SOCIALIST UNITY

I attended the funeral today of Pauline Campbell at Whitchurch, Shropshire. And I was able to put names to faces as many have commented on this blog and to say hello. Special thanks to Nikki, Hannah, Emilia and the two Johns.

Sorry I couldn’t stay to raise a toast in celebration and in rememberance of Pauline’s life.

There were tributes from her friends and organisations like Howard League’s Frances Crook, INQUEST and from Eric Allison who wrote the obituary to Pauline in the Guardian.

Eric made the point that we have a duty to carry on highlighting and campaigning around deaths of women in prison. The criminal justice system has to stop sending vulnerable and damaged women to prison. Pauline was described as a suffragette of penal reform and that is a fitting description.

I saw Pauline’s friend, Joan, who accompanied her to the pre-trial review in March and where I met her. She is a heroic and brave woman in her own right and was glad to see her.

It was sad and poignant day. I knew Pauline for only a short time yet she made an impact on my life. I admired her tenacity and bravery. My feelings are best summed up by the words on the banner at the top of this post.

The reality of NL’s authoritarian policies have so much grief and misery, which have led to the deaths of a woman and her daughter. I agree with Eric, we need to carry on the campaign for Pauline’s sake and for the women who have died in the “care” of the state. We need to carry on highlighting and campaigning about these hidden injustices.

Prison Justice Day is on the 10th August - It is a day in which those in prison can have a day of mourning and rememberance for others who have died while locked up in prison. History of the day can be found here.

No More Prison campaign are asking for activists to show solidarity outside Styal Prison with the women locked up inside and to remember those who have died in women’s prisons all over the country. It will also be a tribute to Pauline.

The demo will start at 1pm outside the gates of the prison. Please show your support and solidarity.

The latest edition of Scottish Left Review has three seperate articles by members of the Scottish Green Party. The Scottish party has arguably not been as left wing as the Greens in England and Wales, and this is referred to in an article by Peter McColl, who writes: “While the politics of reformist environmentalism has some traction, the need for Scottish Greens to focus on social justice and the green economics has become clear with the 2007 Scottish Parliament election failure, and the relative success of Greens in London standing on a clear left platform.”

But in particular the following article by Tim Gee explores the changing relationships between socialists and greens in Scotland, suggesting a logical progression from contraction and convergence towards the ultimate goal of co-operation

Following a recent article on ‘Transitional Alliances’ by Justin Kenrick in Scottish Left Review, a question on many people’s lips has been how and whether activists with a common cause can work together to win positive, equitable change for people and the environment. This article will attempt to answer this question, coming up with some possibilities for progress. It will show that Green and Socialist ideas have converged somewhat, possibly clearing the path for future co-operation.

For some commentators, the 2007 election spelled the end of the left. The Greens’ seats were reduced to two while the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), Solidarity and the Socialist Labour Party won no seats at all. Across Scotland, 109,539 people voted for a radical anti-capitalist party however votes were down for these parties compared to previous elections as left voters opted to display their frustration with Labour by voting SNP (perceived to be to the left of Labour). So far, being in opposition has not created a move to the left inside the Labour party as evidenced by the lack of challenge from the Labour Campaign for Socialism to Wendy Alexander. Meanwhile, the stances of the SNP show that an independent critical left is more important than ever. On one hand, we should provide support if and when the new Scottish government delivers on free education, opposing PFI and Trident. However, we should be vocal in our opposition if and when it disappoints by reducing taxes for corporations and the rich, accepting donations and advice from Stagecoach boss Brian Souter and backtracking on climate change commitments.

Greens and Socialists in the UK have traditionally been somewhat suspicious of each other. To simplify, Socialists have viewed Greens as having the wrong analysis and Greens have worried that Socialists do not sufficiently take seriously the threat of ecological crisis, which could make all of their promises null. However in the past 15 years Green and Socialist positions have changed sufficiently to be compatible, as this section shows. To clarify, by Green I do not simply mean ‘environmental’, I mean a politics based on five pillars: environment, social justice, democracy, decentralisation and peace.

From an ecological perspective, orthodox Marxist analysis is somewhat un-environmentally friendly. Marx claims that the extraction of natural resources from the earth is a positive step in the creation of surplus which will lead to human emancipation when the proletariat rise up to redistribute it. Those natural resources only acquire value when they are transformed by human initiative. Because of this, in the past, there has been much resistance to the language of socialism amongst Greens. Famously, in1984 Jonathan Porritt claimed that communism and capitalism were nothing but a ‘super ideology of industrialism’. Marxists dismissed such a stance, seeing industrialism as the harbinger of socialism/communism, and Greens as attempting to return society to a bygone mode of production. Yet the picture 15 years later is somewhat different: former principal speaker of GPEW, Derek Wall explicitly calls himself an eco-socialist while Caroline Lucas’ book on Green alternatives to economic globalisation takes a historical structuralist approach to the world economy. In Scotland the Greens were represented between 2003 and 2007 by a committed Socialist, Mark Ballard. Socialism too is changing in line with scientific realities and many Socialist activists from all parties, including Greens, see the struggle against capitalism and the struggle for environmental justice as one. Thus we see two paths converging.

