserves as broad as audience as possible:

*******************************************

Via Machetera

"My Hands are Clean and Bloodless, Something Uribe Can’t Say" - Interview with Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador

Gorka Castillo - Público
Translation: Machetera

In an interview with Público, the Ecuadoran head of state accuses the Colombian government of lying, and its president, Álvaro Uribe, of links with paramilitaries.

Ecuador’s president doesn’t mince words. Over an hour’s interview he analyzed the Latin American political situation and didn’t hide the wound opened by Colombia that will take some time to heal.

The British writer Richard Gott considers Colombia to be the main element in the region’s instability. Do you share his view?

This is nothing new, rather something that goes way back. Colombia is the only country that has paramilitaries, guerrillas, drug traffickers, extensive coca cultivation and extensive zones of the country uncontrolled by the state. Paramilitarism and narco-politics doesn’t exist in Ecuador. Nor do we cultivate coca. Those are exclusively Colombian terms. I say this regretfully because [the Colombians] are our brothers, but Colombia today is the focus of the greatest instability that exists in Latin America and this hurts all of us.

Do you wish to say that the Colombian government’s image in Latin America is not a good one?

Uribe’s government is completely discredited. We’ve already pointed out his lies; now no-one believes him.

In Europe it’s not seen that way.

It’s true that in the European Union as much as the United States, the backing of his lies by some powerful media has harmed us and for that reason, very soon, I will undertake a tour of Europe to let people know about Ecuador and show that we are a decent government and a peaceful land. What’s problematic is on the other side of the border. We’re victims of the Colombian conflict. We’re not perpetrators nor are we accomplices.

You give the impression that a media war has been launched.

It’s not that I’m giving that impression, it’s that it’s a fact. We know with whom we are dealing; with a militaristic country, with a president who has an imperfect past, with enormous support from foreign intelligence agencies and with an impressive propaganda machine. We have faith that the truth and justice will prevail. We’ve already achieved that in Latin America, where Colombia has been soundly defeated politically, diplomatically and informationally.

What drives Colombia to accuse its neighboring countries of collaboration with the FARC?

Uribe’s militaristic policies began when he became president. First in contradicting the strategy of his predecessor, Andrés Pastrana, who came to embrace Manuel Marulanda. But in came Uribe with the hard line and he wanted us all to do the same. He’s like the little emperor who follows his boss’s dictates. It’s obvious that his political and economic power is based on the struggle against the FARC. Peace is not convenient for Uribe because fighting guerrillas gives the Colombian electorate a secure feeling. What is troubling is that this conflict is spilling over the borders.

But before the bombing on March 1, relations between the two countries was ruled by respect.

Uribe has always shown a lack of respect toward Ecuador. So much so that our territory continues to be fumigated with glyphosate and to the point of frequently violating our airspace with their planes. Anyway, as to the March 1 bombing, there’s a question that still remains unanswered.

What?

They had Raúl Reyes’ group under their control when they could still be found on Colombian soil. Why did they wait until they passed over to Ecuador to kill them?

Why?

Was it by any chance done in order to involve Ecuador in a conflict that is not theirs? Was it not a matter of intimidation? Could it have been to force us to participate in Plan Colombia? What Uribe didn’t count on was our response, nor the condemnation he received from the countries in the OAS. The plan failed because we didn’t fall for it.

During the meeting of the Rio Group in Santo Domingo, you showed your hands to Uribe and told him to take a good look at them because they are clean and without blood. What were you referring to?

Uribe has tried to involve us, not only my government, but also the Armed Forces, as supporters of the FARC. Later he alleged that my presidential campaign had been financed by the guerrillas. It’s disgraceful. Where does this gentleman get off, after having violating every international law, accusing us of support for guerrilla groups whose actions we’ve said a thousand times we reject; it’s insulting. That’s why I told him to look at my hands. Just to highlight the contradiction with Uribe’s position, which has been so scandalously related to drug trafficking. His warmongering policy is not going to end the conflict, instead it will exacerbate it and he’s going to leave thousands dead as a result. My hands are clean and bloodless. That’s something Uribe cannot say.

However they continue to claim that you were aware of the FARC’s activities in your territory. They say that you were warned as many as 16 times of guerrilla bases in your territory, and were ignored. Is it true?

This is an unbelievable infamy. All my orders are on record. It’s all so coarse and ridiculous that we’ve decided it’s not worth answering. It’s just that we don’t know why he does it. Just when relations improve with him, something strange happens and you get stabbed in the back. Something in his head’s not working right.

How is it possible that this climate of tension has been reached if at the end of the Rio Group meeting, you managed to shake hands?

That’s Álvaro Uribe Vélez. Something’s wrong. His behavior is terribly psychotic.

Is it true that Reyes had contacted the French in order to negotiate the liberation of Ingrid Betancourt, when he was bombed?

