mercredi, novembre 29, 2006

Actualité - Les puissances européennes cherchent à tirer avantage des reculs de Bush au Moyen-Orient

Quelques jours après la défaite de Bush dans les élections de mi-mandat à cause de la large opposition à la guerre en Irak, plusieurs puissances américaines ont tenté de jouer de leurs muscles politiques.

Leur but est de saisir l’occasion que leur offre l’affaiblissement de la position mondiale des Etats-Unis pour affirmer leurs propres intérêts au Moyen-Orient et pour avancer une alternative à la position pro-israélienne de l’administration Bush qu’elles considèrent comme déstabilisatrice de toute la région.

A cette fin, l’Espagne, l’Italie et la France ont lancé une nouvelle initiative de paix entre Israël et la Palestine en cinq points avec le but déclaré de calmer les tensions dans tout le Moyen-Orient. Elle marque une brisure importante avec le front commun du « quartet » composé des Etats-Unis, de l’Union européenne, de la Russie et de l’ONU. Le « quartet » était basé sur la « feuille de route » de l’administration Bush, promettant un accord négocié établissant un Etat palestinien.

Toutefois, avec Washington appuyant chacune des provocations militaires d’Israël contre les Palestiniens et endossant chacune des demandes que Jérusalem a faites dans le but de rejeter les négociations, les trois pays ont conclu que la feuille de route était morte dans les faits. Les Etats-Unis appuient maintenant tacitement le plan du gouvernement israélien pour fixer unilatéralement les frontières de l’Etat palestinien et au même temps annexer une grande partie de la Cisjordanie et de Jérusalem Est.

Les préoccupations que cela a soulevées ont été amplifiées par l’offensive politiquement désastreuse d’Israël contre le Liban — un pays avec des liens étroits avec l’Europe, particulièrement la France. Cette guerre a ruiné le Liban économiquement et renforcé le Hezbollah. Elle s’est terminée avec l’envoi d’une force militaire onusienne à laquelle les trois pays contribuent, dans un contexte où le Liban continue à être l’objet de conflits géopolitiques très acerbes entre les Etats-Unis, l’Iran et la Syrie.

Le premier ministre espagnol Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero a annoncé le nouveau plan à une rencontre au sommet avec le président français Jacques Chirac à Girona.

« La paix entre Israël et les Palestiniens signifie dans une large mesure la paix sur la scène internationale », a-t-il dit. La paix au Moyen-Orient, a-t-il continué, « est un des facteurs pouvant le plus contribué à mettre le fanatisme et le terrorisme dans les câbles ».

« La violence a atteint un niveau de détérioration qui exige une action déterminée et urgente de la part de la communauté internationale » a-t-il continué en faisant référence aux 89 personnes tuées par les attaques sur Gaza par Israël avec le soutien des Etats-Unis depuis le début de novembre.

Le plan est important en ce qu’il demande un cessez-le-feu immédiat et qu’il brise avec la demande des Etats-Unis, sur laquelle insiste lourdement le gouvernement Olmert, que la reconnaissance de l’Etat d’Israël est une condition à des négociations pour un Etat palestinien.

Miguel Angel Moratinos, le ministre espagnol des Affaires étrangères, a dit que son pays avait un intérêt dans les événements au Moyen-Orient. « Nous avons une police et des gardes civils [au Liban], aux citoyens espagnols ont été enlevés à Gaza parce qu’il y a un grand désastre, a-t-il dit. Cela affecte mon économie et ma sécurité lorsque l’on considère toute la situation. J’ai des intérêts affectant mon pays, et donc, que devons-nous faire, simplement attendre et voir ? »

S’adressant à des hommes d’affaires et à des professeurs, Chirac a déclaré : « Lorsque je suis arrivé, Zapatero m’a dit, “Nous avons la même vision des problèmes et des préoccupations en ce qui concerne le Moyen-Orient, et notamment la Palestine. Nous devrions prendre une initiative commune.” »

Le premier ministre italien Romano Prodi a dit aux journalistes : « Je crois que les pays européens présents dans la région ont l’obligation de trouver un moyen pour se sortir de cette situation et préparer... un processus de paix. »

Washington n’a pas réagi immédiatement, mais Israël a tout de suite rejeté la nouvelle initiative de paix. La ministre des Affaires étrangères Tzipi Livni a affirmé à Moratinos qu’il était inacceptable qu’une initiative concernant Israël soit mise de l’avant sans qu’il y ait coordination avec Jérusalem.

Le premier ministre du Hamas, Ismaïl Haniyeh, considérant que le plan offre la possibilité de ressources financières pour son gouvernement qui fonctionne difficilement, a déclaré que l’initiative comportait « de bons points » qui devaient être étudiés. Il a ajouté que le rejet de l’initiative par Israël était « la preuve qu’Israël ne souhaite aucune forme de stabilité ou de calme dans la région ».

Le Fatah n’a pas donné son appui, en partie parce que le président Mahmoud Abbas dépend de l’appui des Etats-Unis. Saeb Erekat, le négociateur en chef du Fatah, a déclaré : « Nous n’avons pas à réinventer la roue ; nous n’avons pas besoin d’une nouvelle initiative. Ce dont nous avons besoin est un mécanisme de mise en oeuvre et des échéanciers. »

Les trois Etats ont ostensiblement omis d’informer, et ont consulté encore moins, le premier ministre Tony Blair, le principal allié de Bush en Europe. Et ce, malgré le fait que Blair demande depuis longtemps à Washington d’utiliser son influence sur Israël pour le forcer à accepter un Etat palestinien à l’intérieur de la Cisjordanie et de la bande de Gaza. L’Allemagne, qui est un proche allié d’Israël, n’a pas appuyé l’initiative et semble aussi ne pas avoir été consultée.

Zapatero a clairement exprimé que l’alliance tripartite cherchait à marquer son indépendance vis-à-vis des Etats-Unis et à déjouer la Grande-Bretagne. Il a affirmé que malgré le fait que le plan était encore à développer, ce dernier serait présenté au sommet de l’Union européenne en décembre, où il espère qu’il sera appuyé par la Grande-Bretagne et l’Allemagne.

Le plan a été présenté au moment où les Etats-Unis opposaient leur veto à une résolution du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, à laquelle la Grande-Bretagne s’est abstenue de voter, qui condamnait les violentes attaques israéliennes sur Gaza qui ont tué 18 Palestiniens, pour la plupart des civils. Cela faisait suite à l’opposition de la Russie aux demandes américano-israéliennes visant à isoler le Hamas. En mars, la Russie avait invité les chefs du Hamas à Moscou.

Le 7 novembre, lors d’une réunion privée des cinq membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU et de l’Allemagne, de profonds différends sont apparus à propos des sanctions contre l’Iran et son programme d’enrichissement nucléaire.

Washington, avec la Grande-Bretagne et l’Allemagne, s’est opposé au projet de résolution mis de l’avant par la France en le qualifiant de trop faible. La réunion privée est devenue si acrimonieuse que les participants ont abandonné leur langage diplomatique habituellement retenu et se sont attaqués les uns aux autres ouvertement. L’ambassadeur russe à l’ONU, Vitlay Churkin, a déclaré : « Nous pensons que notre trousse [diplomatique] est pleine d’outils. Mais, pour une raison quelconque, il n’y a pour certaines personnes que des demandes et des sanctions — le marteau et la faucille. »

Un représentant officiel de la France a dit au journal Le Monde. « Notre position [sur Iran] est très proche de celle de la Russie. »

Même avant les élections, toutes les puissances européennes cherchaient à réaffirmer leur puissance au Moyen-Orient. En août dernier, la France acceptait de prolonger sa mission au Liban. L’Espagne, l’Italie et la Finlande ont aussi contribué en y expédiant des troupes, alors que l’Allemagne a envoyé une petite unité navale pour patrouiller les côtes libanaises.

Il y a des différences claires au sein de l’Europe sur le risque de contrarier les Etats-Unis. Mais la bourgeoisie européenne est au moins unie dans son désir de jouer un rôle plus important dans cette région qu’en 1990.

L’Espagne a été l’hôte des pourparlers de Madrid en 1991, la première initiative à trouver une solution au conflit israélo-palestinien en plus d’une décennie. Ce sont les Norvégiens qui ont accueilli la seconde ronde de discussion informelles entre Israël et la Palestine en 1992, qui a résulté dans les accords d’Oslo en 1993. Et alors que l’administration Clinton a enlevé aux Norvégiens le contrôle du « processus de paix », les puissances européennes ont néanmoins rapidement saisi les nouvelles occasions commerciales qui se sont ouvertes au Moyen-Orient.

A Barcelone en 1995, ils ont négocié un nouvel accord pour un partenariat européen et méditerranéen avec 12 pays situés le long des côtes sud et est de la mer Méditerranée, incluant Israël et ses voisins arabes. Les associés de Barcelone se sont rapidement regroupés dans un réseau de comités multinationaux consacrés aux programmes communs dans l'agriculture, l'industrie, des communications et le transport.

Pour l’Europe, Oslo représentait une occasion de défier les Etats-Unis dans leur rôle de gardien des intérêts occidentaux au Moyen-Orient. Bien que l’entente n’était pas spécifiquement vouée à la résolution des relations entre Arabes et Israël, elle fournit aux Européens la base pour s’affirmer dans la région. Après Oslo, la Commission européenne a donné 500 millions US par année en aide aux Palestiniens ainsi que d’autres prêts pour la force de police palestinienne et a financé les élections palestiniennes. Elle a également versé des dizaines de millions de dollars à la Jordanie pour l’aider à absorber l’influx de réfugiés palestiniens après la guerre du Golfe.

Plus tard, l’Union européenne étendit l’entente Europe-Méditerranée à la Palestine et déclarait que les concessions commerciales accordées aux marchandises palestiniennes s’appliquaient aux biens produits dont les profits allaient aux Palestiniens et non à Israël. L’importation de ces derniers dans l’Union européenne ne se ferait pas sans que ne soient payés les droits prévus soit pour les biens palestiniens soit pour les biens israéliens. En pratique, ce n’était rien de plus qu’un geste politique qui voulait montrer la neutralité de l’Europe et n’a jamais été mis en vigueur. En 2004, Israël était devenu un important marché pour les produits européens, les exportations de l’Union européenne totalisant12,75 milliards € et les importations en provenance d’Israël 8,6 milliards €.

Tous ces gains économiques et politiques ont été sapés lorsque les néo-conservateurs sous Bush ont gagné le contrôle de la Maison-Blanche. Ce fut le signal du commencement d’une politique de prise de contrôle des ressources pétrolières du Moyen-Orient par la force militaire, de repoussement des Européens hors de cette région et, dans le processus, de déstabilisation de la région. Les tentatives des puissances européennes de renverser ce processus et de regagner le terrain perdu doivent inévitablement passer par une montée du militarisme en Europe et provoquer des mesures de représailles de Washington.

(World Socialist Web Site - Jean Shaoul)

Libellés :

Actualité - U.S. Anti-Terror War Bound to Meet Fiasco

November 28 - In the wake of the "September 11 incident" the U.S. imperialists declared a war against terrorism and kicked off the war by launching armed invasion of Afghanistan. This high-handed military action is brutal international terrorism and a war of aggression to stifle the anti-imperialist independent countries and realize their wild ambition to dominate the world. This anti-terror war launched by them is now fated to meet a debacle. Rodong Sinmun today observes this in a signed article. It goes on: The Iraqi war has brought to daylight the reactionary and dangerous nature of the anti-terror war. The U.S. imperialists did not bother to commit monstrous crimes against civilians in Iraq.

Their anti-terror war of aggression has brought huge casualties and material losses to them and triggered off an unbroken occurrence of bloody terrorism worldwide, sending shivers down the spine of people.

The above-said war fought by the Bush administration has caused irretrievable serious consequences to the world.

Strong voices critical of the war are heard from the U.S., UK and other allies as its reactionary and dangerous nature has been brought to bold relief.

The results of the midterm Congressional election in the U.S. that culminated in the defeat of the Republican Party on November 7 clearly indicated that Americans are opposed to the above-said war.

The U.S. now finds itself in a very difficult position.

Tight-corned at home and abroad, Bush at last instructed his confidents to reexamine the administration's Iraqi policy and had no alternative but to fire Rumsfeld as defense secretary though he has more faithfully executed its anti-terror strategy than any others.

The world public is becoming increasingly assertive that chief criminals of this war should be sternly judged as it is a criminal war against humankind.

It is the immutable law governing the development of history that justice is bound to prevail over injustice.

The Bush administration would be well advised to stop at once its anti-terror war fated to meet a fiasco, bearing this truth in mind.

(Korean Central News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - U.S. Branded as Principal Criminal of Nuclear Threat and Harasser of Peace

November 28 (KCNA) -- Rodong Sinmun in a signed commentary today brands the U.S. imperialists as the principal criminal of nuclear threat and proliferation, the harasser of peace and security and the arch enemy of humankind. With nothing can they cover up their criminal colors, the paper says, and goes on: The U.S. is extensively shipping weapons into the disputed areas of different countries and regions to aggravate military clashes.

The U.S. is clamoring for "peace" and "stability, security", but its ulterior intention is different. It is seeking military interference and dominationist purpose by inciting disputes and straining the situation in different regions. This is why the U.S. is increasing the export of weapons.

Its loud-mouthed "ensuring of peace" and "establishment of democratic order" are no more than a lie to cover up its military intervention and method of aggression. As seen in the reality, the U.S. imperialists are destroying international peace order and increasing the danger of a war, not trying to keep peace and stability. This is well interpreted by the fact that the U.S. is continuing to expand nuclear arsenals.

They set a preemptive nuclear attack as basic war strategy and simplified the procedures of using nuclear weapons so as to employ them against "hostile states" at any time. It is to make a preemptive nuclear attack on the DPRK that they have deployed a large number of nuclear weapons in and around the Korean Peninsula.

Owing to the U.S. moves, numerous nuclear weapons have been stockpiled in different regions of the world, the danger of a nuclear war is increasing and thus humankind is faced with the danger of nuclear holocaust.

(Korean Central News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - Cuba et Fidel, Colloque international Mémoire et Futur

LE Colloque international Mémoire et Futur : Cuba et Fidel, organisé par la Fondation Oswaldo Guayasamin pour honorer le leader de la Révolution cubaine à l’occasion de son 80e anniversaire, débutera demain mercredi au Palais des Conventions, avec la participation de plus de 1 800 personnalités en provenance de 80 pays de toutes les régions géographiques du monde.

Durant deux jours, des leaders politiques, des militants sociaux, des penseurs, des écrivains et des artistes vont aborder, depuis leurs propres et diverses optiques, les réalisations déjà accomplies à Cuba sous le leadership de Fidel et, de manière très spéciale, leurs perspectives et leur impact mondial, selon les précisions des organisateurs de l’évènement. Vendredi, lors d’une séance plénière, se déroulera la clôture du colloque au théâtre Karl Marx.

Ce même jour sera inaugurée au Musée national des Beaux-Arts une exposition avec une centaine d’œuvres originales du maître Oswaldo Guayasamin appartenant à trois de ses séries picturales les plus représentatives : Huacayñan (El camino del llanto), La edad de la ira et La edad de la ternura. Seront aussi exposés les portraits de Fidel faits à différentes époques par Guayasamin.

(Granma International - Pedro De La Hoz)

Libellés :

mardi, novembre 28, 2006

Actualité - Iran: US Responsible for Iraq Chaos

Teheran, Nov 28 (Prensa Latina) - Supreme Iranian leader Ali Jamenei attributed responsibility for the present situation in Iraq to the US presence in that country, and asserted its withdrawal would be the solution.

In a Tuesday meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who is visiting Iran, the supreme leader highlighted that the withdrawal of US troops and thus the return of power to the national government would be the solution to the prevailing insecurity.

In the talks, the Persian religious leader recalled that lack of security has caused thousands of Iraqi deaths and said an overriding concern is that it also affects neighboring nations.

He assured that the US would not succeed in its war in Iraq and that the present situation of non-government would be very dangerous both for US citizens and the region.

Talabani, who did not make any comment on Jamenei s criticism of Washington, expressed appreciation for the support provided by Teheran and called to extend bilateral cooperation in different areas.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés : ,

Actualité - Bolivian Prez to Analyze Land Laws

La Paz, Nov 28 (Prensa Latina) - In response to demands made by thousands of indigenous people, Bolivian President Evo Morales announced an emergency meeting of his Cabinet to analyze a possible decree on land legislation that has been stuck in Congress by opposition pressure.

Speaking to the more than 2,500 representatives from indigenous peoples and farmers who marched from eastern Bolivia to La Paz, President Morales stated that the Senate does not do its job, the Executive Power will respond to the social movements with a decree for equitable distribution of lands.

He explained that although important projects had been discussed in the House, they had not been put into practice because of the opposition in the Senate.

Morales said Bolivia will gain four billion dollars in four years from the nationalization of resources that will benefit the whole country, and spoke about generation of jobs with the application of a plan called "Pro-pais".

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - Medical System Becomes Sickening

Baghdad, Nov 23 - After three and a half years of occupation, Iraq's medical system has sunk to levels lower than seen during the economic sanctions imposed after the first Gulf war in 1990.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has said Iraqis are now extremely vulnerable in their health needs.

"Several wars and 13 years of economic sanctions left a heavy toll on the nutrition of the population, on the social structure, on the economy and on the health infrastructure and services," according to a statement on the WHO website.

"This is well depicted in the morbidity and mortality rates of the population of Iraq, particularly of infants, children and mothers. The majority of Iraqis completely depend on the food Public Distribution System for their nutritional requirements."

The health situation in Iraq has been in constant decline since the beginning of the U.S.-backed UN-imposed sanctions in 1990. Iraqi doctors were reputed to be the best in the Middle East during the 1980's, but now they are short of medicines, medical equipment and funding to maintain the hospitals.

"We were angry with Saddam's government for the poor health situation in the country, but now we wish we could get that back," 55-year-old teacher Ahmed Zaydan from Sadr City in Baghdad told IPS. "There was not enough medical care, but there was something that one could live with and the private sector market was cheap. We were hoping for the change of regime to improve our lives, but the result is that we practically have no government healthcare."

Saddam Hussein's regime managed to keep basic medical services free of charge for most Iraqis until the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. There was a hospital in almost every town. Surgeries were carried out free of charge. Medicines were imported by the government and sold at affordable prices to those going to private clinics and hospitals.

The Ministry of Health is now controlled by Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's movement under a political agreement between the ruling parties. The sectarian influence on the ministry has greatly impeded healthcare.

"The ministry office in Baghdad is under the control of ignorant people who know nothing about medical science," a doctor told IPS. "The whole ministry is controlled by clerics who brought their militiamen along to divert the ministry into a death squad headquarters. Many of my colleagues resigned, were expelled or abducted by those who should have provided protection for them. Others quit and left the country."

The independent Iraq Medical Association (IMA) announced earlier this month that the healthcare system has continued to deteriorate and lacks adequate qualified staff and equipment. The IMA estimates that 90 percent of the nearly 180 hospitals countrywide lack essential resources.

"Our hospitals look more like barns with lack of electric power, medicines, equipment and now doctors and surgeons because of the corrupt managers who care for nothing but filling their pockets with false contract money and conducting sectarian killings against doctors and patients," a doctor from a hospital in Baghdad told IPS. "I personally have been able to stay with my job only because I am from the favoured sect and my cousin is a ruling party member."

The IMA announced this month that of 34,000 Iraqi physicians registered prior to 2003, over half have fled the country, and that at least 2,000 have been killed.

Two months ago the Iraqi Islamic Party announced that its candidate for deputy health minister was abducted from inside the minister's office. "Dr. Ali al-Mehdawi is still in the hands of his kidnappers, and we are not certain of his safety," a senior Islamic Party member told IPS.

Despite more than a billion dollars claimed to have been spent by the U.S. on Iraq's healthcare system, health needs are one of the biggest problems for Iraqis under the occupation. There appears to be no quick solution to this worsening situation.

Apparent corruption has made the crisis worse. Earlier this year a 200 million dollar reconstruction project for building 142 primary care centres ran out of cash with just 20 on course for completion, a situation the WHO described as "shocking."

The Iraqi government estimates that 8 billion dollars is needed over the next four years to fund the ailing healthcare system.

The campaign group Medact has reported that in Iraq "easily treatable conditions such as diarrhoea and respiratory illness caused 70 percent of all child deaths," and "of the 180 health clinics the U.S. hoped to build by the end of 2005, only four have been completed -- and none opened."

(Inter Press Service - Dahr Jamail & Ali Al-Fadhily)

Libellés :

Actualité - Ecuador to US: Mutual Respect

Quito, Nov 28 (Prensa Latina) - Ecuadorian President-elect Rafael Correa asserted on Tuesday that relations with Washington "will be good as long as they respect Ecuadorian Law and the country s sovereignty and dignity."

This was the 43-year-old economist s televised response to statements by a US State Department official about the future of Washington-Quito relations following Correa s Sunday election win.

He said the agreement for Manta Base, where US troops are deployed, will not be ratified and will expire in 2009, "because sovereignty is not for sale." I think the people s statement on Sunday has clarified that, he said.

Correa confirmed that his government will be different. "We are making history, and we cannot lose our hope. We are people with clean hands, who will not accept the rats (oligarchs), who have caused the country so much damage." He announced that he will foster reform of the financial institution law, with a view to limit flight of capital abroad because he considers it essential to have those funds in the country to encourage foreign investments and social policies.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - Le processus électoral vénézuélien entre dans sa semaine décisive

Caracas, le 27 novembre (Prensa Latina) – Le processus électoral vénézuélien entre ce lundi dans sa semaine décisive, marquée par la clôture des activités de campagne, l’aménagement des bureaux de vote et les préparatifs finaux pour les élections du 3 décembre.

Dimanche à minuit est entrée en vigueur l’interdiction de divulgation de tout sondage électoral, et toutes celles connues jusqu’à ce jour montrent des intentions de vote nettement en faveur du président de la République, Hugo Chavez.

Les enquêtes les plus récentes donnent au dirigeant au pouvoir une avance de 20 points en moyenne sur son principal adversaire, l’opposant Manuel Rosales.

L’Institut de sondage étasunien Zogby – pour le compte de l’Université de Miami – donne Chavez vainqueur avec 60% des voix contre 31 à Rosales avec une marge d’erreur de 3,4%.

(Granma International)

Libellés :

lundi, novembre 27, 2006

Actualité - Digging Up Canadian Dirt in Colombia

Canadian corporations and aid agencies facing controversy and resistance in Colombia

Up a flight of stairs, behind double-enforced bulletproof glass and a large, silent bodyguard, sits the office of Francisco Ramirez, a mining-policy researcher and President of a small Colombian trade union.

Mining policy really isn’t sexy stuff and researching it usually isn’t a dangerous occupation, but some of Mr. Ramirez’s conclusions can mean life or death, literally and figuratively. “Once they tried to kill me right here in this office,” said the researcher, who has survived seven assassination attempts.

In Colombia’s mineral-rich underworld, often demarcated by the full-scale destruction of towns near mining sites, environmental contamination, paramilitary attacks and assassinations of those who stand up to mining interests, Canadian hands are dirtier than those of a coal miner coming up from the pit.