Another potential difference comes with the fact that a central point of Green thought and practice is to engage in struggles as well as the class struggle, for example calling for equality between sexualities, genders and races, arguing against the exploitation of nature by the human and against the oppression of the human from the worst excesses of the state. In the opinion of some of the SSP’s predecessors, any struggle other than the class struggle is a distraction at best. Again though, this notion has almost entirely disappeared from recent language and practice of the Socialist movements of Scotland, with Socialists at the forefront of struggles for all forms of equality. Many Greens too have come to recognise that pollution is a class issue because it is the poorest and most marginalised that live in the most degraded environments.

Another perceived difference is in attitudes to the state. Greens are usually characterised as influenced by anarchist, anti-state thought. Characterisations of Socialists are more varied: at the more reformist wing are those who embrace the state as a tool of emancipation, and at the revolutionary end of the spectrum are those seeking to overthrow it. In fact, a more nuanced position can be detected in Scotland. For instance in the period 2003 – 2007, SSP and Green Party MSPs voted to oppose ID cards. This implies suspicion of state power. However they also both argued for a stronger role for the state in providing free education, free school meals, and a nationalised railway system. Thus the state is viewed by both as holding the potential to oppress and also (at least transitionally) to emancipate. Whilst revolutionary Marxists seek the eventual withering away of the state, Greens too provide a vision of the future based on social enterprises, co-operatives, subsidiarity and consociational democracy, to make certain that as Peter McColl argues, “the workers ensure the full fruits of their labours”.

Both the SSP and the Green Party are coalitions. The SSP was born of the ‘Scottish turn’ by the members of the Committee for a Workers’ [0]International, who joined up with unaffiliated socialists, ex-members of the Labour party and members of smaller groups such as the International Socialist group, the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Scottish Republican Socialist Party to form the Scottish Socialist Alliance, then the SSP. They were later joined by the Socialist Workers Party. The Scottish Green coalition is less clear-cut, but a recent study revealed that the Scottish Greens are essentially a coalition of leftists, social libertarians, feminists/liberation campaigners, anti-war activists and environmentalists. The research also revealed that 73.9 per cent of council candidates surveyed considered themselves ‘eco-socialists’ followed by the labels ‘ecologist’ and ‘feminist’. Most socialists consider their natural allies those in the Green coalition, and the fact that so many Green activists consider themselves Socialists implies that this works both ways. It seems greater co-operation would be a sensible next step. But what strategies of co-operation might work? 3 options come to mind:

1 Outside the electoral arena.

Many Greens and Socialists have positive memories of working together in the campaign against the M77 in South Glasgow in the 1990s. Similarly the campaigns against the Iraq war and Trident have brought Greens and Socialists together, leading in part to the election victories of 2003. Greens and Socialists at Edinburgh University have long co-operated, by for example supporting each-other’s candidates in student elections, running joint campaigns for free education, and in 2004 campaigning together for congestion charging in Edinburgh (in the latter case the student Socialist group rebelled against their elder counter parts).

Such co-operation would make sense in the wider student and trade union movement. A possible joint campaign might be to persuade the STUC to increase its political bargaining chips by taking a more independent approach to financing political parties, which would be more in the interest of their members. On both levels they might co-operate in making the case for a citizens’ income.

Yet it is worth remembering that the relationship has not always been cosy. Tensions grew due to differences of opinion and approach during the M74 campaign and around the G8 summit. Could future co-operation overcome differences in style? Could we avoid the acrimonious splits of the past that have done so much to limit the success of progressive and socialist movements? Again, I don’t know the answers to these questions. But I hope that they exist.

One easy step towards this would be to use the non-party/all-party autonomous radical network already existing in Scotland, Democratic Left Scotland, to bring together radicals and socialists in all parties and none, with the intention of working as a cross party movement for justice and to bring the overall debate to the left.

2 Inside in the electoral arena

A second option is to unite inside the electoral arena. Another look at the 2007 election shows that Socialist and Green votes combined could have won further seats in Glasgow and Central Scotland. Looking to the European election, the SSP with 61, 356 votes in 2004 and the Greens with 79, 695 votes in the same year would each have to double their votes for either to have a chance of a seat in 2009. This is made harder by the possibility that the SSP vote could half because of the SSP/Solidarity split. The only logical way forward seems to be co-operation in some capacity. By merging voters and activists there might be a chance. This indeed was proposed by the SSP in 2003, and rejected by the Greens.