Uribe doesn’t want peace, nor does he want hostages released, because Betancourt is a potential presidential candidate. It’s true that we’d known that contact would be made in a neutral third country in order to liberate them later on Ecuadoran soil. President Chávez also asked me if we could receive hostages in our territory because a transfer over the Colombian-Venezuelan border had become very dangerous. We were in the middle of that process. Those movements toward liberation of the hostages that the guerrillas entrusted to Reyes were precisely the reason Reyes was destroyed.

Ecuador has just denounced Colombia before the Hague Tribunal for illegal spraying on its territory.

The verdict will still take many years but we hope that a stiff sentence will be handed down to force Bogotá to suspend the aerial glyphosate spraying they’ve been doing since 2006. These fumigations have caused Ecuadoran farmers on the border to leave their homes, lose their crops, their income, and have caused serious illnesses, even death. However, do you know what the Colombian government’s reaction has been up until today? It’s to say that our demand that the spraying cease coincides with the FARC’s pleas. It’s shameful.

The crisis has revealed huge cracks in the Ecuadoran intelligence system that have caused military leadership to be relieved of its duties. What reforms should it undertake?

Something serious is going on with our intelligence services. We still don’t have all the firm data but we can say that we have been infiltrated by the CIA and this agency works for Colombia.

There are some who criticize you for being naive in having waited so long to change the military leadership, with its loyalties to the prior regime.

They’re probably right. And also for having trusted Bogotá. You might say that we underestimated the threat of external attack once things had been resolved with Perú and we had good relations with Colombia. But we underestimated the fact that Uribe was there.

THE BORDER

Is it true that Ecuador draws its line with the FARC and not with Colombia?

We have a jungle border with 13 posts. Colombia only has two, when the guerrilla conflict is theirs. Why? Because it hopes that we will put them to death. Despite this, we have 11,000 men deployed which costs the state coffers around $100 million annually. Last year 13 soldiers died in a war that is not ours and on top of that we have to swallow the insolence of Álvaro Uribe Vélez. Bogotá has around 170,000 square kilometers where its army cannot go. Against this situation, I repeat that we don’t limit ourselves with Colombia, we limit ourselves with the FARC.

SPAIN

What has been the response of the Socialist government to the political crisis?

It’s been a little ambiguous. I am very appreciative of the Socialist government and of President Zapatero, but his statement was extremely vague, trying to please both sides when we were the ones attacked. The explanation that we were given was that he was in the final stretch of his electoral campaign. We understand that but we expect something more of the Spanish government. God willing, the hundred odd transnational businesses operating in Colombia are not being pressured, because in this kind of affair the principles and convictions that we share with President Zapatero are more important. We agree that international law should always prevail.

HOSTAGES

Are you willing to be a mediator with the FARC to achieve a humanitarian exchange?

I’ve said this a thousand times to President Álvaro Uribe: the Colombian people can count on Ecuador to resolve this civil war that’s been bleeding it dry for so many decades. That’s what we were trying to do before the attack. However, they don’t want to resolve it. The campaign against Ecuador from Bogotá shows that. We don’t reject the theory that they want to destabilize us for not following Washington’s policies. Neither do we rule out that it may be a strategy to put a puppet government in Quito that would accept Plan Colombia and permit the Manta airbase to continue operating beyond 2009, when the contract expires.

INVESTMENTS

Are you thinking of eliminating the concessions for resource extraction by large companies?

The new Constitution that is now being debated in the Constituent Assembly is part of a new legal framework for this issue. We will change the law made by those indescribable bureaucrats at the World Bank, that was such a disaster. It managed to grant more than 4,000 concessions, of which 70% never even managed to start any operation whatsoever. The contracts will be renegotiated. A very short time ago we met with Repsol. The interest is mutual. As long as the workers and the environment are respected and the state is paid the taxes it is owed, there will not be problems and the projects will be profitable. The oil belongs to the state, and we want the contracts to be signed for services rendered.

IMMIGRATION

What measures are being directed toward immigrants so that they do not feel so uprooted?

On reaching the presidency, our government created an immigration ministry. We are in the process of strengthening our embassies and consulates, especially in Spain, because we believe that Ecuadoran migration is already the country’s fifth region. We have just adopted a provision of $9 million for Plan Return (a program of tax exemption so that those who return to the country may do so with their goods and housing subsidies). We are also creating a Migrant’s Bank. At the political level I will say that there are six immigrant representatives in the Constituent Assembly for the first time in its history.

Ecuador's Correa according to BoRev

The wombats have nicked this post mercilessly from the website of the sharpest, shirtiest and (sometimes) silliest analysis of Latin America and its currently successful attempt to shove US foreign policy into a running blender - BoRev.net. We don't apologise for the fact that we nicked it either, as we think it should be read. If you don't like it, go and read the original, which has better pictures. Actually, go and read it anyway...

**********************************************************************************

Keeping Up With Hunky McHotsalot
Happy Earth Day everybody! Can you name the country that manages to pack Pacific coastline, the Andes, the Amazon and “the Galapagos” into just over 100,000 square miles, and whose president happens to have two perfect Earth-like globes that come together to form his ass? Of course we are talking about Ecuador, and while we could talk about Rafael Correa any day of the year, we will especially talk about him on Earth Day for some reason! He’s been busy:

First! Correa has been promising since his campaign to boot the Americans from Ecuador when Manta airbase lease expires next year. Manta was the last U.S. base in South America (excluding “the nation of Colombia” of course) and U.S. Southern Command is cutely pretending to “respect Ecuador's decision” until his plane goes down mysteriously over Panama or something.