“We had a five-year, $11-million project in Colombia, which ran from 1997 to 2002,” said a senior official with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Basically, it was to help Colombia strengthen its institutional capacity in both the Ministry of Mines and Energy and the Ministry of the Environment and the regulatory agencies these agencies worked with,” said the CIDA official in a phone interview.

Many Canadians believe CIDA’s role is building schools, providing food aid and doing other touchy-feely ‘development’ in poor countries. But with a $3.74-billion international assistance budget in 2004-05, CIDA spearheaded some controversial meddling in Colombia’s domestic mining legislation. According to Ramirez, this ‘development assistance’ did not improve the lives of ordinary Colombians, but in fact helped to “further under-develop Colombia, creating more poverty and decreasing tax revenue for public investment.”

In 2001 and 2002, CIDA’s Colombia branch teamed up with the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), a think tank funded by the mining industry and various government departments, based at the University of Calgary. The two organizations worked together to “streamline the country’s mining and petroleum regulations,” reported the Calgary Herald.

According to Ramirez, this “streamlining” had some nasty effects on average Colombians. “Environmental regulations were ‘flexibilized.’ Labour guarantees for workers were diminished and the property of indigenous and Afro-Colombian people was opened to exploitation,” said the researcher during an evening interview in Bogota.

One of the most controversial changes to mining regulation concerns the amount of royalties paid to the Colombian government by foreign companies extracting non-renewable resources. After reviewing the new code with a lawyer in Bogotá, Ramirez’s allegations of a Canadian royalty robbery glistened like elicit gold.

How CIDA Works to Trim Royalties

Prior to August 2001, royalties were set at a minimum of 10 per cent for coal exports above three million tons per year, and a minimum of five per cent for exports below three million tons. After the code was “streamlined,” with the help of CIDA, CERI and their Colombian legal team, the royalty tax for private owners of Colombian subsoil was reduced to 0.4 per cent, regardless of the amount of material extracted.

It’s difficult to determine exactly how much money the Colombian people lost because of these changes to royalty rates. One thing is clear: In a country where an estimated 80 children die per day from hunger and curable diseases and where 64 per cent of the population lives in poverty (earning less than $3 per day), the extra royalties pocketed by mining companies could be doing more than increasing stock dividends.

The new code also increased the length of mining concessions from 25 years to 30 years, with the possibility that concessions can be tripled to 90 years.

In 2001, the final year of new code’s development and the beginning of its implementation, 1,667 homicides were committed in Colombia’s mining regions, twice the average rate of previous years, according to Mr. Ramirez’s calculations.

The process by which CIDA helped alter Colombia’s mining code has been called ‘Canadianization,’ but that isn’t quite accurate. “Do as we say, not as we do,” would be more appropriate. “Canadian royalty rates vary, but they tend to be more like three to four per cent,” said Jamie Kneen, Communications Co-ordinator for MiningWatchCanada, a union-funded research and advocacy group. Moreover, payroll taxes and provincial taxes are generally higher in Canada, bringing increased revenue to support programs like decent public health care, necessities not granted to average Colombians.

It’s worth noting that, under Colombia’s post-CIDA mining code, the 0.4-per-cent royalty tax is not ubiquitous. “This notion of 0.4 per cent as the royalty rate is absurd, you should check your sources better,” said Edgar Sarmineto, Director of land acquisition for Cerrejon, the world’s largest open-pit mine, which supplies coal to power plants in eastern Canada and the northeastern United States.

“Our mine has paid more in royalty taxes every year for the last five years. Today, in royalty taxes alone, we’re paying around $300 million a year,” said the senior mine official as he brought up pie charts on his computer screen.

The aberration in Cerrejon’s royalty rates stems from Colombia’s earliest mining code proclaimed in 1886. It was based on a French/Spanish model where subsoil resources are the property of the state, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon model of full private ownership. Cerrejon is a useful example because of its size and political importance; Hernan Martinez Torres, recently appointed Minister of Mines and Energy by Colombian president Alvaro Uribe, worked at the Cerrejon mine for 17 years.

Cerrejon is divided into three main zones: north, central and south. The pre-CIDA royalties are in place for the north and south zones because the subsoil is still owned by the state. Thus, as high oil prices push up demand for coal and extraction increases rapidly, the mine ends up paying more royalties. The centre zone, operated by the Swiss company Glencore (but still owned by Cerrejon) is private property, and thus the 0.4-per-cent royalty rate is in full effect.

The focus on royalty rates is misplaced, however, according to a mid-level official from Colombia’s Mining and Energy Planning Ministry (UPME), the bureaucracy responsible for administering the new code, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “The real issue here isn’t the royalty tax, but the regular taxes that all businesses pay. That’s where most government money in the mining sector comes from.”

But article 229 of the post-2001 code states: “The obligation to pay royalties on the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources is incompatible with the establishment of national, departmental and municipal taxes on the same activity, of whatever denomination, method and characteristics.” Legalese aside, this means that if a company is paying royalties, it no longer has to pay other taxes to state or municipal taxes.

If the UPME source is correct in his claim that regular taxes are the key component for government mining earnings, then Article 229 essentially decapitates the state’s ability to garner public good from the exploitation of non-renewable resources.

Technicalities aside, it’s clear to people likeFrancisco Ramirez and institutions like MiningWatch and the North-South Institute that mining companies have benefited more than the people of Colombia from the changing Colombia’s mining and energy legislation, . And thanks to vast public-education initiatives, senior CIDA officials seem to realize they now have some explaining to do.

Half an hour and a couple of tough questions into the interview with the senior CIDA official, the UPME source was getting irritated. “The mining code in Colombia was developed by Colombian government officials. We had almost negligible involvement in developing the code. They asked us to make one or two comments on specific areas,” he said.

While discussions of royalty rates weren’t appreciated by CIDA sources, they were happy to discuss peace-building initiatives and conflict-resolution schemes in Colombia with which the organization is currently involved. “With the Ministry of Mines and Energy and the Ministry of the Environment, we provided training and information on how to conduct community consultations and conflict resolution,” said the senior CIDA official.

Company Bulldozers Move In

These 'consultations' ring hollow for 700 former residents of Tabaco, a farming town in Colombia’s northwestern La Guarija Peninsula, which was reduced to rubble by Cerrejon mine company bulldozers in 2001.

“There were 300 soldiers and police in anti-riot gear. There were also representatives from the mine, the mayor and a priest. They smashed the houses with large machines. They took our farms,” said Jose Julio Perez, the former Tabaco residents’ elected leader, when discussing the ‘community consultations’ Cerrejon mine conducted before displacing the farmers.

“Mistakes have been made in the past. We are working to be better community partners,” said Edgar Sarmineto, the senior Cerrejon mine official. Apparently, CIDA’s information on how to conduct community consultations wasn’t properly communicated.

Tabaco was one of several villages destroyed by this particular mine, and three more-- Chancleta, Pantilla and Roche-- are on the chopping block.

“People from the mine have been threatening me to leave and they’re stealing my cattle,” said Tomas Ustatie, a farmer in Roche who milked his cows as we spoke.

Two menon horseback who don’t live in the community watch are conversation closely. Ustatie says the mine is paying goons to eavesdrop on community members and create problems.

Sarmineto admits the mine hires private citizens, i.e. vigilantes, to watch property and garner information. “This is a very large site and there is a lot going on here with the guerrillas and other problems. We need to keep informed,” says Mr. Sarmineto.

Along with irregular forces and paramilitaries who often guard mine sites, gather information and sometimes harass local residents, the military also works closely with Cerrejon and other mines.

Peace Without Justice

Most residents in towns near the mine site are indigenous or Afro-Colombian. According to international law-- International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169, ratified in Colombia in 1991-- indigenous persons must be consulted on issues that affect their land and any agreements affecting them must come through negotiation.

By the admissions of Edgar Sarmineto at the Cerrejon mine, the company never conducted serious negotiations with the people of Tabaco before smashing their village.

To circumvent pesky international protocols and domestic legislation, the Cerrejon mine hired an anthropologist who claimed there was only one Afro-Colombian in Tabaco. “It’s not enough to deny them land. Now the company is denying who they are as a people,” countered one international observer.

In fact, any indigenous groups on the Guarija Peninsula and beyond say they were never consulted when the mining code was altered in 2001. Thus the CIDA-backed legislation likely violates ILO 169.

The trajectory of dispossession, privatization and government impotence that CIDA’s code helped spawn is being accelerated by Colombia’s right-wing, Harvard-educated President, Alvro Uribe. On July 25, the Colombian government announced it was privatizing 20 per cent of Ecopetrol, the state oil company -- a ludicrous move considering the profitable firm puts large amounts of money into the public purse and will only continue doing so as oil prices rise.

President Uribe was re-elected over the summer with a strong mandate. Questing for peace in Colombia, Uribe made a deal with the devil, providing amnesty to some 30,000 members of right-wing paramilitary groups, many of whom have been implicated in massacres and other crimes. Thus far, the devil has delivered.

While tenuous peace may become part of Mr. Uribe’s legacy, critics argue that justice will not. The country’s vast natural wealth has been siphoned off by well-connected government functionaries and sold away to foreigners at bargain-basement prices.

Ramirez says he has lasted this long, “because I believe in God and run very fast.” Solidarity activists say Colombians need more than crucifixes and cross-trainers to deal with the current theft of resources. They need our support not because we’re nice people, but because we caused many of their problems.
(The Dominion - Chris Arsenault)

Libellés :

Actualité - Le candidat Correa maintient son avantage, selon des comptages officiels équatoriens

Quito, le 27 novembre (Prensa Latina) – Le candidat présidentiel équatorien de Alliance Pays, Rafael Correa, maintient ce lundi un net avantage de plus de 30 points sur son rival Alvaro Noboa après le dépouillement de 47,73% des voix.

Correa, à qui les sondages à la sortie des urnes octroyaient une avance de 13% sur Noboa, obtient actuellement 68,28% des voix.

Les dernières données du tribunal suprême électoral (TSE) révèlent que Noboa, du Parti de Rénovation Institutionnel (Prian) et magnat de la banane, obtient pour le moment 31,7% des voix.

Ces résultats provisoires du TSE confirment la victoire de la proposition de changement du pays d’Alliance Pays, annoncée d’avance par les sondages.

Correa aurait gagné dans 19 provinces, tandis que le candidat du Prian le dépasse seulement à Esmeraldas, bien qu’il reste à connaître les données des territoires de Guyas et de Manabi, où les chefs des tribunaux électoraux appartiennent au Prian.

Après que trois instituts de sondage, Cedatos, Participation citoyenne et Market (PC), qui ont réalisé des sondages à la sortie des urnes, aient annoncé la victoire du changement, le candidat Correa a proclamé sa victoire devant des milliers de sympathisants.

(Granma International)

Libellés :

Actualité - Coup d'État in Venezuela: Made in the USA

In 1999, when the U.S.-led bombing campaign in Serbia didn't get rid of Slobodan Milosovic, Washington changed its strategy. U.S. intelligence organized a $77 million effort to oust Milosovic through the ballot box. They sent in CIA front organizations funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Instead of guns and bombs, these U.S. forces were armed with fax machines, computers, and perhaps most importantly, sophisticated surveys done by the Washington-based polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland.(1) Their mission: to take down Milosovic by strengthening opposition groups.

Milosovic is now long gone, as the U.S. effort to mobilize the opposition and produce mass protests was successful in unseating him in the 2000 elections. This victory was a landmark for U.S. intelligence agencies. They had developed a new way to overthrow unfriendly regimes, and it was much easier than a violent overthrow, or a messy invasion. Penn, Schoen & Berland had played an important role; so important that the U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright commended them, saying "This may be one of the first instances where polling has played such an important role in setting and securing foreign policy objectives."(2) They did, indeed, secure their foreign policy objectives. Milosovic was out, and the U.S.-backed opposition took power.

Since 2000, this smooth new strategy to influence elections and topple regimes has been implemented in many other countries. Dubbed as the "post-modern coup" by Jonathan Mowat, the same brilliant techniques were used in Belarus in 2001, in Georgia in 2003, and in the Ukraine in 2004, to name a few. Although it ultimately failed in Belarus, in Georgia the U.S. effort produced the "Rose Revolution" which overthrew President Eduard Shevardnadze. In the Ukraine it was the "Orange Revolution" that installed Victor Yushchenko in 2004.(3) Each time, groups financed by the NED, and USAID worked inside the country to build popular support for the opposition candidate. Each time they constructed an appealing campaign image using the modern marketing tactics that they have perfected along the way. And each time, they used Penn, Schoen & Berland election "polls" to shape the public's perception.

In his article, "Coup D'etat in Disguise," Jonathan Mowat described how these "polls" work:

"Penn, Schoen and Berland (PSB) has played a pioneering role in the use of polling operations, especially "exit polls," in facilitating coups. Its primary mission is to shape the perception that the group installed into power in a targeted country has broad popular support. ""...the deployment of polling agencies' "exit polls" broadcast on international television...give the false impression of massive vote-fraud by the ruling party, to put targeted states on the defensive."(4)

That is, the goal is to either get enough support to sway the election in their favor, or, if that isn't possible, to give the impression that the elections were fraudulent and encourage the population to overturn them. The strategy has been so successful in overthrowing regimes, or installing the regimes that the U.S. prefers, that the operation has evolved into a blueprint to be used in countries around the world. Ian Traynor described it in the Guardian in November 2004 as follows:

"[T]he campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavory regimes...The operation - engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience - is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people's elections"(5)

Manufacturing a "Ukrainian" in Venezuela

These days the U.S. has a new arch nemesis; Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Surely Washington would be delighted to get rid of him in the same fashion as all the rest. But there is one small problem; Hugo Chavez is no Slobodan Milosovic. He is immensely popular among the masses in Venezuela and throughout Latin America. Pro-Chavez parties have continued to win democratic elections over the last 8 years, and will most certainly win again in the December 3rd presidential contest. This time U.S. forces have their work cut out for them. They know that it is basically impossible to beat Chavez at the ballot box; he's too popular. It looks like they will have to go to plan B: a coup d'etat.

The U.S. has already set up camp in Venezuela, and all the original cast members are here. We've got NED, USAID, and yes, once again, Penn, Schoen & Berland. Just like in Serbia, or Ukraine, the objective of the U.S. forces is to remove Chavez from power. Therefore they have teamed up with major opposition groups to map out and implement their strategy. The strategy in Venezuela takes from many of the important lessons that they first learned in Serbia, and have since been carried to many other nations. The goal is to create a situation like in Ukraine in 2004: huge protests against the elections and against the government in order to cause chaos and instability. Basically, it comes in three parts.

First, they need to build up popular support for the opposition candidate, Manuel Rosales, by designing an attractive campaign. This has already been accomplished, in part, but according to most polls Rosales only has about 20 to 30 percent voter intention, compared to Chavez who hovers between 50 and 60 percent.(6) However, it appears support for Rosales has grown a few percentage points in the latest polls as the candidate has crossed the country giving speeches and making promises over the last few months. The major media, of course, gives his campaign nightly coverage, and repeats all of his campaign messages.

The campaign is U.S.-designed and uses modern marketing techniques, and catchy slogans. As shown in the 2005 documentary movie "Our Brand Is Crisis", about a U.S. team who designed the campaign of their favored candidate in Bolivia, these brilliant campaigns use sophisticated methods to create exactly the image they need for their candidate. They tend to target youth, and often include youth movements as they have with Primero Justica (Justice First) in Venezuela. The branding of the campaign with a color, and a one-word slogan is an important part of the U.S.-designed campaigns. In Serbia is the slogan was "Otpor", meaning resistance. In Georgia is was "Kmara" (Enough!). In Ukraine, "Pora", means "It's Time!", and now, in Venezuela, the brand is "Atrevete," roughly translated as "Be bold!"

The second step has been to use the mass media to create the perception that the elections are fraudulent. They have done this in a variety of ways. The NED has funded an organization, Sumate (one-word slogan that means "join up"), with the expressed goal of "achieving a high level of citizen participation in Venezuelan elections. "(7) Founded in 2002, Sumate organized the campaign for the recall referendum to revoke Chavez's presidential term. They lost the recall vote in August 2004 by a large margin, but went on to claim, with the help of Penn, Schoen, and Berland's "exit polls," that the election was fraudulent. Five other polls showed exactly the opposite and concurred with the official voting results in which Chavez won by a wide margin. PSB and Sumate, however, maintained that the opposition had won and that Chavez had committed "massive fraud" in spite of the fact that 5 of the 6 polls concurred with the official results, and that the voting process was certified by both the Carter Center and the Organization of American States.(8) Consequently, Chavez's image as a democratically elected leader was damaged both nationally and internationally. The fraud claim resonated through the major media, and planted doubts about Chavez's legitimacy.

Since the recall referendum, the campaign has been non-stop. Sumate and other opposition groups continue to attack the electoral process in Venezuela, claiming it is not transparent and unfairly controlled by the Chavez government. The major media in Venezuela have wholeheartedly supported this campaign giving coverage to Sumate, and their constant press releases denouncing problems with the electoral process. The idea is to decieve enough people into believing that the Chavez regime is not popularly supported, but is holding on to power through fraudulent elections. They have already been fairly successful in convincing a percentage of the population.

Finally, they must get enough people out into the streets in order to create a situation in which a transition of power could take place. Here is where Penn, Schoen & Berland comes in. In the recent months in the lead up to the December 2006 elections, Penn, Schoen & Berland has been instrumental in shaping public perception. In a series of election polls widely covered in the private media, the polling firm has consistently shown that Chavez's lead is shrinking, and the opposition is gaining momentum, while all of the other surveys done over the last few months show that Chavez maintains a wide lead of between 20 and 30 percent.(9)

Last week, Mr. Schoen, of Penn, Schoen & Berland, released the findings of his latest survey on the Venezuelan evening news. As expected, Penn's survey showed that Chavez's opposition, Manuel Rosales, was nearly tied in the polls with Chavez. Chavez, it showed, had only 48% support, and his opponent Manuel Rosales had gained significantly up to 42%. This poll is now being reported across all the major Venezuelan media, to a huge audience, showing that Rosales was gaining more and more everyday, and could possibly win. Mr. Schoen added his personal opinion, "The momentum is clearly with Rosales."(10)

With the help of the mainstream media, almost all of which is vehemently opposed to the popular president, these fake polls have reached a wide audience. All the newspapers, the major television channels, and internet news sites report the poll results as if they were true, valid, findings. They don't mention the fact that these findings are not supported by any other polling agency. Again, although the reality is that Rosales has almost no chance of winning in the December elections, much of the population now believes he will. The reality doesn't seem to matter, all that really matters is what the population believes. When their candidate loses by a large margin, it will be a difficult reality to deal with. If the opposition strategy works, it might be possible to produce large protests and even riots.

Two weeks ago, on Globovision, one of the major private channels in Venezuela, opposition leader Rafael Poleo called on Venezuelans to do the "Ukrainian" on the day after the elections.(11) Claiming the elections will be fraudulent, Poleo, who was involved in the 2002 coup attempt, described in detail a "plan" to remove Chavez from power after the elections. Comparing it to the "Orange Revolution", the plan calls for Venezuelans to come out en masse to protest against the Chavez government and what they call "fraudulent elections." Poleo then made a call to the high military command to back this "movement", in what basically amounts to a call to overthrow the government.

Two weeks from now, we'll see how all of this plays out. Will the popular Chavez continue to rule as the president of the masses? Or, will the U.S.-trained opposition be able to pull off a "Ukrainian" in Venezuela? The opposition's claims of fraud are totally baseless, and even from the most superficial observation, it is clear that Chavez maintains overwhelming support. But, the U.S.-organized strategy seeks to produce mass protests and perhaps military rebellion to unseat their popular enemy. With the help of Penn, Schoen & Berland, they just might get enough people in the streets to cause some trouble. For the coup planners, that's exactly what they need.

Notes

(1) John Lancaster, "U.S. Funds Help Milosevic's Foes in Election Fight," Washington Post, September 19, 2000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13155-2000Sep15¬Found=true
(2) Jonathan Mowat, 'Coup d'État in Disguise: Washington's New World Order "Democratization" Template', Center for Research on Globalization, 9 February 2005, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOW502A.html
(3) Michael Barker, "Regulating revolutions in Eastern Europe; Polyarchy and the National Endowment for Democracy"
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11311
(4) Jonathan Mowat, 'Coup d'État in Disguise: Washington's New World Order "Democratization" Template', Center for Research on Globalization, February 9, 2005, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOW502A.html
(5) Ian Traynor, "US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev" The Guardian, November 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1360236,00.html
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2006#Polls
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Súmate
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_recall_referendum_of_2004
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2006#Polls
(10) "Venezuela Presidential Race Tightens, Thursday, November 16
(11) http://youtube.com/watch?v=UT02dOmjb1s

(Chris Carlson - Gringo in Venezuela)

Libellés :

dimanche, novembre 26, 2006

Actualité - Civil war fears in Lebanon

The November 21 assassination of industry minister Pierre Gemayel has provided a focus for US-backed Lebanese politicians to rally their supporters for a possible confrontation with the Hezbollah-led opposition bloc. Gemayel served as the representative of the Christian-based far-right Phalangist party in Prime Minister Fuad Siniora’s government.

Saad Hariri, head of the pro-Siniora majority Mustaqbal bloc in parliament and son of former PM Rafik Hariri, who was assassinated in February 2005, told CNN: “We think that Syria’s hands were in this crime, since in a few days there is supposed to be a second round [in the UN Security Council to ratify the establishment of] an international tribunal [to investigate the killing of Rafik Hariri], and Syria is trying to evade this.”

Responding to US claims that Damascus was behind Gemayel’s assassination, the Syrian UN embassy issued a media statement declaring: “Syria is outraged by this terrible act. In a time when the international community is advocating more engagement with Syria, such an act only stands to undermine these initiatives.”

Hezbollah and its allies also condemned the assassination, warning that its aim was “to throw Lebanon into a state of anarchy, destruction, and civil war”.

The November 22 Beirut Nahar daily reported that a group calling itself “Fighters for the Unity and Freedom of al Sham [Greater Syria]” took responsibility for the assassination in a communique that denounced Gemayel as “one of those who unceasingly spouted their venom against Syria and against the Resistance [i.e. Hezbollah]”.

In the week preceding the assassination, there had been a sharp escalation in political tensions in Lebanon. Over the November 10-11 weekend, five Shiite and one Christian minister resigned from Siniora’s 24-member cabinet.

The Shiite ministers — two from Hezbollah and three from its ally Amal — resigned in protest against Siniari’s refusal to accede to the demand raised by the Hezbollah-led opposition to be granted one-third of the cabinet posts or the calling of fresh parliamentary elections.

The US-backed Siniora government came into office in July last year after more than 1 million Lebanese, overwhelmingly Christians and Sunnis, demonstrated in Beirut on March 14 to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops after the Hariri assassination.

Syria sent 40,000 troops into Lebanon in 1976, with US and Israeli approval, to stop the Phalangist militia being defeated by their Lebanese leftist and Palestinian opponents in the then one-year-old civil war. Under intense US pressure, in April 2005 Syria agreed to end its 29-year occupation of Lebanon, withdrawing all its troops by the end of that month.

While the Western media has portrayed the divisions in Lebanese politics since then in terms of a conflict between the “pro-Syrian” Shiite factions and their “anti-Syrian” Sunni-Christian rivals, the real division is between the US-backed Christian-Sunni political elite and the Lebanese nationalist Hezbollah-Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) opposition bloc.