This is a path with many obstacles. How would we come to an agreement which includes the membership, not just leadership bargaining? Would everyone agree with the chosen candidate? Although Green and Socialist activists may be converging in their philosophy, are Green and Socialist voters doing the same? If the previous statement is true, would an alliance change that? If it didn’t work, would each party end up worse off than when they started? Again, I don’t know the answers to these questions but a good way to test the water would be to co-operate in a by-election. This would involve finding a way of choosing a mutually agreeable candidate and merging activists and voters for a high profile and possibly successful campaign.

3 In the Green Party

A third option is to launch a Scottish equivalent of Green Left - an explicitly eco-socialist current autonomous from the Green Party and open to all, with the dual aim of running campaigns outside the electoral arena and bringing the Greens to the left. Such a move would make sense in making the Greens more Socialist in their language. On the other hand, Green policies are for the most part already Socialist but communicated in such a way that the public and non-Socialist members feel comfortable voting and campaigning for them. Greens and Socialists might want to ask themselves whether that is something they would want to change. Indeed, what is more important, the language or the outcome?

Conclusions

The ideas laid out above are preliminary and discursive, designed to help foster a discussion that might lead to a more constructive relationship between activists of the same cause. I have shown that Socialist and Green thought has converged over the years and suggested that the logical next step should be to work together more closely. Some ways that this might take place have been proposed. The very basis of the ideas of many activists in this movement is that co-operation is better than competition. Let’s see if we can live up to this in practice.

Tim Gee is a Socialist and activist studying at Edinburgh University. He is a member of the Scottish Green Party and Democratic Left Scotland. This article is written entirely in a personal capacity.

Subscriptions to Scottish Left Review for one year (6 issues).

£15 waged / £10 unwaged. Local organisations £15 / National Organisations £30

Additional donations gratefully received.

Subscribe online now

Well it is no secret that Caroline is keener on the notion of a party leader than I am but I always impressed by the massive amount of work she puts into promoting progressive causes and with the decline of El Gordo she is clearly on course to become the first Green Party MP…as you have heard the UCU have voted to support Palestine at their conference this week, as a UCU member this pleases me greatly.  Motion and my thoughts here.

Here is Caroline’s excellent article from Jewish Socialist on why the Green Party over whelmingly supports the boycott.

The Green Party’s spring conference controversially adopted a policy of boycott, sanctions and divestment with regard to Israel. Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas describes the background to this decision. You can visit Jewish Socialist magazine online here.

No green light for occupiers

The Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories is causing untold suffering across the region, but nowhere more so than in Gaza. The humanitarian situation is worse now than it’s been at any time since the beginning of the Israeli occupation in 1967, with ever rising poverty and unemployment, hospitals suffering 12 hour a day power cuts, and water and sewage system close to collapse. This was the verdict of a report published last month by a coalition of leading humanitarian and human rights organisations, including Oxfam and Amnesty International.

But this suffering is not happening by accident. It is a direct result, as the report acknowledges, of Israel’s blockade of Gaza. The report concludes that not only is the Israeli government’s policy of blockade an illegal act of collective punishment of the entire Gazan civilian population of 1.5 million people, it is also failing to deliver security for Palestinians and Israelis alike. As one of the report’s authors says, “Unless the blockade ends now, it will be impossible to pull Gaza back from the brink of this disaster, and any hopes for peace in the region will be dashed.”

Yet this stark warning is just the latest in a series of warnings about the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Occupied Territories. When I visited Gaza a year ago, the Commissioner-General of the UN Relief and Works Agency was already speaking in stark terms about the scale of the crisis: “This year has seen an unprecedented social, political and economic decline in the OPT. ‘Decline’ is not even the word; a ‘terrifying free fall is a more accurate description”, she said.

This is the context in which the Green Party has been discussing its policy on the Middle East. In the light of the fact that previous strategies of engagement have signally failed to bring about an end to the occupation, our recent Spring Conference adopted a resolution which supports the call for a strategy of boycott, divestment and sanctions made by more than 170 Palestinian civil society organisations and community groups.

Unsurprisingly, we have attracted both support and criticism following the policy decision; in an inclusive and progressive political organisation like the Green Party, opposition to certain aspects of Party policy is to be expected.

Such disagreements can be important for sparking debate and for initiating attempts to reach consensus over complex and emotive issues. If there were an easy answer to this particular issue, then the conflict between Israel and Palestine that has for so long defined politics in the Middle East, would already have been resolved.