Next! Raf fires his Defense Minister when it turns out that his own intelligence services have been spying on the Ecuadorian Congress—perhaps at the behest of the C.I.A.?. The replacement is, awesomely, “a journalist and poet” tasked with “mak[ing]the relationship between the military and civil society more transparent.” Sounds great!

Then! The New York Times exposes the extent of the infiltration of Ecuadorian intelligence agencies, who had been engaging in domestic spying and reporting their findings, not to their own chain of command, but to “Colombian forces and their American military advisers.”

And Finally! Rafael gives the awesome-ist interview of his career to the Spanish newspaper Publico. The gloves are now, officially, finally, forever, off. He calls Uribe a liar, the head of a “completely discredited” government, “the little emperor who follows his boss’s dictates,”
and “terribly psychotic,” and then he really lays into him. Seriously, don’t miss it. Spanish speakers can watch the video. For the rest of you, Machetera’s got the full English language transcript.

Monday, 21 April 2008

Goethe and Die Gruenen

On Wednesday, April 16, Goethe rose from his grave, had a quick breakfast and rewrote Faust. The new storyline is even better than the last - this time, there's no space for the Devil, his henchman, unrequited love or thunderous verse. Instead, the German Greens have taken the lead role, and signed a deal in blood worthy of Mephistopheles' jealousy.

The "Olive Greens" (as they have been known for some time in Germany, because of their support for German involvement in the occupation of Afghanistan) signed up for coalition government in Hamburg with the right-wing Christian Democtratic Union (CDU).

The move leaches the last colour from the fading activist-green blouses of the Greens - after losing popularity almost continually over the past few years, they are now polling only 9 percent, and look like a party in crisis.

A recent national Greens conference split three ways over support for troops in Afghanistan, many of the "Fundys" (those whose more radical politics made them seem like "fundamentalists" compared to the "moderate" "Realos") have long since left, and the German Greens have never looked more like an opportunist petit-bourgeois enviromental lobby group in search of affirmation than they do now.

The deal also lays the foundations for a more frightening possibility in the German federal elections next year. Having now established a regional partnership with the "Realos" of the Greens, Angela Merkel's CDU is better positioned to arrange a "Jamaica coalition" (Green = Green, CDU = Black, Free Democrats = Yellow) government in 2009.

While the CDU/ CSU conservatives were forced into a "Grand Coalition" with their arch-competitors the SPD after the last election, this time around it is possible that Merkel can form government and still dump the SPD. The SPD is suffering from the success of Die Linke and a bumbling leader in Kurt Beck, who has undermined the party's already wounded credibility further by first swearing "never, ever" to deal with Die Linke, and then changing his mind, and then changing it back again.

Worse yet, the SPD's Andrea Ypsilanti withdrew her candidacy for the premiership of Hesse last month after members of the SPD refused to support her governing with the "toleration" (the loosest possible support) of Die Linke in that state's parliament. While Die Linke remain open to working with the SPD, the bitter blood left over after Oskar Lafontaine - fomer national leader of the SPD - jumped ship and took a large part of the SPD-left with him, seem to be enough to prevent even the opportunist SPD from stomaching such a deal in the name of power. And this could cost them the Bundestag next year.

Merkel has now got the SPD in her sights, declaring them "unreliable", and the Greens - also losing significance in federal politics - appear keen to seem important, somehow, anyhow - even if that means forming a "Green-Black" government with a party that served as a half-way house for many Nazis after World War II.

To be honest, Merkel isn't far off the mark on the SPD's unreliability, as their electoral woes are continuing, and their polling is sliding dangerously. Central to this is the fact that, to their left, the new left-wing party Die Linke continues to rise, putting forward a real alternative to SPD-managed neoliberalism.

Die Linke is consistently polling 14%, but in some places
Die Linke is outpolling the SPD - notably in Die Linke leader Oskar Lafontaine's home state of Saarland, where the SPD sit on a miserly 16 percent, while Die Linke have reached a whopping 29 percent!

Recently, "Red" Oskar Lafontaine - "the most dangerous man in Europe" according to British newspaper The Sun - has also called for parts of the Communist Manifesto to be included in Die Linke's program, and while Die Linke is only young - having been officially formed less than three years ago - their polling results, and the obvious attraction of a real left alternative in a sea of sameness and compromise, has placed them in a strong postion to push Germany to the left.

With their first party conference on May 24-5 in Cottbus, it will soon be decision time for Die Linke: can they work out a coherent policy and platform, maintain their political momentum and build a solid movement outside of electoral politics? Or will they succumb to the twin pressures of electoralism and sectarianism that seem to consume so much of the left?

More from the Wombats as it unfolds.