The Christian-based secular-nationalist FPM, led by former army chief Michel Anoun, was a key part of the anti-Syria March 14 alliance. But in February this year, the FPM, which has 21 MPs, formed an alliance with Hezbollah based on demands for a complete end to the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon and for reform of the electoral law, long seen as discriminatory against Shiites, the poorest section of the country’s population.

No official census has been taken in Lebanon since 1932. However, it is estimated that Shiites make up 40% of Lebanon’s 4 million inhabitants, while Christians and Sunnis each account for about 30%. Under Lebanon’s current electoral law, Christians are allocated 64 seats in the 128-member parliament, while Shiites are only allocated 27.

At the time of the formation of the Hezbollah-FPM alliance, a survey conducted by the Beirut Centre for Research and Information (BCRI) found that 77% of Christians approved of it.

Voter support for the Siniora government slumped in July-August when, as the US McClatchy news service noted on November 14, it was “was unable to stop Israeli planes from pounding southern Lebanon and parts of Beirut while Hezbollah fighters fought Israeli forces to a standstill and won cheers throughout the Arab world”.

A poll published on November 13 by the BCRI found that nearly 60% of Lebanese voters favour the Hezbollah-FPM opposition bloc. This would translate into 69 parliamentary seats, if an election were held under the existing electoral law, or up to 79 seats if it were held under a fairer electoral law.

In a taped interview broadcast by Hezbollah’s al Manar TV station on November 19, its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, said that the “Lebanese government is in a state of weakness and is still feeling a huge defeat as the result of the last Israeli war in Lebanon”. He called on opposition supporters to be prepared to mobilise in peaceful street demonstrations to force the government’s resignation.

Following the broadcast, government MP Walid Jumblatt told members of his parliamentary group: “The opposition groups are on the verge of announcing a coup in the country and we should take the brave decision to confront all options.”

Two days after Gemayel’s killing, the website of the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute reported that “participants in Sunni Islamist forums (for instance, that of www.mohajroon.com) have written that battle between Sunnis and Shiites in Lebanon is imminent and inevitable, and have even proposed operative steps in preparation for this war. Among the ideas raised have been gathering intelligence on Shiite weapons arsenals in order to seize them, purchasing houses and warehouses throughout the country to serve as bases for the Sunni mujahideen, and the ‘liquidation’ of Shiite imams and leaders.”

(Green Left Weekly - Doug Lorimer)

Libellés :

Actualité - Ecuador's Correa says to name leftist economy minister

November 27, 2006 Quito, Ecuador, Nov 26 - Ecuadorean presidential candidate Rafael Correa, who exit polls and a quick count showed was leading Sunday's presidential election, said he would name leftist economistsas his energy and economy ministers.

Ricardo Patino, who leads a movement calling for countries to suspendforeign debt payments, will be named as economy minister while Alberto Acosta, who opposes U.S. free trade agreements, will take the positionof energy minister.

(Reuters)

Libellés :

Actualité - APPO Chides Governor for Oaxaca Violence

Mexico, Nov 26 (Prensa Latina) - The Oaxaca People´s Assembly (APPO) blamed state Governor Ulises Ruiz for the violent clashes in that district, where the number of dead and wounded people is still unknown.

The most recent incidents occurred on Saturday in the center of Oaxaca´s capital among APPO members and Federal Preventive Police agents. The clashes lasted almost all that day, after a peaceful march summoned by the Assembly, attended by thousands of people.

The purpose was to encircle the preventive police for 48 hours, as part of the action plan elaborated to make Ruiz resign.

So far, the number of people wounded has been estimated at 140, including three journalists.

There are 100 people in prison and uncountable furniture and cars burnt.
According to the APPO, three people would have been shot to death, although this version has not been confirmed.

Antonio Garcia, coordinator of the sit-in in Mexico City, asserted that the APPO is not responsible for any aggression. It is a peaceful movement, and it has proved it because those that have been wounded since the conflict began are members of the Assembly.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - Équateur : Un moment crucial pour l’avenir de ce pays

Lorsque la présente édition du Granma international sera en circulation, quelque neuf millions d’Équatoriens seront en train d’exercer leur droit de vote. Ils seront peut-être même déjà en train d’attendre les résultats, qui donneront la victoire à l’un ou à l’autre des deux candidats qui se disputent le siège présidentiel du Palais de Carondelet: le multimillionnaire qui a fait fortune dans la banane, Alvaro Noboa, qui a obtenu 26,6% des suffrages lors du premier tour, et le candidat de la formation Alianza Pais, le jeune économiste Rafael Correa, avec 22,51% des voix.

Tout peut arriver dans ce pays où 80% de la population vit sous le seuil de la pauvreté. La confiance dans le système politique n’existe pratiquement plus, à cause de toutes les promesses non tenues. Et nombreux sont ceux qui n’accordent que très peu de crédit au résultat du vote, sachant fort bien qu’on va gouverner sans eux.

Mais c’est une des rares fois dans l’histoire de ce pays où le ballottage est à ce point polarisé. Le 26 novembre prochain, les électeurs devront choisir entre deux projets bien identifiés, mais totalement antagoniques et irréconciliables. Le projet de Rafael Correa et de son organisation Alianza Pais qui privilégie l’aspect social et qui propose une voie indépendante, opposée au néolibéralisme, pour construire le socialisme du XXIe siècle. Par contre, si Alvaro Noboa l’emporte, le Parti Renovador Institucional ouvrira encore davantage les portes aux capitaux étrangers, pavera la voie au Traité de libre commerce avec les États-Unis, privatisera certaines sociétés d’État et, par la même occasion — mais cela resterait à vérifier car il ne s’agit que d’une promesse — construira 300 000 logements pour les pauvres.

Bien entendu, l’homme le plus riche de l’Équateur, dont la fortune est estimée à 1 milliard 200 millions de dollars et qui contrôlent 120 entreprises, a reçu l’appui de Washington. En échange, s’il est élu, Alvaro Noboa devra reconduire le honteux contrat de la base militaire nord-américaine de Manta, dans le sud-ouest du pays, tel que convenu dans le Plan Colombie. Mais il y a plus. S’il est élu, le multimillionnaire de la banane et candidat de l’extrême-droite et des transnationales a promis de rompre les relations diplomatiques avec Cuba et le Venezuela. Depuis le début de la campagne électorale, le mot d’ordre «tous contre un» a été lancé contre le candidat Correa afin de l’empêcher d’accéder au pouvoir. La candidature de Correa représente, en effet, une alternative au néolibéralisme. S’il est élu, l’Équateur pourrait participer aux projets d’une société nouvelle qui voient le jour un peu partout sur le continent latino-américain et mettre de l’avant ses propres programmes de justice sociale et d’intégration économique, pour le plus grand bien de toute la population.

Les derniers sondages semblent indiquer que les deux adversaires seraient maintenant au coude à coude, alors qu’auparavant on donnait un avantage pour le candidat de la droite. Certains analystes affirment que le recul noté pour Noboa s’expliquerait par le fait que des organismes des droits de la personne ont sévèrement critiqué le comportement du candidat de la droite envers ses propres employés. On parle de mauvais traitements et de non-respect de ses engagements. On affirme également que Noboa emploierait des enfants d’à peine huit ans pour travailler dans ses plantations de bananes.

Quoi qu’il en soit, le panorama électoral équatorien est des plus compliqué.

Le candidat du PRIAN bénéficie de l’appui de l’ensemble des forces de droite, des partis traditionnels social-chrétiens et roldosistes, de l’oligarchie nationale et de l’ambassade yankee à Quito, sans parler du pouvoir médiatique qui s’est acharné à diaboliser son adversaire.

Quant à Correa, il devra recevoir l’appui du mouvement populaire et révolutionnaire qui, même s’il a connu d’importantes divisions, constitue un atout important, surtout lorsque les intérêts du pays sont en jeu.

Les promesses populistes de Alvaro Noboa vont certes lui attirer plusieurs votes de secteurs de la population qui n’en peuvent plus de vivre dans la pauvreté. Il va aussi attirer ceux à qui il a donné de l’argent et fait miroiter toutes sortes de belles promesses, grâce à sa fortune colossale.

Mais lorsque le moment sera venu, ces mêmes secteurs de la population n’hésiteront pas, aux côtés des autres Équatoriens, à le chasser du pouvoir lorsqu’ils se rendront compte qu’il ne pourra pas respecter ses engagements, comme cela s’est passé pour Abdala Bucaram, Jamil Mahuad et Lucio Gutiérrez. Cela, Noboa ne devra jamais l’oublier.

Il ne fait pas de doute que lorsqu’il s’agit de défendre ses intérêts, le mouvement populaire équatorien sait démontrer un bon niveau de combativité. Il faut maintenant que cela se manifeste lorsque viendra le temps d’aller aux urnes, en votant pour le candidat qui saura le mieux défendre ses intérêts.

(Granma International)

Libellés :

Actualité - Marlin Dick: It’s time for U.S. to get out of Iraq

While a debate on a possible withdrawal of the United States from Iraq is expanding in Washington, Marlin Dick emphasizes that a GI’s withdrawal would not be enough to resolve the problems, but that it is their presence which is the main cause of such a trouble.

Marlin Dick at Axis For Peace 2005 conference

I could be writing this on any day, but on this one, 35 young Iraqi men were killed by a suicide bomber in Baghdad. They were lined up to apply for jobs in the police force, meaning that the U.S.-led occupation cannot provide security for the people it wants to stabilize the country.

Another 75 bodies were reported to have been found this day, most presumably the victims of grisly executions. Since the U.S. is 10 times as big as Iraq, this would be like 1,100 Americans killed on a single day, in acts of political violence.

Let’s do some more math. The latest civilian casually estimate in Iraq, or the number of people who have died or been killed since the war began (to depose Saddam Hussein, if I remember correctly) is 655,000.

This figure seems a little high to me, since it would mean an average of more than 500 people a day. Say it’s only 110 a day, on average, or 1,100 in the U.S. Like the day I’m writing this. This day alone would translate into nearly half of the American casualties of 9/11.

We experienced 9/11 once, five years ago. We have been causing it three times a week to Iraq for 31/2 years. Three times a week, every single week, month after month and year after year. Sept. 11, three times a week.

Our disaster in Iraq — after the war against Saddam Hussein’s regime ended successfully — has taken place because we are occupying, and not helping Iraq after decades of repression, wars and sanctions. The war that was waged ended in April 2003 and our post-Saddam occupation has been a well-chronicled failure on administrative, military and political fronts.

We have fought several "final" battles for Fallujah. In the most immediate form of Iraq’s crisis, the country has slipped into civil war while we were in charge.

What should the U.S. do?

A recent New Yorker article describes the military’s opposition to the policy of the Clinton years, and its desire to avoid "operations other than war." This describes Iraq today — a war (undeclared by Congress) began in March 2003 and resulted in the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime the next month. In May, Bush declared victory, or "mission accomplished" — although the mission was to find weapons of mass destruction.

If the authorities break into your house on the pretext that you are hiding explosives, and then fail to find them, what happens? In Iraq, the intruder has decided to stay anyway, to do other things, like promote democracy in the region (failed) and stabilize the country (failing).

It didn’t work in Vietnam either

Stabilization is what the Vietnam mission was called. We weren’t fighting a war to bring down North Vietnam, but to prop up South Vietnam. Today’s talking points use a new word — stand up instead of prop up — but little else about the policy is different. It didn’t work in Vietnam and it’s not working in Iraq.

The civilian, military and intelligence chiefs who oversaw the first part of our Iraq adventure have received Congressional medals of honor. Their performance — bad intelligence, insufficient troops, failing to provide security or a decent economy, de-Baathification — has led us to where we are now.

Tommy Franks, George Tenet and Paul Bremer are gone and their replacement, with the seeming decline of Dick Cheney and actual departure of Donald Rumsfeld, is a James Baker-led advisory group, which is irrelevant. The Democrats’ interest in a draw-down of troops seems like fine-tuning, not a policy change. But it’s a complex time, since several different options are being defended: more troops, fewer troops, withdraw gradually, stay the course until victory, etc.

The answer is simple: We need to leave Iraq now. We could even have peace, but no one in the Washington establishment appears to be interested in actually constructing a coherent policy. We could take all the billions we’re wasting on the carpet-bagging of companies like Halliburton and ensure that the Iraqis get it. This would relieve the dire economic situation and give fewer unemployed people less of an incentive to join criminal or terrorist gangs.

Instead of a series of lecture points we trot out to Iraqi politicians and the leaders of neighboring countries, we could oversee political settlements. This would require gathering Iraq’s neighbors, and negotiating with our current Public Enemies No. 1 and 2, Iran and Syria.

In the past, we have called on them to use their influence to stabilize Iraq — since we acknowledge that they have influence, and since we don’t intend to destroy that influence, we must be prepared to make a deal.

Of course, much of the tension in the Arab world could disappear if we, or the international community, did something useful like spend enough money the right way or halt the staggering levels of arms sales to the region. A settlement of the Palestine-Israel conflict is another piece of the puzzle, which isn’t very complicated. But like a puzzle, it just needs a comprehensive solution; half-way measures won’t work.

These days, two big words often come up in discussions of Iraq: democracy and terror. By leaving, we will certainly increase the chances for the former and reduce the strength of the latter. Iraq’s civil war is due to our own bumbling, so we should ensure that it stops: no aid if there is chaos, or a partition into sectarian-ethnic states.

Our occupation should end on purely moral grounds. We have increased terror and hurt our standing around the world. We have failed the economy, history, infrastructure and people of Iraq. It’s time to leave.

(Réseau Voltaire)

Libellés : ,

jeudi, novembre 23, 2006

Actualité - Affrontements sur les fiducies de revenu

- K.C. Adams -
Première partie: Le coup électoral de Stephen Harper

Malheureusement, bon nombre de simples citoyens, par leurs épargnes ou leurs régimes de retraite, ont été entraînés dans la querelle au sujet des fiducies de revenu. Les campagnes de commercialisation des fiducies ont été particulièrement agressives ces derniers temps, ciblant entre autres les aînés et leurs régimes de retraite. Elles sont devenues particulièrement intenses après la dernière élection fédérale. C'est que les revenus des fiducies de revenu ne sont pas imposable aux termes de la loi en vigueur et les conservateurs de Stephen Harper ont promis de ne pas changer le régime d'imposition. Maintenant le parti au pouvoir a rompu sa promesse et il en résulte des pertes importantes pour ceux qui ont investi ou placé leurs investissements dans environ 250 fiducies de revenu et dans les projets de conversions de Telus et BCE en fiducies.

Rappelons-nous du coup de grâce assené aux libéraux de Paul Martin par la GRC à un moment crucial de la campagne en décembre dernier. L'agence policière avait annoncé avec fracas qu'elle enquêtait le bureau du ministre libéral des Finances Ralph Goodale et cela a contribué à remettre la victoire électorale à Harper et à son Parti conservateur. La GRC prétend que des personnes près du bureau du ministre ont révélé à l'avance à des intérêts privés que le gouvernement s'apprêtait à modifier l'imposition des fiducies de revenu. Cela fait près d'un an et on a très peu entendu parlé de l'affaire et rien de concret n'a été porté devant les tribunaux.

Si les rumeurs et accusations ont eu leur effet, c'est qu'il est devenu courant que les spéculateurs financiers et les firmes d'investissement fassent des affaires en or sur les marchés boursiers en obtenant des informations privilégiées d'initiés au sein d'entreprises ou de ministères. Après l'annonce fracassante de la GRC et les dénis des libéraux de Martin, déjà plongés dans le scandale, Harper a promis que s'il était élu le Parti conservateur ne changerait pas les règles d'imposition des fiducies.

Une fois le gouvernement conservateur élu, les firmes de placement et de mise en marché se sont mises à faire agressivement campagne en faveur des fiducies auprès de la population en vantant le statut non imposable et garanti des fiducies tant que les conservateurs seraient au pouvoir. La valeur de la plupart des fiducies ont augmenté considérablement. Beaucoup de régimes de retraite et de particuliers possédants des REER ont placé leurs épargnes dans des fiducies de revenu et, plus récemment, suite à l'annonce de conversion de Telus et de BCE en fiducies, dans des actions dans ces entreprises.

Sans discussion préalable au parlement ou consultation publique sur la façon d'aborder le problème de l'impôt des entreprises et de propriété étrangère de manière à ne pas nuire au bien public, les conservateurs sont revenus sur leur promesse et ont déposé un projet de loi modifiant le statut non imposable des fiducies de revenu. Comme il fallait s'y attendre, la valeur des fiducies a chuté. Selon certains analystes, il s'agirait d'une perte de 20 milliards $ au total depuis l'annonce. Cette perte de valeur sera permanente pour certaines fiducies et on peut s'attendre à ce que les firmes privées de placement se pressent d'acheter leurs plans à rabais. Pour celles qui ne se convertiront pas en sociétés publiques émettant des dividendes qui ne sont plus garantis, les participants encourront d'autres pertes à cause de la baisse des paiements réguliers à compter de 2011, lorsque commence l'imposition des redevances des fiducies publiques et des partenariats limités. Les fiducies restantes pourraient également avoir de la difficulté à vendre des actions sur le marché boursier et pourraient être obligées d'emprunter, avec comme conséquence une autre baisse des dividendes versés aux participants. BCE et Telus, quant à elles, vont tout simplement ne pas donner suite à leur intention de se convertir en fiducies.

Les gens se demandent sans doute où en est l'enquête de la GRC sur cette nouvelle intrusion dans la commercialisation des fiducies de revenu? Des initiés et spéculateurs financiers ont-ils réalisé des millions de dollars en se débarrassant des valeurs de fiducies avant l'annonce du gouvernement conservateur pour maintenant les racheter à meilleur prix? Judy Wasylycia-Leis, critique du NPD aux finances, serait la députée qui a réclamé avec le plus d'acharnement une enquête de la GRC durant la campagne électorale, facilitant le coup électoral des conservateurs. Maintenant elle louange la décision du Parti conservateur au pouvoir d'imposer les fiducies. Selon un reportage au réseau CTV le 1er novembre, elle rejette «l'idée que cette décision est une attaque contre les aînés. Ce n'est pas tous les aînés qui passent par des courtiers en valeurs mais certaines dispositions du nouveau projet de loi profitent à tous les aînés. D'ailleurs, beaucoup d'aînés perdaient leurs épargnes parce que certaines fiducies de revenus ne rapportaient pas leur valeur réelle. Certains perdront, mais à plus longue échéance les Canadiens y gagneront.» Sur quelles informations secrètes se base-t-elle pour faire cette affirmation? Où est le débat public?

Les mesures proposées par le ministre libéral Goodale l'année dernière allaient également dans le sens d'imposer les fiducies. Mais l'idée avait provoqué une levée des boucliers, surtout parmi les nombreuses fiducies du secteur de l'énergie en Alberta et parmi les cercles d'investisseurs américains qui profitent énormément des clauses de non-imposition applicables aux fiducies (en comparaison avec l'achat d'actions ordinaires). Alors durant la campagne électorale, le NPD avait décidé de ne pas faire de cas de ce qu'il considère maintenant comme une bonne initiative qui va bénéficier aux Canadiens à plus long terme. Il avait raillé la proposition du Parti libéral de modifier le mode d'imposition des fiducies de revenu et l'affaire a permis aux conservateurs de faire leur coup électoral, se présentant comme l'«alternative» à la corruption libérale. Or cette fois-ci le NPD ne demande pas d'enquête sur l'annonce faite par les conservateurs, et pourtant celle-ci cause autant, sinon plus, de bousculade sur les marchés financiers. Aucun député n'a proposé qu'on indemnise ceux qui ont subi des pertes en conséquence directe de ce décret gouvernemental, et pourtant il s'agit d'une rupture de promesse de la part du gouvernement. Le Parti conservateur au pouvoir et Wasylycia-Leis ont cherché à minimiser la promesse rompue en concentrant sur les mesures dites populaires qui permettent le fractionnement du revenu des pensionnés et augmentent de 1 000 le montant du crédit en raison de l'âge et sur la «plus grande équité» que le projet de loi amène dans l'imposition des entreprises.

Le coup électoral suivi du volte-face du Parti conservateur maintenant au pouvoir sur la question de l'imposition des fiducies de revenu montre l'insouciance des partis politiques capitalistes et du système électoral dominé et manipulé par les partis. On ne s'attaque pas aux problèmes dans l'optique de garantir les droits et le bien-être du peuple. Les problèmes du système capitaliste monopoliste, comme l'écart dans l'imposition des particuliers et des entreprises, font l'objet de manipulations pour servir les fortunes électorales des partis et obtenir les faveurs d'influents groupes monopolistes.

L'affrontement sur les fiducies de revenu s'inscrit dans la rivalité monopoliste pour les chances d'investissement, le contrôle des entreprises et les réclamations à la valeur ajoutée réalisée par les riches et les gouvernements. Les conflits sur les endroits où investir et sur la façon dont la société se finance comptent parmi les nombreuses contradictions insolubles qui causent l'instabilité et provoquent des crises constantes dans le système capitaliste. Ils sont la preuve de sa nature transitoire.

Le système capitaliste a créé l'économie socialisée intégrée, mais a retenu la propriété privée des moyens de production et de circulation. Cela veut dire que la classe ouvrière et les salariés appointés, qui appliquent leur travail aux moyens de production et de circulation socialisés pour créer la richesse, sont toujours en conflit avec ceux qui possèdent et contrôlent la richesse en raison des rapports de production dépassés. La classe ouvrière et les salariés appointés apprennent petit à petit à voir les problèmes économiques, sociaux et politiques de leur angle et à se défendre contre les querelles constantes qui éclatent entre les monopoles et les riches. Ils tirent de leur expérience directe et de la théorie moderne la leçon qu'ils ne doivent pas se ranger derrière une section ou une autre des capitalistes financiers mais doivent s'unir à la défense de leurs propres intérêts et lutter pour un gouvernement qui garantisse leurs droits et assure le bien-être du peuple.

Deuxième partie: La fraude de l'«équité fiscale» du Parti conservateur

L'autorité d'imposer provient de l'État et de sa constitution. Des lois adoptées par les assemblées législatives déterminent la façon dont l'État perçoit des taxes et impôts et à quoi sert l'argent perçu. Les gouvernements dépensent les impôts perçus selon les lois établies, telles qu'énoncées dans les grandes lignes dans les budgets.

Les lois sur l'impôt régissent la réclamation des gouvernements à la richesse produite par la classe ouvrière et les salariés appointés à partir des matières naturelles. Si le gouvernement et les partis politiques veulent changer les lois en vigueur, ils doivent, en vertu des droits démocratiques du corps politique, en informer la population à l'avance et débattre à fond des raisons et conséquences des modifications et des considérations politiques et économiques utilisées et obtenir l'approbation du peuple. C'est ainsi seulement que les modifications importantes peuvent refléter la volonté populaire.