The Green Party is, like the majority of Israelis and Palestinians, united in a desire for a peaceful solution to the complex set of conflicts in the region, and we call for an end to violence by both sides. We recognise that in any political or diplomatic endeavour, there will be disagreement about specific means, but the desired end - a just peace - is undisputed.

Sanctions should be recognised as an instrument targeted against specific policies of the present government of Israel; this is not a policy which attacks Israel’s right to exist within its 1967 boundaries, nor does it target a particular religious faith or culture. Such a policy would send out a clear signal that international forces stand for justice for Palestine, and could encourage Israel to end the occupation that is undermining its relations with its fellow nations around the world.

My work as a Member of the European Parliament has focused on the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which gives preferential access to Israeli exports. This Agreement contains a human rights clause in Article 2, which clearly states that the Agreement can be suspended in the light of human rights abuses. Since the ongoing occupation of Palestine is continuing to lead to major abuses of human rights, the suspension of this Agreement is long overdue.

There are more than 200 settlements in the Occupied Territories, all of them illegal under international law. And even after Annapolis, substantial evidence has shown that Israel is continuing to expand its settlements. Peace negotiations are of course the preferred medium for diplomacy, yet it is impossible to trust in them when there is no good faith shown on the ground. The Settlement Watch team at Peace Now reported in March, four months after an agreement was made at Annapolis to freeze construction, that construction took place in 101 settlements, and not a single project was frozen. And despite the ruling of the International Court of Justice that it is illegal, Israel continues to build its ‘security wall’, effectively creating Palestinian ghettoes devoid of community, security or resources.

Suspending the trade agreement and attaching the necessary conditions to any future trade policy with Israel would allow the EU an opportunity to play a significant role in bringing peace and stability to the Middle East. It would also communicate hope to the beleaguered population of Gaza and the West Bank – and peace can only flourish in a climate of hope.

Some have opposed a boycott by defending Israeli policies to develop environmentally friendly technologies. These development are interesting and, of course, to be encouraged. Yet human rights cannot be traded or “offset” in this manner. And how could these policies possibly benefit those in the Occupied Territories – where trees are regularly uprooted, clean water supplies are cut off, and badly damaged waste systems pollute rivers and streams?

Financial and moral support from the United States means that Israel has been able to act with relative immunity, hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic. This does a great disservice to the many Jewish people who support the principle of universal human rights, and who oppose the current policies of the Israeli state.

A just peace settlement with Palestine which translates into real justice for Palestinians, which listens to the many progressive Jewish voices in Israel and elsewhere, and thus seeks an end to the violence perpetrated by both sides, will be the key to establishing a long lasting peace in the region – and a safer, more stable world for all.

From the Morning Star: KEN FERGUSON on why the Scottish Socialist Party is looking forward to the challenges ahead.

Just over a year after the Scottish parliament election, which saw new Labour lose power and all socialists defeated, the Scottish Socialist Party meets at its conference in Edinburgh on Saturday.

Despite the turbulent events which led to the Sheridan split from the party and loss of its representation in parliament, the conference finds the party in good heart and geared up for the challenges ahead.

Two factors are central to the positive mood in the SSP - one external and the other internal.

First, while the party is clear that the defeat of the Lib-Lab coalition last year did not result in the election of a socialist administration in Holyrood, there can be little doubt that the SNP has made some key progressive moves.

Policies pioneered by the SSP, such as free school meals and abolition of prescription charges, are now on the policy agenda, with the cost of prescriptions being cut earlier this year.

The 20-year madness of council house sales is coming to a end and steps are being taken to resume the construction of council houses for rent.

Incidentally, despite proclaiming herself a “socialist,” Wendy Alexander’s Labour group still backs council house sales.

While there has been much questioning of its alternative proposals, the SNP has contributed to a public mood which increasingly sees PFI as the rip-off that it is.

In other words, the Salmond administration is behaving much in the way that older Star readers would have expected old Labour to behave in the Wilson-Callaghan years before the Frankenstein birth of new Labour.

Now, as Gordon Brown faces political meltdown and new Labour’s “project” is in ruins, the real prospect of the return to Tory rule at Westminster is turning up the heat in Scotland.

All the huffing and puffing about an independence referendum after Alexander’s famous “bring it on” moment was fed by a terror that Salmond might hold such a poll after new Labour loses a general election and hostile Tories are in power in London.

Such a scenario would polarise the choice to one between a self-styled social democratic SNP or the heirs of Thatcher and would surely heavily boost the prospect of an independence Yes vote.

All of which makes the absence of an SSP group in the parliament a serious weakness, but not a fatal one, and highlights the second factor in creating the SSP positive mood.