Le projet de loi du Parti conservateur modifiant le mode d'imposition des fiducies a été une attaque-surprise. Le public n'a eu droit à aucune information préalable et il n'y a pas eu de débat au parlement ou dans les médias. Au contraire, l'engagement pris par Harper durant la campagne électorale avait donné l'impression et même l'assurance que le Parti conservateur ne changerait pas les règles régissant l'imposition des fiducies de revenu. Par son attaque-surprise du 31 octobre, le Parti conservateur au pouvoir a complètement marginalisé la population et de facto éliminé le corps politique comme facteur. La conséquence est qu'une importante loi sur les impôts est en train de passer à toute vapeur au parlement sans discussion ni préparation de l'opinion publique et sans chercher à obtenir l'approbation du peuple.

Avec leur projet de loi, le ministre des Finances Jim Flaherty et son Parti conservateur réduisent la problématique des lois sur l'impôt à une question d'«équité». Le ministère déclare dans son communiqué du 31 octobre:

«L'honorable Jim Flaherty, ministre des Finances, a annoncé aujourd'hui la mise en oeuvre d'un plan d'équité fiscale à l'intention des Canadiens. Ce plan vise à rétablir l'équilibre et l'équité au sein du régime fiscal fédéral en assurant l'uniformité du traitement fiscal dont font l'objet les fiducies de revenu et les sociétés.»

Le Parti conservateur affirme que le régime fiscal était équilibré, équitable et uniforme avant et qu'il était devenu déséquilibré et inéquitable. Le projet de loi proposé par le parti au pouvoir rétablirait l'équité et l'équilibre du régime en créant «l'uniformité du traitement fiscal dont font l'objet les fiducies de revenu et les sociétés».

Les mots clés seraient «équilibre», «équité» et «uniformité du traitement». Cela ressemble plus aux règlements du hockey qu'à des lois sur l'imposition.

L'État doit réclamer une partie du produit social du Canada pour exister. Toute société moderne en a besoin. Le produit social provient du travail collectif des citoyens tel qu'appliqué aux richesses naturelles. Par définition, les travailleurs et les salariés appointés ne possèdent pas et ne contrôlent pas le produit social. Ils en réclament une partie à titre de salaires en échange de leur servitude volontaire. Leurs salaires sont payés à même le produit social réalisé qu'ils ont créé mais qui est possédé et contrôlé par les entreprises. La réclamation au produit social créé par les travailleurs et les salariés appointés mais possédé et contrôlé par les sociétés est également la source des revenus fiscaux de l'État.

Le problème posé et à résoudre en ce qui concerne le régime fiscal canadien n'est pas l'absence d'équité, d'équilibre ou d'«uniformité du traitement fiscal dont font l'objet les fiducies de revenu et les sociétés». Ces expressions galvaudées servent à détourner l'attention du problème fondamental: le refus de l'État de faire sa réclamation directement aux sociétés qui possèdent et contrôlent toute la richesse sociale, nouvelle et accumulée. Défiant toute logique, l'État tire la majeure partie de ses réclamations par l'imposition des personnes. Il y a déjà de nombreuses réclamations qui sont faites aux réclamations des personnes au produit social et c'est cela qui est à l'origine des problèmes du régime fiscal. L'État perçoit ses réclamations sur les réclamations des personnes directement au travail, par l'impôt sur le revenu des particuliers et les cotisations à l'assurance-emploi, à l'indemnisation des accidents du travail et à la sécurité sociale. Il le fait aussi par les taxes de vente et les frais d'usager pour les services publics. Les gouvernements doivent cesser de faire des réclamations sur les réclamations. Ils doivent faire leurs réclamations directement à la richesse nouvelle possédée et contrôlée par les sociétés.

Le gouvernement refuse de mener le débat sur la façon de moderniser le régime fiscal de manière à l'harmoniser avec la production socialisée collective. Dans une économie socialisée intégrée où la vaste majorité des personnes gagnent leur vie par la vente de leur servitude volontaire à des entreprises ou au gouvernement, l'État doit faire ses réclamations directement à la valeur ajoutée au point de production. Cela n'est vraiment possible que si le gouvernement prend le contrôle du commerce du gros. Par ce contrôle il pourrait non seulement faire ses réclamations à la richesse produite mais aussi contrôler les prix du marché des produits pour empêcher les monopoles de tout simplement transférer à nouveau les réclamations du gouvernement au public par l'augmentation des prix. Il pourrait aussi savoir exactement combien les grands détaillants paient pour les produits qu'ils redistribuent et mieux contrôler la part qu'ils doivent verser au gouvernement à titre de réclamations à la richesse. Le contrôle du commerce du gros permettrait également au gouvernement de s'assurer que les entreprises d'importations de produits fassent leur contribution aux réclamations de l'État. Quant au secteur financier, pour l'obliger à contribuer à l'imposition le gouvernement doit réclamer un certain pourcentage de l'intérêt commercial et en déterminer la valeur. Les réclamations totales de l'État à tous les niveaux de gouvernement doivent être déterminées en fonction de ce dont la société a besoin pour garantir les droits de tous, assurer leur bien-être et renforcer l'économie socialisée intégrée.

Troisième partie: Une question pour le ministre des Finances

Quelle est la différence entre les propriétaires des parts des fiducies de revenu qui réclament une partie de la valeur ajoutée réalisée d'une société avant que l'État ne réclame sa part, et les propriétaires de la dette qui réclament une partie de la valeur ajoutée réalisée à titre d'intérêts avant que l'État ne réclame sa part? Quel est le rapport entre cela est les balivernes de Flaherty à propos de l'«équité, l'équilibre et l'uniformité du traitement» dans le régime fiscal? Un régime fiscal moderne accorde la priorité d'abord aux réclamations des travailleurs et des salariés appointés et ensuite aux réclamations du gouvernement. Les réclamations des propriétaires du capital de toute sorte viennent en troisième. Les trois principales réclamations (des travailleurs, des gouvernements et des propriétaires du capital) doivent être maintenues séparées. La quantité de la réclamation des gouvernements ne doit pas être fixée sur la base des rapports financiers annuels des sociétés axés sur le capital. Elle doit être établie sur la base de garantir les droits et le bien-être de la population et le maintien du niveau des forces productives.

Le système d'imposition canadien est contraire à toute définition moderne. Le régime fiscal et la comptabilité axée sur le capital ne reconnaissent même pas comme légitimes les réclamations des travailleurs, des salariés appointés ou des gouvernements. Celles-ci seraient des «coûts» pour les propriétaires du capital. Pour alléger les impôts pour les propriétaires du capital et transférer le fardeau sur les individus, la comptabilité canadienne divise les propriétaires du capital en catégories, dont la dette, les actions, les directeurs et le loyer. Chaque catégorie, sauf les actions, devient un coût aux dépens des autres et sert dans une grande mesure à déterminer le revenu imposable d'une entreprise. Les réclamations des propriétaires de la dette, des directeurs et du propriétaire foncier sont transformées en «coûts» avec pour conséquence pratique de baisser l'impôt de société pour tous les monopoles. La comptabilité canadienne invente même des expressions spéciales pour inclure son préjugé favorable au capital, comme «bénéfices avant intérêts, taxes, dépréciation et amortissement». C'est une comptabilité qui cache l'importance centrale de la valeur ajoutée et la façon dont elle est distribuée parmi les nombreux réclamants. Les propriétaires du capital-action et les propriétaires de la dette, dans un monopole moderne, sont en concurrence avec les travailleurs, les salariés appointés, les propriétaires de la terre, les directeurs et les gouvernements pour la valeur ajoutée réalisée.

La valeur ajoutée est également à la quantité du produit social créé à l'entreprise par les travailleurs moins les coûts de production. Le produit social doit être vendu sur le marché pour réaliser sa valeur ajoutée, sinon celle-ci est gaspillée. (Voir notes de bas de page sur les bénéfices non répartis). En disant que les réclamations des propriétaires de la dette, des directeurs et des propriétaires de la terre sont un coût de production, les monopoles réduisent en pratique les réclamations du gouvernement à la valeur ajoutée réalisée qu'ils doivent remettre directement.

Concernant les fiducies de revenu, le système fiscal avait réduit les réclamations du gouvernement encore plus en permettant que littéralement toute la valeur ajoutée réalisée non répartie, après les réclamations des travailleurs, des salariés appointés, des directeurs et des propriétaires de la dette et de la terre, soit remise aux propriétaires du capital-action, appelés parts dans le cas des fiducies de revenu. Par cette exemption fiscale établie il y a plus trente ans pour les fiducies de revenu, et qui reste en vigueur pour les fiducies existantes jusqu'en 2011, la réclamation des gouvernements à la valeur ajoutée réalisée, prise directement aux sociétés, est réduite d'environ 800 millions $ par année. Cet argent va aux propriétaires des parts de fiducies de revenu. De plus, le gouvernement perd toute possibilité de réclamer des impôts sur le revenu des particuliers sur les 22% de ce 800 millions $ possédé à l'étranger, principalement aux États-Unis. Les propriétaires étrangers des parts de fiducies de revenu ne paient que 15% en impôt retenu à la source. Puis Statistique Canada révèle que bon nombre des plus riches propriétaires canadiens de parts de fiducies de revenu et d'autres actions utilisent des holdings comme paradis fiscaux à l'étranger où ils accumulent de plus en plus d'argent qui n'est pas imposé au Canada. Statistique Canada rapporte que la somme détenue dans des paradis fiscaux à l'étranger par de riches Canadiens se monte à 88 milliards $.

L'abolition de l'exemption pour les fiducies de revenu par le ministre des Finances pourrait bien conduire à de plus grandes exemptions fiscales pour les sociétés sur les versements de l'intérêt, qui dépassent de beaucoup les 800 millions $ accordés aux fiducies de revenu. Certains croient qu'une section influente du capital monopoliste, reliée aux grandes réserves privées de capital-actions, a exercé des pressions sur le Parti conservateur en faveur de l'abolition de l'exemption pour les fiducies parce que cela limitait les possibilités d'investissement et attirait le capital de réserve vers d'autres investissements, notamment les achats d'actions, fusions et acquisitions, qui comportent d'importants frais de service. Le capital monopoliste a besoin des épargnes des travailleurs et des salariés appointés, principalement des comptes d'épargnes, des caisses de retraite et des fonds mutuels, en tant que «partenaires» d'investissement. C'est un autre aspect du caractère socialisé de l'économie moderne, qui languit pourtant sous la propriété et le contrôle privés.

Stelco et les déductions d'impôts pour paiements d'intérêts

Le capital monopoliste se sert très efficacement à son avantage de la déduction pour paiement d'intérêts et autres réclamations du capital, comme les coûts de production. Les réclamations du gouvernement sur la valeur ajoutée réalisée qui provient directement des sociétés sont ainsi réduites de milliards de dollars. À Stelco, par exemple, c'est le même monopole, Brookfield Asset Management, qui détient la majeure partie de la dette et du capital-action. Aux fins du rapport d'impôt, les réclamations des propriétaires du capital sont divisées en plusieurs parties: le capital-action, la dette, les frais de services (ex: courtiers et agents de restructuration), le loyer et les salaires des directeurs, y compris les indemnités comme les options d'achat d'actions. Ces différentes parties sont pour la plupart appelées «coûts» et servent à réduire les réclamations du gouvernement sur la valeur ajoutée réalisée (impôt des sociétés). L'imposition des sociétés se fait presqu'exclusivement à partir du capital action.

Se servant du régime fiscal axé sur le capital pour manipuler le bilan financier du troisième trimestre 2006 de Stelco, Brookfield a déduit 19 millions $ pour paiement d'intérêts et frais de service. Ironiquement, une bonne partie de cette réclamation pour l'intérêt et les services est revenue directement dans les coffres de Brookfield. Les réclamations des directeurs, des autres agents capitalistes et pour le loyer ont également été déduites.

L'impôt des sociétés est devenu incohérent et une majeure partie de l'imposition est transférée aux particuliers. Comment le gouvernement peut-il évaluer de façon rationnelle et scientifique sa réclamation à la valeur ajoutée réalisée quand il permet ainsi aux propriétaires du capital de confondre la source et la quantité de la richesse, et ensuite manipuler les bilans financiers de manière à ne pas laisser de place à la réclamation du gouvernement? Brookfield, les autres propriétaires de la dette et les directeurs versent certains impôts de société ou de particulier mais le régime fiscal axé sur le capital leur offre plusieurs possibilités de se soustraire à une bonne partie de la réclamation du gouvernement à la valeur ajoutée réalisée à Stelco. L'État se tourne plutôt vers les travailleurs et les salariés appointés. C'est un autre facteur alimentant le tendance régressive à l'enrichissement des riches et à l'appauvrissement des pauvres.

Brookfield s'est servi de l'État dans ses manoeuvres pour acquérir Stelco, notamment avec la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers de compagnies et la Cour supérieure de l'Ontario. Elle s'est emprunté de l'argent à elle-même. Beaucoup de commentateurs disent que Brookfield était un des plus fervents revendicateurs de la modification du mode d'imposition des fiducies. Elle peut maintenant s'emparer de certaines fiducies à bas prix et faire un profit en quelques années. On sait qu'elle frappe déjà à la porte des fiducies Westshore Terminals et Halterm. La valeur du marché de ces fiducies a chuté considérablement. Elles sont toutes deux dans le secteur naval et portuaire, ce qui laisse prévoir une rapport possible avec les plans de Brookfield concernant les installations portuaires de Stelco et l'élargissement de la voie maritime du Saint-Laurent. Le Globe and Mail cite comme exemple de fiducies de revenu dont la valeur baisse rapidement et qui sont en proie à l'acquisition les installations hydro-électriques d'Abitibi Consolidated. Ce cas est particulièrement offensant pour les communautés forestières du nord de l'Ontario qui ont subi les conséquences de la destruction des usines de sciage par Abitibi alors que cette dernière profite de la vente de l'hydro-électricité dans le marché dérèglementé et partiellement privatisé de l'Ontario. Ces avoirs privés devraient être publics et servir les communautés forestières et leurs usines. Le Globe and Mail écrit que la valeur des installations hydro-électriques d'Abitibi-Consolidated est estimée à 300 millions $. Pourquoi sont-elles attirantes? Parce que les barrages d'Abitibi en Ontario sont une source fiable de liquidité, les tarifs d'électricité étant en hausse. Et Abitibi a une raison de vendre: elle manque de liquidité. Acheteurs potentiels: Brookfield Asset Management, les caisses de retraite, etc.

Arrêter d'imposer les individus; augmenter les dépenses pour les programmes sociaux

Avec le régime fiscal axé sur le capital, les gouvernements ont de plus en plus tendance à prendre leur réclamation à la valeur ajoutée réalisée aux particuliers et de moins en moins aux sociétés. La somme perçue des sociétés en 2005 était de 33 milliards $, à peine plus que la somme perçue avec la TPS, qui est payée en majeure partie par les particuliers sans distinction de revenus. La vaste majorité des réclamations des gouvernements se font par l'impôt sur le revenu des particulier. Selon Statistique Canada, en 1961 l'impôt des sociétés en pourcentage de l'impôt des particuliers était de 63%. L'année dernière, ce pourcentage avait chuté à 32%. Autrement dit, le fardeau fiscal relatif des particuliers a doublé.

Le ministre Flaherty a dit au comité parlementaire sur les finances que l'alternative à l'abolition de l'exemption fiscale des fiducies de revenu serait d'imposer plus lourdement les particuliers et leurs familles.

Le fardeau a déjà été transféré aux particuliers. La tendance doit être renversée. La situation a rapidement dégénérée est va bien au-delà des balivernes à propos de l'«équilibre, l'équité et l'uniformité de traitement».

Le régime fiscal doit être discuté de long en large parmi la population. La classe ouvrière et les salariés appointés commencent à demander une transformation radicale du régime fiscal axé sur le capital pour mieux correspondre à la réalité d'une économie socialisée intégrée et mieux répondre aux droits humains fondamentaux. Toute discussion sur les revenus du gouvernement, leur source et leur somme doit passer par les dépenses du gouvernement. Si le régime est réformé mais que les dépenses continuent d'être utilisées pour financer les riches et les guerres d'agression et d'occupation, comme celle de l'armée canadienne en Afghanistan, cela ne change rien pour les citoyens. La réforme démocratique de l'imposition va de pair avec l'augmentation des dépenses pour les programmes sociaux et l'abolition du financement des guerres d'agression des bâtisseurs d'empires.

Une société moderne doit avoir les ressources nécessaires pour garantir les droits de tous et le bien-être du peuple. Ces ressources nécessaires se trouvent dans la valeur ajoutée produite et mise en circulation collectivement par les travailleurs. Les gouvernements doivent faire leurs réclamations non pas aux individus mais directement aux centres de production, de distribution et de financement.

Note

Les revenus non répartis pouvant servir à l'expansion de la production et à l'achat d'équipements pour améliorer la productivité n'ont pas été discutés. Les monopoles modernes retiennent très peu de la valeur ajoutée réalisée, sauf dans des cas exceptionnels où il y a une montée en flèche des prix du marché (comme le pétrole récemment). Pour financer l'expansion, la productivité et les fusions et acquisitions, les monopoles préfèrent emprunter ou émettre des actions. L'avantage d'emprunter est que l'incohérence du système fiscal est telle qu'elle permet des déductions pour paiement d'intérêts à titre de «coûts de production», alors qu'en réalité il s'agit de réclamations des propriétaires du capital à la valeur ajoutée réalisée. Un monopole du secteur de l'électronique peut emprunter de l'argent pour la recherche et le développement. Il peut ensuite déduire cette somme de son revenu imposable à titre de coûts de recherche et de développement et de paiement d'intérêts sur le capital emprunté. La question de la reproduction élargie et comment la financer va au coeur du problème: qui contrôle l'économie socialisée intégrée. Sous contrôle privé, la reproduction élargie de la production socialisée sert uniquement à maintenir et à élargir la valeur accumulée privée (le capital). Par contraste, la classe ouvrière et les salariés appointés ont une vision d'ensemble. Pour eux, la reproduction élargie de la production socialisée doit faire l'objet d'une discussion publique et d'une planification qui tient nécessairement compte de l'ensemble des confédérations de nature sociale et naturelle.

(Le Marxiste-Léniniste)

Libellés :

mercredi, novembre 22, 2006

Actualité - IOF Kill three Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip Abducted Red Cross Employees Released in Khan Younis

Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) killed three Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including a 17 year-old boy and an elderly, Palestinian medical sources said.

One Palestinian man was killed as a result of the Israeli ongoing shelling at the Gaza Strip on Wednesday morning, Palestinian sources reported. The man was identified as Massad Abu Massiq, 25 from Beit Lahia, in the north of the Gaza Strip.

Earlier, 17-year-old Rakan al-Nusairat was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers Monday evening near Jericho checkpoint. According to eyewitnesses, the boy had a plastic gun in his hand when he was shot.

Medical sources said that the Israeli army prevented ambulances from approaching al-Nusairat or offering first aid, and he was left to bleed to death.

Moreover, an elderly Palestinian was killed and nine others wounded, including two Hamas activists, in an Israeli air strike on a car in Gaza City, medical and security sources have said.

The 70-year-old, who lived in the Zeitoun neighborhood where a warplane slammed at least one missile into the vehicle, died of his wounds after the raid in which he lost both legs and arms.

In another development, two Italian citizens, working with the International Committee of the Red Cross, were free after ten hours of their abduction by an unknown group in Khan Younis, in the southern part of the Gaza Strip,

The Salah Ed Deen Brigades, the armed wing of the Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Hallas, a Fatah leader, conducted mediation of the abductors and managed to secure the release of the two Italians.

Spokesperson of the Red Cross in Jerusalem, Simon Schorno, identified the two employees as Claudio Moroni, 36, and Ginmarco Onorato, 63.

After they were freed, the two were moved, under the protection of Palestinian security personnel, to the home of Fatah leader Ahmed Hallas before they were moved to the Beach Hotel.

Following the abduction, the Red Cross suspended its field work in the Gaza Strip, Eyad Nasser, Red Cross spokesperson stated. He added that the employees would continue to work in Gaza, but inside their offices and would only intervene in urgent “life and death matters”.

(Palestine Media Center)

Libellés :

Actualité - Postal Worker Facing Disciplinary Action After Refusing to Deliver Homophobic Pamphlet

A letter carrier in Vancouver who refused to deliver a homophobic pamphlet for Canada Post in late October may be facing termination.

The conflict within Canada Post began on October 26 when the letter carrier refused to process a pamphlet, published by a Baptist Mission in Ontario, entitled, “The Prophetic Word: The Plague of this 21st Century: The Consequences of the sin of Homosexuality (AIDS).”

According to Eric Aldridge, a postal worker from a different Vancouver station, the 200 pamphlets were slated for delivery in only one area of Vancouver, the Commercial Drive district—a well-known queer community. The letter carrier in question refused to deliver the pamphlet, stating that it violated the collective agreement between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) and Canada Post regarding discrimination. He quickly received notice that he would be interviewed for disciplinary action and in a manner of days was suspended for delay of mail.

Because walking off the job would be considered a wildcat strike, workers decided to take a 15-minute ‘coffee-break’ to protest the letter carrier’s treatment. After returning and talking with management, they were told that, “No one would be forced to distribute the pamphlet.” However in later interviews with the Vancouver Sun, Canada Post spokesperson Colleen Frick stated that the pamphlet would get delivered—eventually. She said the pamphlet was “acceptable and appropriate” and that Canada Post “does not censor” the mail.

According to Aldridge, that is not true. Recently, Canada Post has refused to distribute ad-mail coming from an adult sex shop as well as political information from the “Sex Party,” which ran in the last B.C. provincial election. Lillian Au, Communications Manager for Canada Post's Pacific region, stated that in both those cases, Canada Post did, in fact, censor mail. However, she argued that this was due to legislation in the Canada Post Act allowing for the censorship of sexually explicit mail. Regarding censorship of the pamphlet, “Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” she said.

But Ken Mooney, President of CUPW, feels that Canada Post is selectively enforcing the rules. “They’re not paying attention to their own policy,” he said, referring both to Canada Post’s human rights policy and the collective agreement. Both documents state that sexual discrimination is not acceptable in the work environment.

Canada Post backed down from forcing employees to deliver the pamphlet, taking the extraordinary step of having management hand-deliver it themselves.

Though they do not have to deliver the pamphlet, the postal workers’ fight is not over. On November 1, the letter carrier that originally refused to deliver the pamphlet was given a second interview for disciplinary action, this time accusing him of giving a copy of the pamphlet to CBC. Because ad-mail carries the same classification as First Class Mail for Canada Post, the letter carrier has been accused of stealing mail and is therefore facing termination. The CBC and the letter carrier deny a pamphlet was given, though both claim that the CBC received a photocopy. The CUPW is fighting the proposed termination.

When asked if the carrier would be fired, Au refused to comment, stating only that there is an ongoing investigation that can’t be discussed because it is a “protection of privacy” matter.

Gwalgen Geordie Dent is a Vancouver-based journalist from the Commercial Drive district.

(The Dominion - Gwalgen Gordie Dent, article tiré de l'édition de décembre Briarpatch)

Libellés :

Actualité - German activists get ready for G8

Some 450 activists from a variety of countries gathered in Rostock, northern Germany, on the November 11-12 weekend for the second Action Conference to plan protests against the G8 summit in 2007. A week of protests is planned against the June 6-8 G8 summit, which will be held at the Kempinski Grand Hotel in Heiligendamm.

Almost every spectrum of the political left — from NGOs, church groups and trade unions, to left parties, the ATTAC network and radical left groups — have called for the protests. It seems clear that it will be the biggest left-wing mobilisation in Germany in years, in terms of its breath, number of participants, and the intensity of actions.

A mass demonstration in Rostock, the largest town near the summit venue on the Saturday before the meeting begins will be the starting point of the action week. A migration action day and a three-day-long counter-summit will follow. A blockade of the G8 venue during the summit will seek to involve as many people as possible.

Activists from Scotland, Greece, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria and Poland enriched the discussions with their experiences of organising or attening similar counter-summit demonstrations and pledged to do their best to bring as many people from their countries as possible. An activist from Japan, where the G8 will meet in 2008, attended the conference and expressed her support.

Activists will discuss the progress in planning the building mobilisations at another Action Conference in March 2007.

(The call to action for the G8 blockades can be read at www.g8-2007.de)

(Green Left Weekly - Tania Roth)

Libellés :

Actualité - Cuba critique le Conseil de sécurité pour sa passivité face à Israël

L’ambassadeur permanent de Cuba auprès des Nations unies, Rodrigo Malmierca, a jugé inacceptable que le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU continue de se croiser les bras tandis qu’Israël commet des violations flagrantes de ses résolutions.

Dans un discours prononcé lors du débat au Conseil sur la situation au Moyen Orient, y compris la question palestinienne, le diplomate a reproché à l’organisme des Nations unies de se soustraire à ses obligations permanentes vis-à-vis de la Palestine.

Malmierca a confirmé l’engagement de Cuba en faveur d’un règlement juste et pacifique du conflit israélo-palestinien et du droit du peuple palestinien à exercer l’autodétermination et la souveraineté sur un État indépendant, avec pour capitale Jérusalem orientale.

Malmierca a rappelé que depuis la dernière séance tenue par le Conseil de sécurité sur ce sujet, le 19 octobre, la situation au Moyen Orient et en particulier dans les territoires palestiniens occupés s’est détériorée.

Malgré cette détérioration et le terrible massacre commis à Beit Hanoun le 8 novembre dernier, le Conseil de sécurité n’a pas pu agir et continue de ne pas s’acquitter de ses responsabilités, a-t-il ajouté.

Or, l’inaction du Conseil a pour effet non seulement de précipiter la chute de sa crédibilité mais aussi de renforcer le sentiment d’impunité du gouvernement d’Israël, qui se sent pleinement protégé par le veto injustifiable des États-Unis.

(Granma International)

Libellés :

Actualité - Israel Authorizes Operations in Gaza

Tel Aviv, Nov 22 (Prensa Latina) - The Israeli government authorized its troops to continue military operations and actions against the Hamas movement in the Palestinian territories, where a person died and several others were injured Wednesday.

A communiqué was given to the press saying that only Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Defense Minister Amir Peretz will be the ones in charge of choosing the targets.

A governmental spokesman assured this strategy wants to stop the launching of rockets from the Palestinian part of Gaza on Israeli territory, and stop the transfer of weapons and ammunition.

Some sources said rockets were fired over Israel Wednesday, where two people died and a third one was injured en Sderot last week. In the last six years, 10 Israeli citizens died because of these rockets, seven of them in Sderot.

In spite the government of Ehud Olmert has stated it opposes an aggression on a big scale against the Palestinian autonomy, it keeps systematic attacks against the Strip of Gaza and the West Bank. Almost 100 Palestinian citizens have been victims of the attacks.

The strongest Israeli attack occurred on November 8, when Israeli artillery pieces shot several projectiles against Beit Hanun (north) killing 19 people, eight of them children, and five of them women.

This attack deserved a condemnation of 156 votes in favour, seven against and six abstentions at the UN General Assembly, after the US vetoed a resolution project in the UN Security Council.

Meanwhile, Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said he was confident in the fact that once the national government is formed, the Strip of Gaza will become a safe place.

The financial blocking measures by the US government, the European Union and Israel in the region caused conflicts between the different organizations and Palestinian movements.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

mardi, novembre 21, 2006

Actualité - A U.S. Fortress Rises in Baghdad: Asian Workers Trafficked to Build World's Largest Embassy

John Owen didn't realize how different his job would be from his last 27 years in construction until he signed on with First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting in November 2005. Working as general foreman, he would be overseeing an army of workers building the largest, most expensive and heavily fortified U.S. embassy in the world. Scheduled to open in 2007, the sprawling complex near the Tigris River will equal Vatican City in size.

Then seven months into the job, he quit.

Not one of the five different U.S. embassy sites he had worked on around the world compared to the mess he describes. Armenia, Bulgaria, Angola, Cameroon and Cambodia all had their share of dictators, violence and economic disruption, but the companies building the embassies were always fair and professional, he says. The Kuwait-based company building the $592-million Baghdad project is the exception. Brutal and inhumane, he says "I've never seen a project more fucked up. Every U.S. labor law was broken."

In the resignation letter last June, Owen told First Kuwaiti and U.S. State Department officials that his managers beat their construction workers, demonstrated little regard for worker safety, and routinely breached security.

And it was all happening smack in the middle of the U.S.-controlled Green Zone -- right under the nose of the State Department that had quietly awarded the controversial embassy contract in July 2005.

He also complained of poor sanitation, squalid living conditions and medical malpractice in the labor camps where several thousand low-paid migrant workers lived. Those workers, recruited on the global labor market from the Philippines, India, Pakistan and other poor south Asian countries, earned as little as $10 to $30 a day.

As with many U.S.-funded contractors, First Kuwaiti prefers importing labor because it views Iraqi workers as a security headache not worth the trouble.

No Questions Asked

By March 2005, First Kuwaiti's operation began looking even sketchier to Owen as he boarded a nondescript white jet on his way back to Baghdad following some R&R in Kuwait city. He remembers being surrounded by about 50 First Kuwaiti laborers freshly hired from the Philippines and India. Everyone was holding boarding passes to Dubai -- not to Baghdad.

"I thought there was some sort of mix up and I was getting on the wrong plane," says the 48-year-old Floridian who once worked as a fisherman with his father before moving into the construction business.

He buttonholed a First Kuwaiti manager standing near by and asked what was going on. The manager waved his hand, looked around the terminal and whispered to keep quiet.

"'If anyone hears we are going to Baghdad, they won't let us on the plane,'" Owen recalls the manager saying.

The secrecy struck Owen as a little odd, but he grabbed his luggage and moved on. Everyone filed out to the private jet and flew directly to Baghdad. "I figured that they had visas for Kuwait and not Iraq," Owen offers.

The deception had the appearance of smuggling workers into Iraq, but Owen didn't know at the time that the Philippines, India, and other countries had banned or restricted their citizens from working in Iraq because of safety concerns and fading support for the war. After 2004, many passports were stamped "Not valid for Iraq."

Nor did Owen know that both the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon were quietly investigating contractors such as First Kuwaiti for labor trafficking and worker abuse. In fact, the international news media had accused First Kuwaiti repeatedly of coercing workers to take jobs in battle-torn Iraq once they had been lured with safer offers to Kuwait. The company has billed several billion dollars on U.S. contracts since the war began in March 2003 and now has an estimated 7,500 laborers in the theater of war.

Despite numerous emails and phone calls about such allegations, neither First Kuwaiti general manager Wadih Al Absi nor his lawyer Angela Styles, the former top White House contract policy advisor, have responded. After a year of requests, State Department officials involved with the project also have ignored or rejected opportunities for comment.

Your Passports Please

That same March Owen returned to work in Baghdad, Rory Mayberry would witness similar events after he flew to Kuwait from his home in Myrtle Creek, Oregon.

The gravely voiced, easy-going Army veteran had previously worked in Iraq for Halliburton and the private security company, Danubia. Missing the action and the big paychecks U.S. contractors draw Iraq, he snagged a $10,000 a month job with MSDS consulting Company.

MSDS is a two-person minority-owned consulting company that assists U.S. State Department managers in Washington with procurement programming. Never before had the firm offered medical services or worked in Iraq, but First Kuwaiti hired MSDS on the recommendation of Jim Golden, the State Department contract official overseeing the embassy project. Within days, an agreement worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for medical care was signed.

The 45-year-old Mayberry, a former emergency medical technician in the Army who worked as a funeral director in Oregon, responded to a help wanted ad placed by MSDS. The plan was that he would work as a medic attending to the construction crews on the work site in Baghdad.

Mayberry sensed things weren't right when he boarded a First Kuwaiti flight on March 15 to Baghdad -- a different flight from Owen's.

At the airport in Kuwait City, Mayberry said, he saw a person behind a counter hand First Kuwaiti managers a passenger manifest, an envelope of money and a stack of boarding passes to Dubai. The managers then handed out the boarding passes to Mayberry and 50 or so new First Kuwaiti laborers, mostly Filipinos.

"Everyone was told to tell customs and security that they were flying to Dubai," Mayberry explains. Once the group passed the guards, they went upstairs and waited by the McDonald's for First Kuwaiti staff to unlock a door -- Gate 26 -- that led to an unmarked, white 52-seat jet. It was "an antique piece of shit" Mayberry offers in a casual, blunt manner.

"All the workers had their passports taken away by First Kuwaiti," Mayberry claims, and while he knew the plane was bound for Baghdad, he's not so sure the others were aware of their destination. The Asian laborers began asking questions about why they were flying north and the jet wasn't flying east over the ocean, he says. "I think they thought they were going to work in Dubai."

One former First Kuwaiti supervisor acknowledges that the company holds passports of many workers in Iraq -- a violation of U.S. contracting.

"All of the passports are kept in the offices," said one company insider who requested anonymity in fear of financial and personal retribution. As for distributing Dubai boarding passes for Baghdad flights, "It's because of the travel bans," he explained.

Mayberry believes that migrant workers from the Philippines, India and Nepal are especially vulnerable to employers like First Kuwaiti because their countries have little or no diplomatic presence in Iraq.

"If you don't have your passport or an embassy to go to, what you do to get out of a bad situation?" he asks. "How can they go to the U.S. State Department for help if First Kuwaiti is building their embassy?"

Deadly 'Candy Store' Medicine

Owen had already been working at the embassy site since late November when Mayberry arrived. The two never crossed paths, but both share similar complaints about management of the project and brutal treatment of the laborers that, at times, numbered as many as 2,500. Most are from the Philippines, India, and Pakistan. Others are from Egypt and Turkey.

The number of workers with injuries and ailments stunned Mayberry. He went to work immediately after and stayed busy around the clock for days.

Four days later, First Kuwaiti pulled him off the job after he requested an investigation of two patients who had died before he arrived from what he suspected was medical malpractice. Mayberry also recommended that the health clinics be shut down because of unsanitary conditions and mismanagement.

"There hadn't been any follow up on medical care. People were walking around intoxicated on pain relievers with unwrapped wounds and there were a lot of infections," he recalls. "The idea that there was any hygiene seemed ridiculous. I'm not sure they were even bathing."

In reports made available to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Army and First Kuwaiti, Mayberry listed dozens of concerns about the clinics, which he found lacking in hot water, disinfectant, hand washing stations, properly supplied ambulances, and communication equipment. Mayberry also complained that workers' medical records were in total disarray or nonexistent, the beds were dirty, and the support staff hired by First Kuwaiti was poorly trained.

The handling of prescription drugs especially bothered him. Many of the drugs that originated from Iraq and Kuwait were unsecured, disorganized and unintelligibly labeled, he said in one memo. He found that the medical staff frequently misdiagnosed patients. Prescription pain killers were being handed out "like a candy store ... and then people were sent back to work."

Mayberry warned that the practice could cause addiction and safety hazards. "Some were on the construction site climbing scaffolding 30 feet off the ground. I told First Kuwaiti that you don't give painkillers to people who are running machinery and working on heavy construction and they said 'that's how we do it.'"

The sloppy handling of drugs may have led to the two deaths, Mayberry speculates. One worker, age 25, died in his room. The second, in his mid-30s, died at the clinic because of heart failure. Both deaths may be "medical homicide," Mayberry says -- because the patients may have been negligently prescribed improper drug treatment. If the State Department investigated, Mayberry knows nothing of the outcome. Two State Department officials with project oversight responsibilities did not return phone calls or emails inquiring about Mayberry's allegations. The reports may have been ignored, not because of his complaints, but because Mayberry is a terrible speller, a problem compounded by an Arabic translation program loaded on his computer, he says.

Accidents Happen

Owen's account of his seven months on the job paints a similar picture to Mayberry's. Health and safety measures were essentially non-existent, he says. Not once did he witness a safety meeting. Once an Egyptian worker fell and broke his back and was sent home. No one ever heard from him again. "The accident might not have happened if there was a safety program and he had known how to use a safety harness."

Owen also says that managers regularly beat workers and that laborers were issued only one work uniform, making it difficult to go to the laundry. "You could never have it washed. Clothing got really bad -- full of sweat and dirt."

And while he often smuggled water to the work crews, medical care was a different issue. When he urged laborers to get medical treatment for rashes and sores, First Kuwaiti managers accused him of spoiling the laborers and allowing them simply to avoid work, he says.

State Department officials supervising the project are aware of many such events, but apparently do nothing, he said. Once when 17 workers climbed the wall of the construction site to escape, a State Department official helped round them up and put them in "virtual lockdown," Owen said.

Just before he resigned, hundreds of Pakistani workers went on strike in June and beat up a Lebanese manager who they accused of harassing them. Owen estimates that 375 were then sent home.

'Treated Like Animals'

Recent First Kuwaiti employees agree that the accounts shared by Owen and Mayberry are accurate. One longtime supervisor claims that 50 to 60 percent of the laborers regularly complain that First Kuwaiti "treats them like animals," and routinely reduces their promised pay with confusing and unexplained deductions.

Another former First Kuwaiti manager, who declines to be named because of possible adverse consequences, says that Owen's and Mayberry's complaints only begin "to scratch the surface."

But scratching the surface is the only view yet available of what may be the most lasting monument to the U.S. liberation and occupation of Iraq. As of now only a handful of authorized State Department managers and contractors, along with First Kuwaiti workers and contractors, are officially allowed inside the project's walls. No journalist has ever been allowed access to the sprawling 104-acre site with towering construction cranes raising their necks along the skyline.

Even this tight security is a charade, says one former high-level First Kuwaiti manager. First Kuwaiti managers living at the construction site regularly smuggle prostitutes in from the streets of Baghdad outside the Green Zone, he says.

Prostitutes, he explains are viewed as possible spies. "They are a big security risk."

But the exposure that the U.S. occupation forces and First Kuwaiti may fear most could begin with the contractor itself and the conditions workers are forced to endure at this most obvious symbol of the American democracy project in Iraq.

Pentagon Finds Worker Abuse and Trafficking in Iraq, but Penalizes No One

On April 4, 2006, the Pentagon issued a new contracting directive following a secret investigation that officially confirms what many South Asian laborers have been complaining about ever since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Some contractors, many working as subcontractors to Halliburton/KBR in Iraq, were found to be using deceptive, bait-and-switch hiring practices and charging recruiting fees that indebted low-paid migrant workers for many months or even years to their employers. Contractors were also accused of providing substandard, crowded sleeping quarters, serving poor food, and circumventing Iraqi immigration procedures.

While the Pentagon declines to specifically name those contractors found to be doing business in this way, it also acknowledged in an April 19 memorandum that it was a widespread practice among contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan to take away workers passports. Holding onto employee passports -- a direct violation of U.S. labor trafficking laws -- helped stop workers from leaving war-torn Iraq or taking better jobs with other contractors.

Contractors engaging in the practice, states the memo, must immediately "cease and deist."

"All passports will be returned to employees by 1 May 06. This requirement will be flowed down to each of your subcontractors performing work in this theater."

The Pentagon has yet to announce of any penalty for those found to be in violation of U.S. labor trafficking laws or contract requirements.

(CorpWatch, October 17, 2006 - David Phinney*)

* David Phinney is a journalist and broadcaster based in Washington, DC, whose work has appeared in The Los Angeles Times, New York Times and on ABC and PBS.

Libellés :

Actualité - Some Facts Concerning 2006 Mid-Term Election Results

Elections at the federal level occur every two years in the United States. This is based on the two-year term for all 435 members of the House of Representatives. Mid-term elections are those that come in the middle of the presidential term of office. In addition, about one third of the Senate was up for election.

Generally, less than 50 percent of eligible voters vote in U.S. elections. This means no candidate receives a majority of the vote, something that most people consider a basic requirement of democracy. In the U.S. there is no requirement for candidates to secure 50 percent of the vote. Instead, they receive what is called a plurality of the vote, meaning they get the majority of the votes cast. Commonly this means candidates, including presidents, are elected to office with only about 25-28 percent of the eligible vote — not 50 percent, not even 30 percent, about one quarter of the vote.

For the 2006 elections, the turnout was only about 40 percent, considered normal for a mid-term election. Given most of the races were close, and votes for the anti-war candidates from small parties more widespread, it is likely that the final results will show that a majority of those who won did so with less than 25 percent of the eligible vote — possibly even less than 20 percent.

Representation in the House is based on population in each state, with larger states like California, Florida, New York, and Texas, having larger delegations, Rhode Island, Delaware and Connecticut smaller ones. Candidates are required to live in the district where they are running for office and voters can only vote for candidates in the district where they live.

For the Senate, there are two senators.tors for each state regardless of size, making 100 altogether. They serve a six-year term, so that one third are up for elections with each federal election. This year, 33 Senators — 17 Democrats, 15 Republicans and one independent — were up for election. Senate elections are statewide, meaning all eligible voters in the state can cast a vote for candidates for senate.

Majority control of the House requires 217 seats. Coming into the 2006 elections, 231 seats were held by Republicans, 203 by Democrats and one independent. Republicans have held a majority in the House since 1994.

For the Democrats to secure a majority, they needed to win 15 seats from Republicans while retaining all their existing seats. They achieved this goal, losing no seats and winning 29 seats so far. (9 contests were still being counted at press time). The Democrats will have at least 229 seats and the Republicans 195, with two independents, when the new Congress is sworn in January 2007.

Democrats won most of their House seats in the east and midwest, including New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Ohio and Indiana, while also securing seats in Florida, North Carolina, Kansas, California and elsewhere.

In the Senate, Republicans held the majority with 55 seats. Democrats needed to win six seats. While the race in Virginia is still being contested as we go to press, it is expected that the Democrats will win, giving them the six senate seats necessary for a majority. These seats were won in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, Missouri, Montana and likely Virginia.

This means that Democrats will have majorities in both houses of Congress. Their margin in the House will be similar to that Republicans had. In the Senate it is even more closely divided than previously, with 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and two independents, who are expected to vote mainly with the Democrats. However, it is also the case that most votes are not strictly along party lines with both Democrats and Republicans crossing party lines. As well, many of the Democrats elected are pro-war and what are known as “Blue Dog” Democrats, meaning they are as conservative or more conservative than some Republicans. Given this, it is not surprising that a main view now being given by both parties is that they will work together and support “bipartisanship.” What this likely means for the people is that more repressive legislation like the USA Patriot Act, passed with overwhelming “bipartisan” support, will be imposed.

The Democratic majorities in both houses also gives them chairmanship of the congressional committees. These committees largely determine which bills actually reach the floor for a vote. They also determine such issues as -congressional oversight of wrongdoing by the executive branch, impeachment, fraud, etc. While the voters have made clear their demand for impeachment proceedings and an immediate end to the Iraq War, no one is holding their breath for Democrats to actually uphold the popular will. Indeed, people across the country are going forward with plans for stepped-up activity against the war and for impeachment, relying on strengthening their own efforts and building their own organizations to bring change.

(Voice of Revolution)

Libellés :

lundi, novembre 20, 2006

Actualité - USA disses UN human food rights

United Nations, 18 Nov, (Prensa Latina) - The government of President George W. Bush shamed the United States into international isolation after it rejected a UN resolution defending the human right to food.

After a week of UN debates on humanitarian affairs, US diplomats were the only ones to vote against a resolution supporting the Right to Food.

The related text was sponsored by an unusual majority of 131 countries, and another 44 UN member states yesterday voted in favour.

Diplomats at the debates agreed the US delegation's stance ignored the right of every person to not suffer from hunger.

The approved proposal reaffirms "hunger is an disgrace and violates human dignity," they sustained.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - Telesur Reporter to Prison in Colombia

Caracas, Nov 20 (Prensa Latina) - The multinational channel, Telesur, stated that the detention of its correspondent in Colombia Freddy Muñoz goes against the freedom of speech and constitutes an intimidation act.

A communiqué of the regional TV Company explains that the accusations against him surprised Telesur, where Muñoz has performed accordingly to the professionalism and ethics inherent to journalism practice.

The detention of a journalist of an international press organism infringes the freedom of speech and means an intimidation act, the text stressed.

The channel confirmed its correspondent in Bogota was arrested by authorities of the Security Administrative Department on Sunday after his arrival at the airport coming from Caracas.

According to preliminary information given by attorneys of the MINGA human rights organization, the detention responds to accusations of rebellion and terrorism issued by the Barranquilla Sectional Attorney´s Office on November 10, 2006.

Journalist Freddy Muñoz, one of the founders of Telesur and outstanding correspondent in Colombia, remains detained in the cells of the Security Administrative Department awaiting for the corresponding questioning.

Meanwhile, the multi-state TV channel intended to boost the Latin American integration, expects for the clarification of the incident and trusts that the process be clear and attached to the international laws.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - Cuba réitère son appui à l’indépendance de Porto Rico

Panama — Le président de l’Assemblée nationale du pouvoir populaire (parlement) de Cuba, Ricardo Alarcon, a plaidé aujourd’hui dans cette capitale en faveur de l’indépendance de Porto Rico, a fait savoir Prensa Latina.

Alarcon a souligné l’importance d’un Congrès latino-américain et caribéen pour l’indépendance de Porto Rico, tenu à Panama cette fin de semaine.

Le comité de travail créé dans le cadre de la réunion est un bond en avant en direction de cet objectif, a-t-il ajouté.

Il a affirmé que l’Amérique latine peut assumer un rôle important pour faciliter un processus qui se terminera par l’indépendance de ce territoire, occupé par les États-Unis depuis 1898.

Durant le Congrès, les participants ont approuvé la Déclaration de Panama qui établit la création de comités d’appui et de solidarité dans les pays de la région en faveur de la cause portoricaine.

(Granma International)

Libellés :

dimanche, novembre 19, 2006

Actualité - What Future for Haiti? An Interview with Patrick Elie

In February 2004, U.S. Marines whisked away then-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide from Haiti amid an armed rebellion led by disgruntled former soldiers and paramilitary actors. Despite the presence of a United Nations peacekeeping force, violence and poverty increased under the U.S.-backed interim government led by Interim Prime Minister Gérard Latortue, which courted the elite and its international backers while alienating Haiti’s overwhelming poor majority. The crisis hit a low point last December and January, with daily shootings in the poor neighborhood of Cité Soleil and an outbreak of kidnappings.

President René Préval’s electoral victory on February 7 suddenly brought peace and hope to Haiti for the first time in two years. Haiti’s poor flooded the polls to vote, and one week later they blockaded nearly every major road in the country to demand that the electoral council name Préval the victor in the first round. Préval has formed a coalition government and has courted all sides of the political spectrum, including both pro-Aristide militants from Cité Soleil as well as light-skinned elites. He has taken a similar approach in his foreign policy, seeking help from the United States and France but also Cuba and Venezuela. It is uncertain how long he will be able to juggle these different interests, and more than six months into his presidency, Préval continues to remain largely an enigma.