In the year after the 2007 poll, the party embarked on a major internal review which has involved serious debate with members across the country.

Following this process, a number of highly significant changes were agreed at a special conference this year in Glasgow, which renewed the SSP reputation as a ground-breaking socialist organisation.

‘After 1997, the SSP embarked on an internal review involving serious debate across Scotland.’
The party has agreed that the SSP will have two national spokespeople, one male and one female, to be elected in this month. Four-year fixed terms will be introduced for national office bearers, executive committee members, spokespeople and office bearers on a staggered basis from 2008 to avoid a situation whereby all national office bearers and experienced executive committee members stand down together in 2012.

Despite the wrecking tactics of the Socialist Worker and CWI platforms prior to the split in the SSP in 2006, the party unanimously agreed to preserve the rights of platforms within the organisation.

The aims and principles of the party are to be rewritten to include a clear statement about women’s oppression. This will be drafted by the women’s network and presented to the 2009 conference. The party also reaffirmed its commitment to producing Scotland’s only socialist newspaper, Scottish Socialist Voice.

These changes, which will be put to the conference this week, reflect the assessment of members of the experience of the era before the Sheridan split and are a clear rejection of the “great leader” politics which played a significant part in that period. It recognises that the “cult of the personality” has a long and damaging history in the socialist movement and therefore breaks with it.

This last year has been dramatic and, in many ways, tough for the SSP but the party emerges from it united to face the tasks ahead.

One of our early priorities will be the relaunch of our campaign for free public transport with a major week of action in June. We will also keep up the pressure in favour of independence, against war and nuclear weapons and for a just and sustainable future.

We have a world to win.

Ken Ferguson is a spokesman for the Scottish Socialist Party. The SSP conference is in Edinburgh this Saturday.

Derek Wall has attacked Brown’s plans for a nuclear Britain and has called for a renewed broad based campaign of non violent direct action against nuclear power.  ‘Gordon Brown looks likely not to be remembered for economic prudence as chancellor or for policy innovation as prime minister. With economic crisis and plunging poll ratings Brown is in deep trouble. As Chancellor he failed to learn the lesson of earlier oil price shocks, the failure of New Labour to invest in renewable energy, public transport, now means that Britain’s problems are accelerating economically.

The nuclear solution is uneconomic, unsafe and environmentally catastrophic. Who will pay the £bns of clean up costs? Existing nuclear power stations mean a bill of £70bn, there is no effective let alone economic solution to the waste problem.

On tuesday it was revealed that decommissioning existing nuclear power station now costs £73 bn:
Campaign groups have warned that the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations was “spiralling out of control” after an official admission that an estimate of £73 billion was set to rise.The £73 billion figure, published in January, was an increase of £12 billion on the previous estimate made in 2003, but a senior official at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said he believed the cost would continue to escalate.

Wednesday Brown proclaims support for more nukes:

He said: “We want to do more to diversify our supply of energy and that’s why I think we are pretty clear that we will have to do more than simply replace existing nuclear capability in Britain. We will be more ambitious for our plans for nuclear in the future.”The Business Secretary, John Hutton, called for a significant expansion of nuclear power in Britain earlier this year, arguing it would offer “breathtaking” opportunities for British industry.

Green solutions are possible based on renewables, energy conservation, localising the economy to cut waste, organic food production can also make a huge contribution.

Brown’s plans must and can be fought, the alternative is a radioactive future that threatens everyone in Britain.’

By Fidel Castro.

IT would be dishonest of me to remain silent after hearing the speech Obama delivered on the afternoon of May 23 at the Cuban American National Foundation created by Ronald Reagan. I listened to his speech, as I did McCain’s and Bush’s. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor. I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him and about expressing my points of view on his words frankly.

What were Obama’s statements?

“Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy. (…) This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century – of elections that are anything but free or fair (…) I won’t stand for this injustice, you won’t stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba,” he told annexationists, adding: “It’s time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime. (…) I will maintain the embargo.”

The content of these declarations by this strong candidate to the U.S. presidency spares me the work of having to explain the reason for this reflection.

José Hernandez, one of the Cuban American National Foundation directors whom Obama praises in his speech, was none other than the owner of the Caliber-50 automatic rifle, equipped with telescopic and infrared sights, which was confiscated, by chance, along with other deadly weapons while being transported by sea to Venezuela, where the Foundation had planned to assassinate the writer of these lines at an international meeting on Margarita, in the Venezuelan state of Nueva Esparta.

Pepe Hernández’ group wanted to return to the pact with Clinton, betrayed by Mas Canosa’s clan, who secured Bush’s electoral victory in 2000 through fraud, because the latter had promised to assassinate Castro, something they all happily embraced. These are the kinds of political tricks inherent to the United States’ decadent and contradictory system.

Presidential candidate Obama’s speech may be formulated as follows: hunger for the nation, remittances as charitable hand-outs and visits to Cuba as propaganda for consumerism and the unsustainable way of life behind it.

How does he plan to address the extremely serious problem of the food crisis? The world’s grains must be distributed among human beings, pets and fish, the latter of which are getting smaller every year and more scarce in the seas that have been over-exploited by large trawlers which no international organization has been able to halt. Producing meat from gas and oil is no easy feat. Even Obama overestimates technology’s potential in the fight against climate change, though he is more conscious of the risks and the limited margin of time than Bush. He could seek the advice of Gore, who is also a democrat and is no longer a candidate, as he is aware of the accelerated pace at which global warming is advancing. His close political rival Bill Clinton, who is not running for the presidency, an expert on extra-territorial laws like the Helms-Burton and Torricelli Acts, can advise him on an issue like the blockade, which he promised to lift and never did.

What did he say in his speech in Miami, this man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency? “For two hundred years,” he said, “the United States has made it clear that we won’t stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle –not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and despair. That is not a future that we have to accept –not for the child in Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We must do better. (…) We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of the empty stomach.” A magnificent description of imperialist globalization: the globalization of empty stomachs! We ought to thank him for it. But, 200 years ago, Bolivar fought for Latin American unity and, more than 100 years ago, Martí gave his life in the struggle against the annexation of Cuba by the United States. What is the difference between what Monroe proclaimed and what Obama proclaims and resuscitates in his speech two centuries later?

“I will reinstate a Special Envoy for the Americas in my White House who will work with my full support. But we’ll also expand the Foreign Service, and open more consulates in the neglected regions of the Americas. We’ll expand the Peace Corps, and ask more young Americans to go abroad to deepen the trust and the ties among our people,” he said near the end, adding: “Together, we can choose the future over the past.” A beautiful phrase, for it attests to the idea, or at least the fear, that history makes figures what they are and not all the way around.

Today, the United States has nothing of the spirit behind the Philadelphia declaration of principles formulated by the 13 colonies that rebelled against English colonialism. Today, they are a gigantic empire undreamed of by the country’s founders at the time. Nothing, however, was to change for the natives and the slaves. The former were exterminated as the nation expanded; the latter continued to be auctioned at the marketplace —men, women and children—for nearly a century, despite the fact that “all men are born free and equal”, as the Declaration of Independence affirms. The world’s objective conditions favored the development of that system.

In his speech, Obama portrays the Cuban Revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights. It is the exact same argument which, almost without exception, U.S. administrations have used again and again to justify their crimes against our country. The blockade, in and of itself, is an act of genocide. I don’t want to see U.S. children inculcated with those shameful values.

An armed revolution in our country might not have been needed without the military interventions, Platt Amendment and economic colonialism visited upon Cuba.

The Revolution was the result of imperial domination. We cannot be accused of having imposed it upon the country. The true changes could have and ought to have been brought about in the United States. Its own workers, more than a century ago, voiced the demand for an eight-hour work shift, which stemmed from the development of productive forces.

The first thing the leaders of the Cuban Revolution learned from Martí was to believe in and act on behalf of an organization founded for the purposes of bringing about a revolution. We were always bound by previous forms of power and, following the institutionalization of this organization, we were elected by more than 90% of voters, as has become customary in Cuba, a process which does not in the least resemble the ridiculous levels of electoral participation which, many a time, as in the case of the United States, stay short of 50% of voters. No small and blockaded country like ours would have been able to hold its ground for so long on the basis of ambition, vanity, deceit or the abuse of power, the kind of power its neighbor has. To state otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of our heroic people.

I am not questioning Obama’s great intelligence, his debating skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. I feel sympathy for his wife and little girls, who accompany him and give him encouragement every Tuesday. It is indeed a touching human spectacle. Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record.

Is it right for the president of the United States to order the assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext may be?

Is it ethical for the president of the United States to order the torture of other human beings?

Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the United States as an instrument to bring about peace on the planet?

Is an Adjustment Act, applied as punishment to only one country, Cuba, in order to destabilize it, good and honorable, even when it costs innocent children and mothers their lives? If it is good, why is this right not automatically granted to Haitians, Dominicans, and other peoples of the Caribbean, and why isn’t the same Act applied to Mexicans and people from Central and South America, who die like flies against the Mexican border wall or in the waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific?

Can the United States do without immigrants, who grow vegetables, fruits, almonds and other delicacies for U.S. citizens? Who would sweep their streets, work as servants in their homes or do the worst and lowest-paid jobs?