Patrick Elie has been an activist in Haiti since 1986, when the nation’s popular movements drove former dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier from the country. In the late 1980s, he participated in these movements alongside René Préval, Jean-Bertrand Aristide and Antoine Izmery, among other pro-democracy activists struggling against the military governments that assumed power after Duvalier’s ouster. Elie was head of Aristide’s security detail during his first presidential campaign in 1990. When the former priest became the country’s first democratically elected leader, Elie assumed the position of anti-narcotics chief. He went into exile after the military coup and returned to become secretary of state for defense when Aristide was restored to power in 1994. Since 1995, he has not served in government but has remained politically active, and is a founding member of SOS (Citizens’ Watchdog Center), a group that seeks to promote the creation of a national network of grassroots organizations.

Interview with Patrick Elie and introduction by Reed Lindsay.

Reed Lindsay: How accurate is the characterization of Haiti as a country with a history or a culture of violence?

Patrick Elie: It is an image of Haiti that is grossly distorted. The so-called level of violence in Haiti pales in comparison with violence in at least half the countries in the world. Compare the history of Haiti with that of England, France and the U.S. and Germany. Don’t go back to the 1200s. Look back to 1804 and you have more violence in those countries than in Haiti. So the characterization of Haiti as a violent country is a bunch of hogwash. Why is there tension and instability in Haiti? It is simply because in Haiti you have 5 percent of the population controlling 60 percent of the national wealth, while 80 percent live in poverty. If you had such a situation in any other country you’d have a massacre or a civil war but that hasn’t happened in Haiti, which speaks to the self-restraint of the Haitian population. The instability of the last 20 to 25 years has been caused essentially by this elite as well as their foreign allies who cannot truly accept the principal of one citizen-one vote because it would mean that they would lose their privileges and influence. They have tried to quench the will of the poor majority of Haiti and tried to change the rules of the game because they’ve lost in elections. If it were up to the Haitian people (and when I say Haitian people I’m talking about the vast majority of Haitians who are poor) there would be both democracy and stability. If you look at recent history, the Haitian people have chosen to vote rather than to riot. They voted four times in a row for the same political family, the same political leaning, the same agenda. They consistently have picked both democracy and stability.

RL: How does the United States government’s role in Haiti compare to its role in other countries in Latin America?

PE: The role of the U.S. in Haiti is no different than what it is in other countries in Latin America in that the U.S. is interested in dominating Haiti and dictating its policy. That’s the reason why they cannot stand the idea of somebody being elected with a large majority because that means the government will not be easy to manipulate as one that has very little popular legitimacy and from the get-go this was the United States’ problem with Aristide and Lavalas. The role of the U.S. in all of Haitian history has been egregious. The U.S. occupied the country for 20 years from 1915 to 1934 and left us with a repressive army. But this pattern was not particular to Haiti. Go to the DR, and they did the same thing with Trujillo, and the same thing in Nicaragua with Somoza. When the U.S. said it would support democracies rather than military dictatorships, the Haitians did not play along because they did not want the type of democracy that the U.S. wanted to impose. The Haitians, that is, the 80 percent of Haitians who have been excluded for two centuries, wanted a true democracy, where they would define the agenda and get to pick who they wanted rather than be forced to choose between candidates they don’t like. Why has the U.S. occupied the country three times? There are many reasons. There are economic reasons, but even if you don’t concede to that, Haiti has been a powerful symbol for having overthrown slavery and becoming independent and for what it’s doing now, which is proving that the poorest people in the hemisphere, mostly illiterate, can know more about democracy than the people who are pretending to be beacons of civilization. And they can stand up to the will of the U.S. The movement that you see now in Latin America, the new large social movements that are sweeping away the traditional political parties, that also started in a way in Haiti. For the U.S., Haiti is an example that must be crushed, that must be made to fail. That’s the principal interest of the U.S. in Haiti.

RL: But the U.S. hasn’t been the only first world country to play a major role in Haiti in recent years. What about France and Canada?

PE: France’s role in Haiti is a direct result of the demand for reparation that President Aristide put forward. Also, I think France could never get over the defeat of 1804. In all of Haitian history, never has a French president set foot in Haiti. And Santo Domingue is probably the French colony that played the greatest role in French history. It was the richest colony by far, and caused them to lose Louisiana. With Canada, I can point to a number of reasons why they have switched directions in Haitian policy. One is that Canada is aligning its policy with that of the U.S. more and more after Iraq where they refused to participate because the Chretien government would have been defeated if Canada had gone into Iraq. Haiti was an easy way to please the U.S. Haiti’s a country with no army and no possibility to resist regime change.

RL: How would you characterize the role of Brazil, Argentina and Chile in the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti?

PE: The Latin American countries had their own reasons and interests. Brazil wants to be recognized as an emerging power and wanted a seat in the UN Security Council. For countries like Argentina and Chile, they wanted to show that they are countries that count. Despite the fact that I’m against the occupation, if I had to choose to be occupied by U.S. Marines, the French Legionnaires or the Latin American countries and the UN, I’d pick the latter, but the positive thing that could emerge from this crisis is that Latin America will discover Haiti and remember that Haiti is at the origin of their own independence. Also, I believe that Haiti will have the possibility of reorienting its diplomacy toward the Caribbean and Latin America rather than be prisoner of its destructive relationship with the United States.

RL: What about the allegations that UN troops tolerated and sometimes committed abuses in the poor neighborhoods of Port-au-Prince?

PE: I think there were some people within the UN that were truly sympathetic to the Haitian people. We cannot forget the excesses of the UN, especially in the popular neighborhoods like Cite Soleil. But we also must recognize that the UN troops did not go all out in military operations in poor neighborhoods as they were being encouraged to do by the Haitian elite and the governments of the U.S., France and Canada. As President Préval has said, I would like to see the UN mission continue. But we don’t need all those men with guns. We’d rather see doctors and technicians helping us.

RL: Can you evaluate the last two years of rule by the interim government of Primer Minister Gérard Latortue?

PE: I prefer to call it a de facto regime or puppet regime because that’s truly what it was. It was forced upon the Haitian people by the intervention of February 29, 2004, and it was formed with hostility. It was a government that was to be hostile to Lavalas and to help eliminate the movement from the political scene. It was a government that was a model of the kind of government that the three countries that intervened in Haiti would like to see at the helm of the country: a government that answers not to the population of the country but to foreign interests and international organizations like the IMF. As for an assessment of the last two years, I’m 56 years old, and these have easily been the most difficult and terrible years for the country I’ve ever seen.

First of all, there’s the level of repression against the poor people, against Lavalas. This government has allowed ex killers and killers from the army to integrate into the police into units that were nothing else but death squads and go into popular neighborhoods and assassinate people. And the economy has been a disaster. The thing the government did was fire 4,000 to 5000 people in a country with 70 percent unemployment. Of course this is not the type of government the Haitian people would like to see at the helm of the country.

RL: How does Haiti’s popular movement compare to those in other countries in Latin America?

PE: When Jean-Claude Duvalier was forced to leave the country in 1986, nobody expected that after 30 years of repression, the first 15 of which were sheer terror, that there would be this profound movement within the Haitian population that would turn into thousands of grassroots organizations. It was this movement that was the origin of the Haitian saga of the last 20 years. It was this movement rather than the political parties that stood up against the return of dictatorship. It was this movement that confronted the military government when it tried to control the election in 1987 and this movement that swept Aristide into power in 1990. And it was not the political parties, but again this movement that elected René Préval. Don’t believe for one minute that Lespwa [the coalition of political parties and organizations on whose ticket Préval ran for president] has been anything but a label that has been used for the election and a nice slogan, but it was that vast social movement that swept Préval into power. And I think that this movement that literally exploded onto the scene in 1986 preceded what we’ve seen in Venezuela, in Bolivia, and what may be appearing in Mexico and maybe it is the wave of the future for countries like Haiti in Latin America. Instead of trying to mimic countries of Europe, maybe we can forge regional tools for regional democracies. And I think that is what Haitians are trying to do.

RL: Has this popular movement grown stronger or weaker in the last 20 years?

PE: The popular movement in Haiti is very much alive, but it is already a bit better organized because it is battle scarred but battle hardened also. I’ve seen the crowds in 1986 and 1987, and the ones I’ve seen out lately are different. It’s already starting to resemble an army. There is more organization, there is more discipline, and I think there is more ability to stay the course. Of course, much remains to be done, for example, there is no substitute for a national coordination for such a movement. It should exist. For the moment, it is a very loose coordination. That’s where the new political leadership will emerge from. If anything, the last election signals the end of Haiti’s traditional political class. When I say traditional, I mean both those who come from the traditional right and the traditional left. You’ve seen the electoral results of the so-called socialists such as Paul Denis and Serge Gilles. They have been rejected by the Haitian people.

RL: What is the future of Aristide and his Fanmi Lavalas party in Haiti?

PE: Aristide has played a key historical role in the struggle of the Haitian people to define their own democracy, and I’m sure he will continue to be an influence in the future. Fanmi Lavalas is a political organization. But I don’t think it will be able to survive as a political organization simply because it really has no real autonomy. You could see how it became totally in disarray after president Aristide was kidnapped. It was what I would describe as a charismatic organization, one that depends strictly on its leader and after that you have nothing in terms of structure and in terms of capacity to formulate a political strategy. A new grassroots movement will have to form that comes from the street and grassroots mobilizations. Lavalas is this movement, but Lavalas and Fanmi Lavalas, although related, are different things. Fanmi Lavalas is a political organization. Lavalas is a political philosophy, not a party. Lavalas and the popular movement are one in the same. It was the name coined for it by President Aristide. But he did not invent the reality of it, he just put a name on it. He doesn’t own it. It owns him.

RL: What lessons can be drawn from the overthrow of Aristide in February 2004 and the ensuing two years?

PE: The lesson to be drawn is that it’s not enough to vote for somebody who is sympathetic to your cause. If you do not stay mobilized and define your political agenda and support that political agenda, what will happen is that either the president or the senators you elected are going to be extremely vulnerable to pressure exerted on them from the powers that be or they’ll start drifting to a more traditional type of power and start having their own agenda. And of course both things can happen. It’s obvious when you look at the last years of President Aristide, all the senators and deputies had their own personal agenda and were completely removed from what the people themselves wanted. So politicians, no matter what label they are under, have to be kept on a leash. And the leash is the grassroots movements permanently mobilized. That is one thing that the popular movement has learned.

RL: Would you include René Préval among the new group of leaders in Latin America who are pushing for regional integration and challenging U.S. hegemony in the region?

PE: Préval is a branch from the same tree. Préval started out like all of us, a Marxist, but he’s been really forged or transformed by the popular movement itself. He was very close to it. We went to school in the popular movement at the same time. He has a good feel for what the people of Haiti want and need. As a leader he does not have the charisma of Aristide, nor is he inclined or able to communicate with them the same way that President Aristide could. But I think that he has the trust of the Haitian people, which is very important. But if the Haitian people do not keep up their mobilization and continue to build it as a structured movement, he will fail. That is a certainty. He will fail because it is the fate of any leadership that is left by itself and does not have behind it a strong an organized people. He might be pushed so far away from the original agenda and what the people want that it would be the equivalent of him being overthrown.

RL: What will Préval be able to accomplish?

PE: From what Préval has indicated, he will address the problems of the poor majority of Haiti, including the most urgent issues such as terminating that exclusion, that quasi-apartheid that predominates in this country. His biggest obstacle might come from those within the Haitian elite and the traditional politicians, who will try to embrace him after failing to block his way. A president only has so much power, and he’s not the one actually doing everything. He depends on a team, and he depends on popular support.

The members of the elite and political parties could have too much influence. What they couldn’t win in the election, they could win by buddying up to Préval. I’ve heard that everywhere he’s gone, he’s gone with members of the moneyed elite. That’s all fine and dandy, he cannot actually govern against the elite all out, but he cannot govern for the elite either. I hope they won’t try to destabilize in the same way they tried to destabilize Aristide. The last two years have been such a fiasco, I don’t know if they have the stomach for something as terrible and disastrous. But Préval will certainly be facing a lot of pressure. And I think somehow the Haitian people know that. All I expect from his presidency is to have the space to organize rather than facing a truly hostile government. But he will be under a lot of constraints.

RL: How can Préval push through reforms that benefit the poor majority without the elite sabotaging his effort?

PE: We start maybe by having the kind of dialogue with the moneyed elite that the people of the South African majority had with the white minority when the one person-one vote principal was being adopted. Obviously the elite want some protection, but they will only have it by exchanging their privileges for rights. It is obvious that things cannot continue as they are, so if there are people who are reasonable within this elite, some compromise might be reached between them and the vast majority of people who have been excluded. The priorities should be set right. Education, health care, production. These should be the priorities. We must have a country that produces. The elite must be engaged in production of wealth rather than being truly parasites. Laws must be voted by the new parliament and be acted upon to close progressively that horrible gap that exists between the tiny elite and the huge majority. That’s the only way to go. And if the elite persist in trying to stand in the way of progress I think they will have to go the way of the Cuban elites that had a field day until Fidel came along. Maybe they are more ready to be persuaded after the last two years. It was the last desperate attempt to stem the flow of history. The last two years have not been particularly happy for the Haitian elites either. The Haitian people as a whole have suffered the consequences of Aristide’s overthrow.

Reed Lindsay is a freelance journalist who has been based in Port-au-Prince since October2004

(NACLA News - Reed Lindsay)

Libellés :

Actualité - Miami et la corruption de la profession journalistique

Rarement évoquée dans les médias dominants, la corruption de journalistes est pourtant au cœur de la plupart des campagnes de propagande. Les campagnes de dénigrement contre Cuba ne font pas exception. En septembre 2006, un scandale impliquant 50 journalistes stipendiés pour diaboliser le régime castriste a éclaté. D’abord licenciés par leurs employeurs, certains ont déjà été réintégrés sous la pression de l’extrême droite cubaine. Salim Lamrani revient sur cet épisode caractéristique du traitement de l’information contre « les ennemis de l’Amérique ».

Miami est décidément une ville bien particulière, unique sur le territoire états-unien. L’immense majorité de ses institutions, des services de police, en passant par la presse et jusqu’aux pompiers, sont sous le contrôle d’une minorité extrémiste d’origine cubaine extrêmement puissante. L’objectif avoué de ce secteur très influent, descendant de l’oligarchie pré-révolutionnaire, est de renverser, par tous les moyens, le gouvernement de La Havane.

Le dernier scandale en date a éclaté en septembre 2006 quand il a été découvert que près de 50 journalistes de l’État de Floride, dont trois du journal El Nuevo Herald, recevaient de manière régulière des émoluments de la part du gouvernement fédéral en échange d’une participation dans les programmes de Radio et TV Martí où ils étaient chargés de promouvoir la propagande anti-cubaine de Washington. Les programmes de ces deux médias publics, dotés d’un budget annuel de 37 millions de dollars et destinés à « accélérer la fin du régime castriste », sont uniquement transmis vers Cuba car la législation anti-propagande états-unienne interdit leur diffusion sur le territoire national [1].

Les trois journalistes du quotidien El Nuevo Herald, M. Pablo Alfonso qui a reçu pas moins de 175 000 dollars depuis 2001, M. Wilfredo Cancio Isla stipendié à hauteur de 15 000 dollars durant les cinq dernières années, et Mme Olga Connor dont le chèque s’élève à 71 000 dollars, s’occupaient de la section « Cuba » du journal. Ils ont tous été licenciés par le Miami Herald dont ils dépendaient. Leur entreprise leur reprochait d’avoir gravement failli à l’éthique journalistique. En effet, en acceptant de dépendre financièrement du gouvernement états-unien, ces derniers entraient dans un conflit d’intérêts évident et se trouvaient dans l’impossibilité de faire preuve d’impartialité et d’objectivité dans le traitement de l’information [2].

M. Jesús Díaz Jr., président et rédacteur en chef du l’entreprise The Miami Herald Media Company à laquelle appartient El Nuevo Herald, a exprimé sa profonde déception et a regretté que ses professionnels de l’information aient violé « la confiance sacrée » qui lie le public et les journalistes. « Je ne crois pas que nous pouvons garantir l’objectivité ni l’intégrité si l’un de nos reporters reçoit une compensation monétaire de n’importe quelle entité […], surtout s’il s’agit d’une agence du gouvernement », a-t-il souligné [3].

Plusieurs autres journalistes recevaient une rémunération de la part du Bureau des transmissions vers Cuba parmi lesquels Mme Helen Aguirre Ferré et M. Ariel Remos du Diario Las Américas, M. Miguel Cossío, directeur de l’information du Canal 41, M. Juan Manuel Cao également journaliste du Canal 41, Mme Ninoska Pérez Castellón de Radio Mambí et M. Carlos Alberto Montaner, chroniqueur de El Nuevo Herald [4].

Le gouvernement cubain a longtemps dénoncé que certains journalistes du sud de la Floride étaient stipendiés par le gouvernement des États-Unis. Le cas du reporter Juan Manuel Cao, qui a reçu près de 11 400 dollars de la part de TV Martí, est apparu dans les médias au mois de juillet 2006 quand ce dernier a vigoureusement questionné le Président cubain Fidel Castro, lors d’une conférence de presse en Argentine. La réponse du Comandante avait alors fusé : « Qui vous paye donc pour poser ce genre de questions ? ».

Beaucoup d’experts en éthique journalistique, tel que M. Iván Román, directeur exécutif de l’Association national des journalistes hispanophones, ont dénoncé ce conflit d’intérêts aussi grave qu’inacceptable. « Il y a une limite que les journalistes ne doivent pas franchir », a-t-il déclaré. M. Jon Roosenraad, professeur de journalisme à l’Université de Floride s’est penché sur ce cas d’école. « C’est comme si un reporter économique travaillait à temps partiel […] pour une entreprise locale durant ses heures libres et retournait à son journal le lendemain pour écrire sur ‘son’ entreprise », a-t-il noté [5].

Ce n’est pas la première fois que le gouvernement états-unien rémunère grassement des journalistes pour qu’ils promeuvent leur agenda politique. En 2005, la Maison-Blanche avait soudoyé le célèbre journaliste Amstrong Williams à hauteur de 240 000 dollars, afin qu’il défende, dans son programme télévisé diffusé à travers tout le pays, la loi de réforme de l’éducation [6].

M. Robert Beatty, vice-président en charge des affaires publiques de la Miami Herald Media Company s’est montré intransigeant et catégorique : « L’éthique du journalisme ne peut souffrir d’interprétations à géométrie variable. Lorsque nous sommes au courant de tels agissement, nous réagissons avec fermeté ». Pour lui, l’indépendance du journalisme ne pouvait être souillée par la propagande gouvernementale [7].

Mais M. Beatty avait sous-estimé la puissance et le pouvoir de coercition de l’extrême droite cubaine qui contrôle la vie politique et économique de Miami. En effet, suite à de fortes pressions, des menaces de boycott et d’autres actions plus radicales, les propriétaires du Miami Herald ont décidé de réembaucher les trois journalistes remerciés, et de fermer les yeux sur la découverte dans leur entreprise de six autres reporters qui s’étaient rendus coupables des mêmes méfaits [8].

Cette décision spectaculaire a entraîné la démission de M. Jesús Díaz Jr., qui a décidé de tirer les conséquences de ce revirement. Le président du journal a considéré pour sa part que le fait de servir les intérêts d’un gouvernement constituait « une violation des principes d’éthique journalistique largement acceptés ». Il a été remplacé par M. David Landsberg dont le premier acte a été de déclarer que l’entreprise n’accepterait plus ce genre de pratique à l’avenir [9].

Ce n’est pas la première fois que le Miami Herald courbe l’échine et cède face au chantage et aux menaces de la droite radicale de Miami, par crainte de représailles. Dans les années 1990, le journal s’était plié aux exigences de Jorge Mas Canosa qui avait alors lancé la campagne « Je ne crois pas au Herald ». L’ancien président de la Fondation nationale cubano américaine, une organisation extrémiste impliquée dans le terrorisme international, avait menacé le journal de boycott et d’actions d’envergure s’il ne faisait pas preuve de plus de fermeté envers le gouvernement cubain.

Cette grave violation de l’éthique journalistique et de la liberté de la presse n’a pas ému grand monde au niveau international. Quant à la célèbre organisation française de « défense de la liberté de la presse », Reporters sans frontières, elle est restée muette sur cette affaire pour ne pas froisser certaines connaissances du sud de la Floride [10].

Notes

[1] « Conflicto de intereses en pagos a periodistas locales », par Oscar Corral, El Nuevo Herald, 8 septembre 2006.
[2] « US ‘Paid Anti-Cuba Journalists’ », BBC, 8 septembre 2006.
[3] Oscar Corral, op. cit
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid.
[6] The New York Times, 8 septembre 2006.
[7] Ibid.
[8] « Miami Herald Chief Quits Over Cuba Revelations », par Jason Deans, The Guardian, 3 octobre 2006
[9] Ibid.
[10] À propos des liens entre Reporters sans Frontières et le Département d’État, lire aussi « Le financement de Reporters sans frontières par la NED/CIA », par Diana Barahona et Jeb Sprague, Voltaire, 7 août 2006, et « Quand Reporters Sans Frontières couvre la CIA », par Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire, 25 avril 2005.

(Réseau Voltaire - Salim Lamrani)

Libellés :

Actualité - Locals Accuse U.S. of Massacre in Ramadi

Ramadi, Nov 17 - U.S. military tank fire killed scores of civilians in Ramadi, capital of Al-Anbar province, late Monday night, according to witnesses and doctors. Anger and frustration were evident at the hospitals and during the funerals in the following days.

Iraqi doctors and witnesses at the scene of the attack said U.S. tanks killed 35 civilians when they shelled several homes in the Al-Dhubat area of the city.

Ramadi, located 110 km west of Baghdad, has been beset with sporadic but intense violence between occupation forces and insurgents for several months.

On Tuesday, hundreds of people carried the 35 coffins of the dead to a graveyard in a funeral procession which closely resembled an angry demonstration.

"We heard the bombing and we thought it was the usual fighting between resistance fighters and the Americans, but we soon realised it was bombing by large cannons," 60-year-old Haji Jassim explained to IPS at the burial. "We weren't allowed by the Americans to reach the destroyed houses to try to rescue those who were buried, so certainly many of them bled to death."

Jassim claimed that everyone killed was innocent, that they were not fighters. He said that when he and others attempted to reach the rubble of the destroyed homes, located near mosques whose minaret's loudspeakers had broadcast pleas for help, "There was a big American force that stopped us and told us the usual ugly phrases we hear from them every day."

Jassim, speaking with IPS while several other witnesses listened while nodding their heads, said that ambulances did not appear on the scene for hours because "we realised that the Americans did not allow them to move," and that as a result, "there were people buried under the rubble who were bleeding to death while there was still a chance to rescue them."

Jassim then burst into tears and walked away saying prayers to Allah to bless the souls of the dead.

A doctor at Ramadi's main hospital, Abdullah Salih, told reporters that 35 bodies had been brought in and he also believed that others had not been retrieved since access had been limited by ongoing U.S. military operations.

Another doctor, Kamal al-Ani, said that in addition to the dead, another 17 wounded had been brought into the hospital.