Are crackdowns on illegal residents fair, even as they affect children born in the United States?

Are the brain-drain and the continuous theft of the best scientific and intellectual minds in poor countries moral and justifiable?

You state, as I pointed out at the beginning of this reflection, that your country had long ago warned European powers that it would not tolerate any intervention in the hemisphere, reiterating that this right be respected while demanding the right to intervene anywhere in the world with the aid of hundreds of military bases and naval, aerial and spatial forces distributed across the planet. I ask: is that the way in which the United States expresses its respect for freedom, democracy and human rights?

Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks on sixty or more dark corners of the world, as Bush calls them, whatever the pretext may be?

Is it honorable and sane to invest millions and millions of dollars in the military industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over?

Before judging our country, you should know that Cuba, with its education, health, sports, culture and sciences programs, implemented not only in its own territory but also in other poor countries around the world, and the blood that has been shed in acts of solidarity towards other peoples, in spite of the economic and financial blockade and the aggression of your powerful country, is proof that much can be done with very little. Not even our closest ally, the Soviet Union, was able to achieve what we have.

The only form of cooperation the United States can offer other nations consist in the sending of military professionals to those countries. It cannot offer anything else, for it lacks a sufficient number of people willing to sacrifice themselves for others and offer substantial aid to a country in need (though Cuba has known and relied on the cooperation of excellent U.S. doctors). They are not to blame for this, for society does not inculcate such values in them on a massive scale.

We have never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements. We offered the United States our help when Hurricane Katrina lashed the city of New Orleans. Our internationalist medical brigade bears the glorious name of Henry Reeve, a young man, born in the United States, who fought and died for Cuba’s sovereignty in our first war of independence.

Our Revolution can mobilize tens of thousands of doctors and health technicians. It can mobilize an equally vast number of teachers and citizens, who are willing to travel to any corner of the world to fulfill any noble purpose, not to usurp people’s rights or take possession of raw materials.

The good will and determination of people constitute limitless resources that cannot be kept and would not fit in the vault of a bank. They cannot spring from the hypocritical politics of an empire.

By Gregor Gall

Could it be springtime for unions in Britain, after being frozen out of power for so long by the Tories and then New Labour?

Last year all the unions affiliated to Labour played their part in making sure Gordon Brown was crowned as Labour leader, and thus prime minister, without an election. Although many of them agreed with the policies of John McDonnell MP, they would not use their weight to get him on the ballot paper to force a contest. Instead, they thought it would be better to be influencing the Brown project from inside rather than from outside.

Many, including the RMT, FBU and PCS unions, would argue that these affiliated unions made a grave error given Brown’s continuation of neoliberal policies, most graphically but ironically exemplified by his state intervention to bail out Northern Rock to the tune of tens of billions of pounds worth of taxpayers money. Others said if Brown was the answer, the unions were asking the wrong question.

Now a new opportunity to exercise real influence is being afforded to the unions. It has four components.

The first is that a visibly weakened government is now more open to acceding to the politics of pressure. The £2.7bn tax refund has set the stage for this but already Brown has made concessions to longstanding union demands on agency workers, flexible working and social housing. Having strenuously resisted these for many years, suddenly Brown has allegedly and under pressure rediscovered the social democratic pulse in his body. The unions should sense that a door is slightly ajar and they can force it fully open.

The second is that Labour is now more reliant on union funding than it has been for the last 10 years. Not only is it in severe debt, but the donations from business and rich individuals have dried up. Moreover, a general election has to be fought soon and this requires a war chest. This means that the unions can quite legitimately ask for “best value” for their funding - this being the term the government uses for its funding of the public sector. So they could say: “Here are our policies and you must act on them if you want our money”.

The third is that backbench Labour MPs, worried about their re-election prospects and having lost their reverence for Brown, are now open to supporting a whole array of private members bills that previously they would not touch because of the whipping system. Last year, the trade union freedom bill was talked out and defeated. This year, it could be reintroduced and taken right through parliament to end up on the statue book.

Fourthly, inflation is set to become a really big issue. Historically, unions have made some of their biggest membership gains when workers realise that they need unions (and industrial action) to make sure that the real value of their wages keeps up with the rising cost of living. With bigger and more assertive memberships, the unions could park their tanks of the government lawn at Downing Street and the mere threat of striking could be wielded to great effect.

But this window of opportunity will not remain open forever. May 2010 is the deadline because the Tories are likely to win the next general election. They will be less open to the union agenda because of their politics and the strength of their new mandate.

In the meantime, other pressure groups will realise that the window will close soon and will ratchet up their lobbying - so the unions need to move fast if they are to have a clear run at bouncing Brown into doing what they want.

Will the unions be bold enough to take the opportunity? We’ll start to find out pretty soon as most of the big public sector unions are balloting on widespread strike action against pay restraint, with the results due out in the next few weeks.

The What’s New page of the Certification Officer’s website has been updated with the following information:-

27 May 2008

APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTOR - SOLIDARITY

On 22 May 2008 the Certification Officer appointed Gerard Walker, Assistant Certification Officer, as an Inspector to investigate the financial affairs of the trade union Solidarity. The appointment was made under Section 37B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Inspector’s terms of reference are to investigate the financial affairs of the trade union Solidarity between 1 November 2005 and 24 November 2007; as regards;

a. the production of receipts for expenditure,

b. the operation of the Solidarity Paypal account,

c. withdrawals from the Solidarity HSBC current account on 20 and 25 September 2007 and a transfer to the Solidarity HSBC current account from the Solidarity HSBC Money Manager Account on 20 September 2007,

d. cheques cashed from the Solidarity HSBC current account between 18 January 2007 and 4 June 2007,

e. payments made to Mr Patrick Harrington from the Solidarity HSBC current account between 1 February 2007 and 1 May 2007,

f. the freezing of the Solidarity HSBC Current Account and Business Money Manager Account in 2007,

g. the opening of a Bank of Scotland account in the name of Solidarity in 2007,

h. the appointment of Accentuate PR Company by Solidarity in 2007,

i. the appointment of the auditors of Solidarity’s accounts for the years ending 31 December 2006 and 31 December 2007 and

j. any other matter, with the consent of the Certification Officer, indicating a financial irregularity within the description set out in section 37B(2) of the 1992 Act that may come to light during the investigation of (a) to (i) above.

The terms of reference exclude the Inspector from reaching any conclusion on the legal issues arising out of the unresolved dispute within Solidarity about the application of its rules to its governance, the resolution of which requires either internal agreement or judicial determination.

When Empires Fade [col. writ. 5/21/08] (c) ‘08 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Two things brought me to this topic; the fading of empires. First, reading an article on the heyday of the British Empire, and their efforts to suppress popular resistance to their rule in parts of Asia; and secondly, the reception of US President George W. Bush, when he recently ventured to the Middle East in search of lower oil prices and relevancy. Both were eye-opening. The former for what it revealed about the lengths to which empires will go to hold on to power; the latter for how quickly power and influence can slip away.

Ostensibly, an American President is a kind of temporary global monarch, for his (?) power is so vast that, as Iraq showed, whole societies can be upended, their lives, economy, politics and culture shattered-quite literally, on one person’s whim. Yet, as we’ve also seen, that power is not absolute, and can be challenged by the most unlikely of opponents. It has costs, some of which are the precipitous decline in Bush’s popularity, and the corresponding fall in American prestige. One instance was when Bush begged the Saudis for a break in oil prices and a loosening in supplies. The Saudi princes coolly declined his requests; nothing personal - it’s just business. Then the president was scheduled to meet with Lebanon’s embattled Prime Minister, Fuad Saniora, but Saniora called to cancel the meeting. He apparently had a more important meeting planned with high-ranking members of Hezbollah. Such sights aren’t seen everyday. They are markers of how the US is seen -often by it’s ‘friends’! Egyptian journalist Hisham Qassem observed, on the latest Bush visit and his reception, “It was clear that America is neither loved nor feared,” a remarkable statement that would’ve hardly been heard some 8 years ago. *

When the British Empire was trying to hold on to its imperial properties in Asia, it formed treacherous military units called the Special Operation Volunteer force (SOVF) in Malaysia, composed of ex-communists who hunted down their former comrades and butchered them for bucks. After their dirty deeds, they were paid blood money, their crimes were written off the books, they were given false identities, and they were released into Malaysian society, some doubtless forming criminal networks. The US performed similar tricks during Operation Phoenix in Vietnam during the war. Few of us know, even now, the full dimensions of Operation Phoenix and how it ravaged Vietnamese society. We know, of course, how the Vietnam War turned out. If these events tell us anything, it is that empires are capable of immense violence, but there comes a time when even their influence fades. No empire can last forever. I think we are witnessing the fading of this one.

–(c) ‘08 maj /[*Sources: Levinson, Charles, “Bush’s Mideast words go over hot, cold: Trip ends in Egypt with a bit of a thud, analysts say, “USA Today, Mon., May 19, 2008, p.6A.; Williams, Gwydion M., “Notes On the News”. Labour & Trade Union Review. (No. 180: March 2008) pp.13-14; (//www.ltureview.com/ /) ]/