The scene at the hospital was tragic as doctors confirmed the reason of death for many as severe bleeding that had gone on for several hours. Most of the doctors were unwilling to discuss too many details for fear of U.S. military reprisals.

"You can notice the number of dead is at least twice as high as the number of wounded," one of the doctors, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. A local Iraqi policeman who identified himself as Khalif Obeidi told IPS that tanks had destroyed several houses in the area during the U.S. raid, killing more than 30 civilians.

"We know that those killed were innocent," said Obeidi, "although there have been attacks on the Americans from near that area in the past."

Residents of the city and relatives of the dead who were at the funeral were furious.

"There is no other way for the Sunnis than to fight," Ali Khudher, a 25-year-old carpenter who lost a relative in the attack told IPS. "It is a religious war and no one can deny that now."

Others who attended the mass funeral chanted anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Iranian and even slogans against the Islamic Party which is now part of the Iraqi government.

Tempers run high in Ramadi also because the city has often been the scene of large-scale U.S. military operations and their inherent forms of collective punishment.

Last June, thousands of residents were forced from their homes due to military operations, according to Maurizio Mascia, programme manager for the Italian Consortium of Solidarity (ICS), a non-governmental group based in Amman, Jordan that provides relief to refugees in Iraq.

At that time, Mascia told IPS, "The Americans, instead of attacking the city all at once like they've done in their previous operations in cities like Fallujah and Al-Qa'im, are using helicopters and ground troops to attack one district at a time in Ramadi."

Mirroring a complaint heard often from residents of Ramadi, Mascia said, "The main dangers for the population are the MNF (multi-national force) at the checkpoints and the snipers: both usually shoot at any movement that they consider dangerous -- causing many victims among civilians."

In a phone conversation with IPS, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Baghdad said he had no specific details of the incident and that "the U.S. military has been conducting ongoing patrols and security details in Al-Anbar for months now. Our efforts are always to attack the terrorists and protect the civilian population."

(Inter Press Service - Dahr Jamail & Ali al-Fadhily)

Libellés :

Actualité - Making a killing

Quoting New York Times economics writer Jeff Madrick, Newcastle University lecturer Chris Dorran told a November 13 meeting that “by almost any mainstream economists’ standard, the plan [for the economic transformation of Iraq] is extreme; in fact, stunning”.

Madrick was referring to US plans for the reorganisation of Iraq’s economy, including a 15% flat tax rate for individuals and corporations, and laws allowing 100% repatriation of profits by foreign companies.

The meeting was jointly organised by the Sydney Stop the War Coalition and AidWatch.

Dorran explained how oil profits were a big factor behind the US-led invasion of Iraq, but not the only reason. For Australia’s corporate elite, Iraq’s nationalised food-processing industry was a major incentive to participate in the occupation.

Kate Wheen from AidWatch discussed the (mis)use of aid in Iraq. She revealed that the day after the war started on March 20, 2003, $100 million from the AusAID budget was approved to purchase an AWB wheat shipment that was stranded in the Persian Gulf. Had the ship reached Iraq, it would have been clear evidence of the AWB kickbacks program. The sale was disallowed by the UN because it was at 400% of the market price for wheat.

(Green Left Weekly - Katelyn Mountford)

Libellés :

Actualité - Bolivia Shapes New State

La Paz, Nov 19 (Prensa Latina) - The approval of a debate regulation has challenged the Bolivian Constituent Assembly to shape a new multinational State without exclusions amid the threat of regional authorities to divide the country.

Representative of the Movement towards Socialism (MAS) Raul Prada considers that the setting of absolute majority for the endorsement of the articles and two thirds for the final text of the future Constitution, the background matter of creating a new Republic comes up.

That project, he stated, must start from the present crisis within the relation colonial-State and society and must meet the demands of the social movements to restructure a country recognizing diversity and the multiple institutional forms.

According to Prada, the late State and its archaic institutions were plunged into crisis, excluded the regions and the native peoples and finally sparked violence.

So, it is not surprising that since its beginning, on August 6 in the southern city of Sucre, the Constituent Assembly has been hounded by conservative sectors and powerful groups intended to make it work under the old models.

Prada asserted that since the social revolution leading to the defeat of the ex-dignitary Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada in 2003, the old system and the traditional parties supporting it also collapsed.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

jeudi, novembre 16, 2006

Actualité - Evo Morales not Negotiating Land Matters

La Paz, Nov 16 (Prensa Latina) - Thursday Bolivian President Evo Morales ratified his government will never negotiate with big landowners concerning a new Land law, objective of which is to redistribute lands.

In that sense, Morales referred in a press release to the recently passed motion in the Chamber of Deputies, concerning modifications to an Agrarian Reform law, in the midst of the withdrawal of opposition groups.

The President assured the government will respect extensions that fulfilled a social-economic function, in correspondence to that regulation, but will legally expropriate the ones that violate that principle.

Morales highlighted there will never be an agreement with families whose goal is to enrich themselves with large land extensions, he stressed.

He also explained the best that can be done in these cases is to redistribute lands, in order to others work them, in benefit of all Bolivians, natives and peasants traditionally marginalized.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - Des militaires des États-Unis en activité soutiennent le retrait total d’Irak

Des centaines de soldats étasuniens ont commencé à signer l’appel


Une pétition a été adressée aux membres du Congrès de la part de militaires en activité en Irak pour qu’ils soutiennent le retrait des troupes, selon la page web Appealforredress.org.

La campagne porte le nom de An Appel for redress from the War in Irak (Demande de réparation pour la guerre en Irak) et a un texte très court :

« En ma qualité d’étasunien patriote qui sert sa nation en uniforme, j’exhorte respectueusement mes leaders politiques au Congrès à soutenir le rapide retrait de toutes les troupes et bases étasuniennes d’Irak. Rester en Irak ne servira à rien et le prix à payer ne vaut pas le peine. Il est temps que les troupes reviennent à la maison ».

L’intention des signataires du message était de le présenter au Congrès, à l’occasion de la Journée de Martin Luther King.

Les organisateurs de l’initiative indiquent que « (…) les membres de l’Armée ont le droit légal d’entrer en contact avec leurs représentants du Congrès », et ils sont en train de promouvoir une campagne d’information sur les droits et restrictions qui touchent les militaires en service actif.

Selon la page web qui abrite la campagne, l’initiative est soutenue par un comité de membres des Forces armées des Etats-Unis en service actif, des vétérans de la guerre d’Irak de la base de Norfolk, en Virginie, et leurs familles, et elle est appuyée par les associations Vétérans d’Irak contre la Guerre, Vétérans pour la Paix et Familles des Militaires Parlent Clairement.

(Granma International)

Libellés : ,

Actualité - American army officers supervising IOF massacres in Gaza

Shunpiking Editor's note (15 November 2006): Is it so insignificant that U.S. army commanders have been acknowledged to be leading the Israeli military "Operation Autumn Clouds" and its slaughter of the Palestinian people that it is not even reported in North America? This is a compelling sign that the public is being kept in the dark about the real nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the leading role of the United States.

After Israel lost the war in southern Lebanon, the U.S.A sent military detachments to Israel. The Israeli military radio, "Tsahal Radio" announced this news, reporting that the American detachment of officers had arrived in Israel to take part in the "Autumn Clouds" operation in Gaza, that they helped the Israeli military to perform their "killing duties" without any loss. American officers were involved in the last Beit Hanoun massacre in which in just one incident 20 Palestinians were killed, and at least 60 innocent children, old men and women were injured.

Hitherto, the last time any U.S. military presence in the occupied Palestinian territories was even hinted, let alone acknowledged, was in the spring of 2002, during "Operation Defensive Shield" led by Gen. Ariel Sharon against the people of Jenin and surrounding cities and districts of the West Bank. It was asserted that there were U.S. observers who could affirm that the occupier had committed no "massacres" at Jenin. The news item disclosing the recent U.S. takeover of command of "Autumn Clouds" mentions the "concern" about Israel's failure to prevail over Hizbollah's rocket attacks during the war in Lebanon this past summer. The report originated in the Hebrew-language media and a palestinna solidarity group in the UK translated and digested the main content as follows:

Nazareth (5 November 2006) - American army officers are supervising the IOF troops' military operations in the Gaza Strip codenamed "Autumn Clouds" that started last Wednesday and are still in force claiming the lives of more than 50 Palestinians so far, according to Hebrew media reports.

The reports, quoting Israeli political sources, followed the USA's refusal to condemn the IOF bloody incursion and held the Palestinians responsible for the invasion.

The Hebrew media quoted the "senior officials" as saying that the American officers were laying down strategic and field plans for the IOF command and means of executing them in the Gaza Strip in a way avoiding any casualties in IOF lines.

The sources said that IOF command had asked Washington to send those officers to oversee IOF plans to invade the Strip, attributing the request for those officers to the IOF failure in its war on Lebanon and sustaining heavy casualties.

(source : www.uruku.net)

(Sunpiking Magazine)

Libellés :

mercredi, novembre 15, 2006

Actualité - Le protecteur de Posada Carriles condamné à une peine risible

Fort Lauredale, États-Unis, 14 novembre — Une Cour fédérale de la Floride a condamné ce mardi le terroriste Santiago Alvarez, bienfaiteur de son complice Luis Posada Carriles, à quatre ans de prison pour avoir conspiré dans le but de constituer un arsenal d’armes de guerre.

Selon la dépêche de l’AFP, Alvarez, âgé de 64 ans, s’était déclaré coupable du délit et avait ainsi évité d’être jugé pour détention de l’arsenal qui incluait des armes automatiques, des grenades,des lance-grenades et des munitions, le tout étant destiné à des plans terroristes contre Cuba.

Osvaldo Mitat a pour sa part été condamné à trois ans de prison pour le même délit de conspiration. Tous deux sont en prison à Miami depuis un an et seront donc libérés sous peu.

Alvarez et Osvaldo Mitat faisaient partie de l’équipage du bateau Santrina qui avait voyagé des îles Mujeres (Mexique), à la Floride pour faire pénétrer illégalement Posada Carriles en territoire nord-américain, un autre délit dont ils n’ont pas eu à répondre devant la justice.

Le juge James Cohn a reconnu que leur objectif final était de lutter pour « une Cuba libre et démocratique », mais il a tout de même ajouté que l’autorité nord-américaine ne pouvait fermer les yeux sur la violation des lois qui régissent la détention d’armes aussi puissantes.

« Nous ne remettons pas en question les motifs sous-jacents, a dit Cohn, mais comme nous le savons tous, les Etats-Unis sont une nation où règne la loi. »

(Granma International)

Libellés :

Actualité - Abu Ghraib torturer sent back to train police

An Iraqi prisoner cowering naked and terrified as a US soldier sics a dog on him. This photo — along with others, for example, showing a hooded prisoner hooked up for electric shocks — exposed the barbarism of the US occupation of Iraq for the world to see.

Nonetheless, the Army seems to have forgotten about the torture when it reassigned one of the soldiers handling the vicious dogs back to Iraq.

Sergeant Santos Cardona, a military police officer from Fullerton, California, who served in 2003 and 2004 at Abu Ghraib as a dog handler, was assigned to return to Iraq. His new assignment was to help train local Iraqi police.

Cardona was brought before a military court earlier this year and convicted of dereliction of duty and aggravated assault. A military judge sentenced him to a fine and demotion in rank. Cardona spent no time behind bars, but served 90 days of hard labour at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

The court acquitted Cardona of seven charges, including attempts to harass a prisoner with his dog. His lawyers argued that Cardona should not be punished because his actions were condoned, if not approved, by officers in charge of the prison and senior Army officials.

After an article about the soldier’s return to Iraq appeared in Time magazine on November 2, the Army announced that it had canceled Cardona’s redeployment. According to an Army press release, Cardona is currently in Kuwait with his unit, the 23rd Military Police Company. His specific duties have not yet been determined.

The Army says that it was concerned about Cardona’s safety, since he is easily identified as one of the abusers at Abu Ghraib.

But the outrage of putting a soldier who attacked Iraqi prisoners with vicious dogs in charge of training Iraq’s police seemed lost on military officials. “This is America spitting in our face”, Imad al Hashimi, a Baghdad pediatrician, told Time. “The sheer arrogance of it is unbelievable.”

(Green Left Weekly - Elizabeth Schulte)

Libellés :

Actualité - People Want Oaxaca Governor Out

Mexico, Nov 15 (Prensa Latina) - As announced, the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO) Wednesday began intensifying actions in that Mexican state seeking the resignation of governor Ulises Ruiz.

APPO leaders indicated they will set up barricades, take public offices, and block roads to demonstrate Oaxaca is ungovernable.

The leaders also informed that on Friday they will rally near the provisional presidential residence of President elect Felipe Calderon to demand the withdrawal of federal Police from the Oaxaca capital.

All social and political organizations defending APPO causes will be well welcomed, they sustained, clarifying that no agreements have been reached with the PRD (Democratic Revolution), the Progressive Wide Front, or any other party.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - Muslims and the Media

Le 26 octobre 2006, Tony Seed, rédacteur en chef de Shunpiking Magazine, a interviewé Sandra L. Smith sur le sujet: Les musulmans et les médias. Sandra est la dirigeante nationale du Parti communiste du Canada (marxiste-léniniste) et la rédactrice en chef du journal quotidien du Parti, Le Marxiste-Léniniste.

* * *

Sur la question des musulmans et des médias, je veux traiter plusieurs points importants. Je n'aborderai pas les exemples courants de désinformation des médias que nous connaissons tous, et que les musulmans connaissent bien car ils en sont les victimes. Je traiterai plutôt de certains aspects de la méthode et de la prémisse de cette désinformation des médias.

Selon la théorie politique qui informe l'État-nation européen, de nombreuses nations ont existé depuis des temps immémoriaux mais seuls les États-nations de style européen ont une histoire. Cet État-nation européen a été créé au XIXe siècle sur le dos des peuples des nations colonisées. Il a encore été imposé aux peuples colonisés qui avançaient vers la libération et l'indépendance au cours de la période qui a suivi immédiatement la Deuxième Guerre mondiale. Le point de vue eurocentrique que seules les nations qui acceptent l'État-nation européen ont une histoire a servi de justification pour saper l'effort des peuples colonisés pour décider de leur mode de vie. Aux XIXe et XXe siècles, l'eurocentrisme a sapé la capacité des peuples colonisés d'établir leurs projets d'édification nationale sur la base de leur propre matériel de pensée et de constituer des États-nations qui soient dans leurs intérêts. Et aujourd'hui, alors que les projets d'édification nationale européens sont en crise, leur imposition aux peuples en lutte pour leur libération provoque des catastrophes sans précédent.

L'histoire est mémoire

Réfléchissons un instant à ceci: L'histoire est mémoire. La mémoire est intelligence. Ainsi, selon cette théorie politique seuls les peuples qui acceptent l'État-nation européen ont l'intelligence et méritent d'appartenir à la communauté internationale des nations. Seuls ces peuples sont dignes de respect.

Si vous n'avez pas d'histoire, vous n'avez pas d'intelligence. Vous n'êtes donc pas humain. Alors que les cultures de l'Orient (lui-même une notion géographique eurocentrique) sont des civilisations millénaires, si elles ne se soumettent pas et ne forment pas des États acceptables pour l'ordre anglo-américain et son élite dominante et n'adhèrent pas à des modes de vie qui lui conviennent, leur État doit être déraciné. C'est ce qui informe la «guerre à la terreur» et la désinformation médiatique anglo-américaines.

Sans comprendre cette prémisse fondamentale et sans pouvoir la rejeter en nous armant d'un guide à l'action qui serve les intérêts des peuples, nous restons vulnérables face à ceux qui exigent que différents pays prouvent qu'ils sont dignes d'être membres de ce qu'on appelle la communauté internationale des nations. Sans ce guide à l'action, nos convictions et nos croyances sont ébranlées sous le feu constant des mensonges et des remises en question.

Vengeance contre ceux qui refusent de renier leur conscience et leurs croyances

Il faut comprendre également que la «guerre à la terreur» actuelle est l'échec des projets d'édification nationale des impérialistes anglo-américains et de leur offensive sioniste pour imposer leur mode de vie aux autres. La persévération des projets échoués entrave gravement la capacité des forces impérialistes dirigées par les États-Unis à réaliser la domination mondiale. Nous assistons donc à leur vengeance. Leur obsession morbide de la défaite les enrage et les conduit à commettre tous les crimes pour vaincre l'esprit humain qui leur résiste. S'ils doivent tomber, ils sont résolus à entraîner le monde dans leur chute.

Leur politique, leur conduite et leurs réactions sont totalement irrationnelles. La «guerre à la terreur» n'est pas une manifestation de la guerre en tant que poursuite de la politique par d'autres moyens. C'est la vengeance contre ceux qui refusent de renier leur conscience et leurs croyances. La vengeance est la plus vile des émotions et la plus vile des motivations. Elle conduit directement à la désintégration des normes de conduite civilisée. Le fait que dans la «guerre à la terreur» la vengeance soit appuyée par les États et les machines militaires les plus puissants que l'humanité ait connus la rend véritablement dangereuse. Mais si nous saisissons comme il faut la méthode de la désinformation impérialiste anglo-américaine et la combattons avec nos projets d'édification nationale, alors les peuples peuvent l'emporter.

Le devoir du gouvernement est de garantir les droits du peuple et d'assurer son bien-être

Il faut bien examiner la méthode des institutions créées par l'État-nation moribond du dix-neuvième siècle. Il avait comme fonction de protéger les propriétaires mâles de race blanche qui s'étaient emparés des terres, des ressources et des marchés des autres. Ils ont imposé une théorie de la gouvernance selon laquelle les partis politiques sont des organisations primaires dont le rôle est d'organiser le vote. Ensuite, par l'élection de députés, la volonté politique claire et cohérente du peuple s'exprime sous la forme d'un gouvernement de parti. Le parti élu reçoit le mandat de traduire la volonté politique en volonté légale. La théorie politique qui informe le système est la même, que le système de démocratie représentative soit le système parlementaire, le système présidentiel ou un mélange des deux.

Les partis politiques avaient et ont pour rôle d'être les gardiens du pouvoir des propriétaires. Leur mission était d'écarter le peuple du pouvoir pendant que les détenteurs de la propriété choisissaient le parti représentant le mieux leurs intérêts. Le peuple ne devait avoir aucun rôle dans les prises de décisions établissant l'orientation de la société, dont dépendent son existence et son bien-être. Aujourd'hui, la plupart de ces partis politiques ont dégénéré en cartels. Les militants à la base sont écartés du pouvoir par une mafia qui contrôle toutes les affaires du parti. Un peu comme l'ensemble du corps politique, les militants à la base ont été réduits à un bassin de votes servant à donner sur commander un vernis de légitimité à la mafia dominante.

La conception du peuple d'un parti politique et d'une démocratie qui permettent l'émergence d'une vision de la société militant en sa faveur, est totalement contraire à ce système. La vision du peuple d'un dirigeant et d'un gouvernement dont le devoir est de garantir les droits du peuple et d'assurer son bien être est une abomination pour ce système. Lorsque la conception du peuple de la démocratie parvient à se manifester dans une élection, les impérialistes n'en acceptent pas le verdict.

Ils consacrent des milliards de dollars à ce qu'ils appellent l'établissement de la démocratie pour imposer leur conception et porter au pouvoir, dans les pays opprimés, ceux qui construiront l'État-nation sur le vieux le modèle colonial européen au service d'intérêts étrangers. C'est pourquoi quiconque s'oppose à la domination étrangère ou défend le bien-être du peuple est qualifié de terroriste et que des pays sont qualifiés d'«État voyou» et de «dictatures» faisant partie d'un «axe du mal». C'est aussi la raison pour laquelle les impérialistes et leurs médias attisent la violence sectaire entre les partis politiques, au sein des partis et entre les différentes communautés, et que leurs services secrets commettent des actes terroristes et en accusent le peuple. Dans un état de guerre civile, toute cohérence est perdue à moins que le peuple bâtisse un rempart contre elle.

L'incitation aux affrontements entre les sectes religieuses, entre les nationalités, entre les communautés et entre les partis politiques est le fait d'un État réactionnaire, qu'il soit national, étranger ou les deux. Les explications intéressées qui blâment le peuple pour la violence sectaire cachent les intérêts et les objectifs que cette violence sert.

L'histoire, la mémoire et la vision d'avenir du peuple

Dans l'histoire des peuples, les différentes communautés s'assemblent depuis les temps immémoriaux. Elles forment des nations, se dotent d'institutions publiques et elles forment des États. Elles ont également un intérêt à continuer de le faire de plus en plus largement à l'avenir, jusqu'à ce qu'il soit possible de concevoir que l'humanité elle-même abatte les frontières et s'établisse sur une base entièrement nouvelle, déterminée par la nécessité d'affirmer les droits humains dans ces conditions.

En l'absence d'un avenir sur la vieille base, les sociétés meurent et les sociétés mourantes dégénèrent et s'enlisent dans la corruption, le crime et la violence. Par contraste, les sociétés qui cherchent à se bâtir un avenir créent les moyens, les forces et le matériel de pensée nécessaires pour apporter des solutions aux problèmes auxquels elles sont confrontées. C'est pour empêcher le peuple de trouver des solutions aux problèmes auxquels ils sont confrontés que les impérialistes anglo-américains imposent par la violence leur modèle dépassé de l'État-nation européen. Ce sont eux, et non les peuples, qui sont à l'origine de la violence sectaire. La désinformation, par les médias ou les agences d'État, est précisément cela: l'oeuvre d'agences secrètes de l'État qui s'acharnent à saper la cohérence du peuple, sa capacité de penser et sa capacité d'agir dans son intérêt. Le terrorisme d'État recourt aux services secrets de l'État pour attaquer des cibles civiles et ensuite blâmer le peuple. Une propagande est faite pour semer le doute sur les motifs de certaines personnes ou sur la vérité des événements. Cette méthode sert à saper la capacité du peuple de s'orienter et de penser rationnellement.

Ainsi, la seule chose qui nous sépare de la destruction, de la corruption, du crime et de la violence qui sont en train de remplacer toutes les normes de conduite humaine civilisée, c'est notre capacité de nous orienter en donnant de la valeur à ce qui sert nos intérêts et à ce qui s'oppose à ceux de nos détracteurs. Nous devons bâtir notre unité là-dessus. C'est ce que nous voulons dire par bâtir nos projets d'édification nationale. Nous seuls pouvons nous donner une vision qui fasse avancer nos sociétés.

Combattre la désinformation

Comme le mot le dit, le but de la désinformation est de renverser la mise en forme: de détruire les formes sociales, politiques, culturelles, religieuses et autres formes que les peuples se sont données. Cela comprend les sociétés organisées et les cultures auxquelles les peuples ont donné naissance et qui leur permettent de s'épanouir en tant que peuples. Ces formes dans lesquelles s'expriment nos vies et nos cultures sont le mur qui nous sépare du rêve de domination mondiale des impérialistes. Ces derniers doivent s'attaquer aux formes pour réaliser leurs desseins et nous devons les défendre. Mais au lieu de vouloir rétablir les formes passées que les impérialistes ont détruites par les attaques de l'État, en défendant notre être nous donnons naissance à de nouvelles formes, de meilleures formes. C'est seulement ainsi que nous pouvons nous épanouir.

Il ne s'agit pas de s'excuser pour les formes historiques et le matériel de pensée qui les sous-tend, mais de les défendre, comme le fait la résistance musulmane. C'est également le rôle des médias: de in-former, de donner une forme cohérence et utile au nouveau contenu.

Nous devons étudier l'objectif et les méthodes de l'information et de la désinformation et en discuter, non pas pour se plaindre, comme si nous pensions que des remèdes vont venir des dieux de la peste, non pas pour se lamenter d'avoir perdu ce qui est passé, mais pour renforcer notre résistance à la destruction, jusqu'à ce que nous puissions renverser la situation et passer à l'offensive. Au lieu de devoir établir à tous les jours ce que nous ne sommes pas, nous pourrons alors proclamer fièrement ce que nous sommes.

Les infidèles sont ceux qui n'ont pas de fidélité à leur mode de vie

Permettez-moi de m'arrêter sur un des nombreux mensonges utilisés pour désinformer notre lutte de résistance. Selon les médias impérialistes, les musulmans considèrent tous les non-musulmans comme des infidèles et leur ennemi. Je crois que c'est carrément un mensonge. C'est un mensonge parce que cette interprétation est contraire à la fière tradition de tolérance établie par l'Islam au fil des siècles. Il a non seulement permis aux peuples conquis de poursuivre leurs religions et leurs cultures, mais il les a encouragés à le faire. Il en est demeuré ainsi jusqu'à ce que ses projets d'édification nationale s'égarent en l'absence de visions renouvelées.

Mais plus important que ces vérités historiques, il faut voir que ce mensonge est conçu pour subvertir le riche matériel de pensée qui est à l'origine du projet d'édification nationale mahométan.

À l'époque, alors que la guerre tribale faisait place au besoin d'édification nationale, la corruption des quelques-uns fit obstacle à l'unification en tant que peuple. L'histoire appelait à la création d'une autorité correspondant aux conditions et aux besoins du peuple dans les conditions d'alors. Des individus corrompus y firent obstacle. Ils se servirent de leur position pour contrer l'unification en tant que peuple. C'est alors que l'Islam définit les infidèles comme étant ceux qui n'avaient pas de fidélité à leur propre mode de vie, qu'il soit islamique ou autre. Ceux-ci n'avaient aucune conscience de leurs responsabilités sociales et donc aucune conscience ou conviction. Ils étaient des lâches, des personnes sans fidélité à aucun principe.

La philosophie à l'époque servait à expliquer les rapports entres les individus et le rapport entre les êtres humains et la nature. Elle devrait le faire aujourd'hui également. Ce n'était pas une philosophie de maraudeurs selon laquelle la vérité est ce qui marche et la fin justifie les moyens.

Les peuples ayant d'autres cultures, systèmes politiques et religions qui adhéraient fièrement à leurs croyances et à leur mode de vie, et qui respectaient le droit des autres d'en faire autant, ne sont pas considérés comme des infidèles. Aujourd'hui les impérialistes sont les maraudeurs infidèles. Et comme toujours, quand les vrais infidèles ne parviennent pas à réaliser leurs objectifs avec une méthode donnée, ils s'adaptent pour survivre. C'est que pour eux, il n'y a pas de principe, il n'y a pas de culture, il n'y a que la croyance enragée que la fin justifie les moyens.

Ainsi, aujourd'hui ces infidèles s'adaptent. Ils ne parviennent pas à rallier les peuples à leur «guerre à la terreur» en démonisant ceux qui refusent de se soumettre à leur diktat. Maintenant ils prétendent respecter toutes les religions et toutes les cultures, tout en déclarant que l'«intégrisme islamique», ou ce qu'ils appellent l'«islamofascisme», et le communisme sont des idéologies de haine et que ceux qui épousent ces idéologies de haine doivent être bannis par la loi. De cette façon les impérialistes utilisent leur pouvoir et institutions d'État pour criminaliser la conscience.

Les constructions mentales qu'ils appellent «intégrisme islamique» et «islamofascisme» servent à créer le précédent qui permette de bannir par la loi toute résistance musulmane aux tentatives de l'impérialisme anglo-américain de s'emparer de pays d'Asie et d'Afrique et de supprimer également la résistance de tous ceux qui vivent dans le ventre de la bête impérialiste. Aujourd'hui, toute croyance qui fait obstacle à la cause impérialiste est attaquée sous prétexte que c'est une idéologie de haine. Aujourd'hui l'impérialisme anglo-américain veut criminaliser tous ceux qui refusent d'accepter ses valeurs, son mode de vie et son diktat. Ceux-ci sont qualifiés d'intégristes, d'extrémistes et de terroristes.

Unissons-nous à la défense des droits de tous

À mon avis, dire sa pensée est un défi de plus en plus grand dans la période qui vient. Mais c'est une bataille que les impérialistes ne peuvent pas gagner. La survie est une activité propre à l'existence animale, pas à l'existence humaine. Doté comme il l'est de la connaissance, de la capacité de concevoir le manque par abstraction, de réfléchir et de planifier, l'activité propre à l'être humain n'est pas de survivre par l'adaptation. C'est de vivre, de grandir, de s'épanouir. Si l'un adhère à des croyances fondamentalistes ou à des croyances libérales, c'est une affaire de conscience. La politisation et la judiciarisation de la croyance sont inadmissibles. Seules les choses que le public accepte de rendre publiques et de soumettre à la délibération et au sujet desquelles il se forme une conviction de ce qui est bien pour la société dans son ensemble, peuvent faire l'objet de récompense et de châtiment. Et c'est nous le peuple qui sommes le public. Ce sont nos délibérations qui comptent. Les médias ont un important rôle à jouer à informer, à mener la délibération et à former la conviction. Un point de départ serait d'accepter le monde tel qu'il est, pas tel que nous souhaitions qu'il soit. Nous acceptons les conditions telles qu'elles sont pour les transformer. Nous ne sommes pas nécessairement d'accord avec ces conditions, mais nous nous basons sur ce qui est. Nous ne pouvons nous permettre de nous laisser envahir par l'idéal du monde que nous voulons uniquement parce que nous ne sommes pas d'accord avec ce qu'il est. Nous devons choyer notre expérience directe, tirer les conclusions qui s'imposent et nous doter de guides à l'action qui nous unissent dans notre cause commune. Nous devons nous unir en défendant les droits de tous.

Ce sont quelques-unes des conclusions que moi et l'équipe rédactionnelle et technique du Marxiste-Léniniste et des journalistes qui écrivent pour Le Marxiste-Léniniste parmi les travailleurs et parmi les personnes qui luttent, tirons. Nous faisons tout ce que nous pouvons pour chercher la vérité dans les faits en gardant à l'esprit l'appel de l'histoire. La notion impérialiste de la fin de l'histoire sert à nier la mémoire, c'est-à-dire nier l'intelligence pour que les peuples ne puissent s'unir sur la base d'un effort commun pour apporter aux problèmes réels des solutions viables qui servent l'humanité. Nous sommes résolus à aller de l'avant durant l'année qui vient pour qu'ensemble nous puissions faire le pas audacieux nécessaire à la défense des droits de tous.

(Traduit de l'anglais par Le Marxiste-Léniniste)

(Shunpiking Magazine)

Libellés :

mardi, novembre 14, 2006

Actualité - Indigenous America: 'A new era has begun'

Bolivia, a country with a majority indigenous population, now has its first indigenous president, Evo Morales. Morales, who won the December 2005 presidential election, doesn't just identify as indigenous, he is a fighter for the indigenous cause. His presidency is a massive step forward for indigenous rights - not only in Bolivia, but in Latin America, and possibly even the world.

Morales led a life typical of indigenous Bolivians. He grew up in a poor rural Andean community, where several of his siblings died at birth. He dropped out of high school because of his family's lack of income, and then migrated to the humid tropical jungles of Bolivia's Chapare province (an area of coca farming) to be a young peasant farmer.

In the late 1980s he became part of the leadership of Chapare's militant farmers' union. Working with community networks, the cocaleros (coca growers) movement held protests, marches, sit-ins and road blockades to overturn the Bolivian government's Washington-pushed policy of coca-leaf eradication.

Indigenous people in Latin America, as in the world generally, are frequently the poorest people with the least access to education and condemned to the worst living standards. They are usually marginalised and excluded from government and social participation.

Morales calls it the "500 years of damage" - 500 years of colonialism and extermination. Neoliberalism, he says, has been looting their natural resources and he told the UN General Assembly on September 19 that "privatisation of basic services is the best way of violating human rights".

Almost 90% of Bolivia's productive land is still owned by just 50,000 families, while 80% of the rural population remain in crippling poverty. Agrarian reform has been one of the new government's main priorities. On June 3, Morales decreed a national agrarian reform program, and in Santa Cruz, an eastern Bolivian city, he handed out the first titles under this program, distributing 30,000 square kilometres of state-owned land to rural indigenous communities.

The plan is to redistribute 20 million hectares (a fifth of Bolivia's total land) over the next five years. The government also wants to provide subsidies, credits and equipment to small-scale agricultural producers. Morales has pledged the government's support for "ecological products" and aims to turn Bolivia into an "organic country" that produces crops without chemical fertilisers or pesticides.

It won't be a smooth ride, however. Morales has also said he will confiscate non-productive private land for redistribution, and the large-scale landowners aren't happy. Leaders of the federation representing large landowners walked out of talks with the government in May and warned that they would form paramilitary "self-defence" groups to protect their estates.

In June, Bolivian businessperson Luis del Rio hired a group of Ayoreo indigenous people to attack other indigenous people he said were squatting on property he claimed to own in the eastern part of Santa Cruz.

Optimism towards the agrarian decrees should be cautious. The nationalisation of the energy industry which was decreed in May had to be "temporarily suspended" in August. Nevertheless, Morales's election, on the back of a mass social uprising, has inspired hope in indigenous communities across Latin America.

In his UN speech, Morales talked of a process of Bolivia gaining dignity, including not being bossed around by the US. He called on the UN to approve the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous people, which has taken the past 20 years to put together. This declaration, adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in June, but still being considered for adoption by the UN General Assembly (with Washington and Canberra likely to vote against it), recognises the rights of indigenous peoples to their land and resources and to live as they choose.

It says that indigenous people must be protected from forced assimilation and that the holders, or seekers, of commercial patents on seeds, plants and other forms of traditional knowledge must first obtain consent from the communities that discovered or developed the assets in the first place.

Even if it is adopted, the declaration is merely a recommendation rather than law, but it will hopefully be a further tool that can be used by the indigenous movement in its struggle.

The day before the UN session, Morales held a meeting with tribal leaders from North America. Among other things, they decided to work together to get the Vatican to rescind the Papal Bull of 1493, which declared them heathens and savages. Such formal relations are a positive step towards indigenous people working together globally and starting to end their marginalisation.

Another step was October 12: Previously a day of blood and genocide - marking the day Columbus arrived in the Americas, a symbolic start to the invasion and colonisation by the European powers - it has now been changed into a Day of Indigenous Resistence by the indigenous movement. As Jose Bove, of the International Movement of Farmers, said, it's a day of "visibility of resistance and solidarity in order to transform reality".

At the Second Continental Summit of the Indigenous Peoples and Nationalities of Abya Yala held October 8-12, thousands of indigenous representatives met under the slogan "Of the resistance to the power" in La Paz, Bolivia.

The call for the conference explained: "The policies of colonisation are policies of death. The indigenous people and farmers together with the social and popular movements defend the culture of life. Mother earth is being destroyed by interests foreign to us, but we will become the watchers of the future of humanity."

It continued, "In Bolivia we have the indigenous president, Evo Morales Ayma, who, with his example of struggle and his social, political and cultural commitment, inspires the social and popular movements to follow that path and Š to take power".

At the conference, Morales proposed a document that called for the elimination of illiteracy and malnutrition and for a public system that guarantees access to health, education and drinking water and for the generation of sustainable and productive jobs.

He argued for the legalisation of the coca leaf and for fair trade that benefits all of South America. He also proposed energy integration and the creation of a Bank of the South.

The document also had a special section devoted to policies dealing with the preservation of the environment, biodiversity and alternative, sustainable management of natural resources. It strongly supported the recovery of the harmonic coexistence practices of indigenous people with nature.

The aim of the event was to create ties between a large range of indigenous people and rural indigenous organisations and to coordinate action against the neoliberal system.

Conference participants concluded that their next challenge was to create a continental organisation that builds the resistance and responds to the problems indigenous people are facing in their countries.

Rafael Joy, a delegate from Honduras, said that the example that Bolivia is giving is fundamental to the advance of the process of organisation and mobilisation. He said that a strong indigenous resurgence exists. "The indigenous people have a common history, from conquest, colonisation, the republican period Š and representative democracy. Our people and communities have maintained their culture."

Miguel Palsin Quispe, the Andean coordinator of the Indigenous Organisations of Peru, agreed that the La Paz meeting enabled the construction of a common agenda.

The conference's final declaration was strong, serious and salient. It said that despite 514 years of oppression and domination, indigenous people are still here, the colonialists or imperialists have not been able to eliminate them.

It declared that nation states must recognise that the existence of indigenous people has allowed the preservation of biodiversity. This is why they must be given the resources to independently look after themselves rather than promoting the privatisation of their resources and their traditional and spiritual knowledge. Their form of governing must be respected and recognised. If not, their marginalisation will continue.

As well, it condemned US interventionist policy and supported "the struggles of the Cuban and Venezuelan governments who defend free determination". It supported the efforts of Morales's movement to "re-found" Bolivia and called on the world to give solidarity to this process.

These important developments in the indigenous movement have had a particular impact in Guatemala, which, along with Bolivia, is one of the only two other Latin American countries that has a majority indigenous population. So when Morales spoke there recently he had the full attention of his audience (mostly indigenous leaders) in a packed room in the country's national palace.

A key demand for indigenous Guatemalans has been to reclaim their control over natural resources, so when Morales said at this meeting that he was "convinced that indigenous people are the absolute owners of this noble land and the natural resources", it had a lot of resonance.

Mayan communities have been protesting privatisation and mining in Guatemala, which have had a big impact on their lives. In mid-September, hundreds Maya Kekchi indigenous families occupied land owned by a Canadian nickel mining firm. Other indigenous communities have turned to national laws and international conventions on indigenous rights to control development in their territories.

There are 23 linguistic groups in Guatemala and cultural and political divisions have been a significant block in the creation of a national indigenous movement. This is similarly true on a larger scale across the continent.

However, Morales's victory has provided a leg-up to a movement whose real strength and unity is in its diversity. As Morales said at the October 12 conference, the Bolivian government will face many problems, because "it is difficult to change the dark history of 500 years of exclusion that indigenous people lived under". But at the same time, as, the declaration of the conference stated, "a new era has begun for the original indigenous people, the times of change have arrived".

(Source: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #689 8 November 2006)

(Shunpiking - Tamara Pearson)

Libellés : ,

Actualité - Alive, Well and Gaining Strength - The Korea, Vietnam, Iraq Syndrome

"Two, Three, Many Vietnams"! was Che Guevara's famous call to arms. Today we remain in the throes of our third Vietnam, Iraq. This is the third time since World War II that hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops have been sent abroad in a neo-colonialist war.

The first "Vietnam" was in fact Korea. And it was the first war to be televised to the relatively few TV sets then in existence. Americans saw the bloody battles in black and white with American soldiers killed day after day. At the end of it all about 50,000 Americans and a million Asians were dead, at the hands of Harry S. Truman who was deeply reviled as the result of the war. Truman was unexpectedly defeated in the first New Hampshire primary and withdrew from the presidential race, which Eisenhower won on the promise of "going to Korea" and ending the war--which he did, much to his credit. Today we do not hear much about Eisenhower; but the bloodthirsty Truman, the only human being to order the incineration of hundreds of thousands with nuclear weapons of mass destruction, is hailed by the likes of Democrat neocon Peter Beinart and other Democratic neocons as a model for Democrats today. However, at the time of Korea organized, antiwar sentiment was miniscule and there was little to no protest over the draft.

Next was Vietnam itself where our historical memory often seems to begin when most pundits discuss war, apparently because their knowledge of history only springs from their own personal memories. Kennedy and the rest of "the best and the brightest" Democrats started this war and by its ending another 50,000 Americans and two million Southeast Asians, by Robert McNamara's count, had been killed. Kennedy was another "tough" Democrat, decrying a supposed missile gap and promising to send troops anywhere in the world for "freedom." But this time a massive opposition grew, slowly at first and then gaining in speed. By 1968, Johnson had suffered the same fate as Truman in New Hampshire and he was driven from office. By 1964 there were sizable campus and street demonstrations against the war, driven by Old Left and New, and by 1969 the demonstrations had grown to hundreds of thousands. The draft became untenable and was abolished. From now on the empire builders would have to make do with an "all-volunteer" army recruited mainly from the ranks of those who were strapped for cash or mesmerized by the culture of war.

Now we have Iraq. And in this last election, the President who brought it upon us was handed a resounding defeat--just as were Truman and Johnson before him. But this time millions in the U.S. marched against the war before it started, and 23 Senators refused to rubber stamp Bush's call to arms. Even the military was reluctant, and it took enormous exertions of deception and manipulation, like calling for a vote a month before the 2002 elections, leading most politicians to vote their careers and ambitions instead of stopping the unnecessary slaughter that knew lay ahead. Once again the United States has left its signature in Iraq, killing around 500,000 so far and probably more than that due to the Clintonian sanctions leading up to the war. It seems that a consistent U.S. strategy, its signature, is to level any third world country and visit mass murder on its population if that country is considered an enemy. The hope is obviously that those who displease the American Empire will know that there is a great price to pay. Although American deaths have fallen far short of those in Korea and Vietnam, the tens of thousands of injuries would have been deaths in those earlier wars.

Vietnam generated more opposition than Korea and now Iraq has generated more opposition and earlier opposition than Vietnam--despite the absence of the draft, which did so much to mobilize opposition to the war on Vietnam. (Now we have Max Boot, resident neocon at the LA Times calling for an army of foreign-born mercenaries who can be rewarded for their fighting with U.S. citizenship.) And opposition to this war does not come mainly or principally from students but from all segments of the population. It was a grown-up opposition, symbolized by Lila Lipscomb and Cindy Sheehan, whose sons were taken from them by the machinations of the neocons. (The drawback to the lack of youth has been a dearth of militancy and radicalism and uncompromising idealism.) The opposition has sprung not only from the Left, but from Libertarians and the non neocon Right which has returned to its anti-imperial roots, largely abandoned after WW. This stance is routinely smeared with the "isolationist" label to no avail, and I soon expect to see bumper stickers proclaiming "Isolationist, and Proud of It."

The fact is that we have come a long way. The American people are increasingly dissatisfied with war and Empire--in fact we are sick to death of it. The Vietnam syndrome is no longer adequate to describe the phenomenon since it is now the product of three colonial wars. Properly it should be called the "Korea, Vietnam, Iraq Syndrome." The masters of Empire, both Democrat and Republican, will try to "cure" us of this sentiment, and we must be wary of this, but in the end they will not succeed. They have lost the battle in Iraq, and they have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans to sustain an empire.

So we stand on the threshold of a full-blown Anti-imperial movement if we can pull it off. We need to consolidate this now before the Empire decides that it must wage war on China--which was part of the motivation for Iraq in the first place and is now finding its way into the screed of the propagandists of empire. We have the forces, from Left and Right, to generate such a movement. We must do it--or with the advance of technology, we may all perish by accident if not by design.

(Counterpunch.com - John Walsh)

Libellés :

Actualité - War, social inequality and the crisis of American democracy - Part one

The election to be held on Tuesday will be highly significant. It will tell us something about the political environment and conditions that exist in the United States. As always, the outcome is difficult to predict because there are many variables involved. One has to measure the relationship between the immense disgust and hatred that exist toward the Bush administration and the fact that the Democratic Party does not put forward, and cannot put forward, a program that appeals to broad masses of people. So the question of turnout is very important.

But if the Democrats regain control the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate, it will reveal the vast chasm that exists between the sentiments of millions of people who want to vote because they think they are voting against the policies being pursued by the government of the United States and the political agenda of the ruling elite that controls both political parties.

We speak of a crisis of American democracy, but what do we mean?

The very nature of the alternatives presented to us in this election manifests the crisis of American democracy. What is democracy? I believe the best definition was provided by the sixteenth president of the United States—“government of the people, for the people, by the people.” How can you have that when the very mechanisms by which the personnel of the government is determined are totally hostile to any expression of the interests of the people themselves?

How does one get on the ballot? What are the alternatives before you? Twelve thousand people signed petitions to place John Burton, a candidate of the Socialist Equality Party, on the ballot for the US House of Representatives from this district, but that was insufficient according to the electoral laws.

The obstacles are immense: gerrymandering, restrictions placed on petitioning, the skullduggery of the political operatives of the Democratic Party—as we found in Illinois. In one way or another, one confronts immense challenges even in obtaining ballot access.

The result is that in a country with 300 million people—one that is extraordinarily diverse ethnically, religiously and in relation to international background, not to speak of the most fundamental distinction of all, social differentiation and economic position—all of the vast differences in American society are funneled into two political parties, both of which have existed for more than a century and a half, whose programs in no way speak to the interests and needs of millions of people.

How is this possible? When you go to the grocery store or the pharmacy, how many brands of toothpaste are there? Mouthwash, deodorant, razor blades? But when it comes to the most important choice of all, the choice of political programs, what do you have? Two political parties which are, in a fundamental sense, identical.

What really exists is a one-party system presented as a two-party system. And, as we will examine somewhat later, the inter-relationship of the two is extremely important in terms of regulating debate within this country.

We have elections in which hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars are spent, including millions in every congressional district. What does it cost to buy a seat in Congress today? It depends in large part on the part of the country in which the district is located. If you’re running for Congress in New York City, it can be as high as $10 million. If you’re running for the Senate, it can be $20 million, $25 million, even $30 million. And yet for all of that, what is the level of political discussion? What are the issues that are being examined?

This is not a small issue. There should be some relation between democracy and the education of the people, between politics and the level of political consciousness that prevails.

In 1815, two veteran politicians, somewhat past the political wars of their earlier lives, engaged in a lengthy correspondence. One of the pieces of that correspondence was a letter written by one of the parties, John Adams, the second president of the United States and one of the major leaders of the American Revolution. He was writing to an old adversary who, in the last years of the two men, became his closest friend—Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson had posed the question in an earlier letter: what was the revolution in which we both participated and to which we had dedicated our lives and our sacred honor? Adams said something very interesting. He said the revolution was not the war. The war was a consequence of the revolution.

The real revolution did not take place after 1775. It took place before 1775—between 1760 and 1775, a period of 15 years marked by an extraordinary growth of political consciousness among the masses of colonials. The revolution took place in the minds of the people. And it was that which made possible the extraordinary development of consciousness which found its most sublime expression in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and, later on, in the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Adams actually said that if you want to trace the development of consciousness, read the newspapers, read the pamphlets, read the leaflets which were being circulated by the tens of thousands in the old colonies, and there you will see the real development of revolution.

At a somewhat later period of history, on the eve of the Civil War, the great debates between Lincoln and Douglas took place. Lincoln’s contributions remain to this day an extraordinary summation of the issues that led to the abolition of slavery in the United States.

As a matter of fact, Lincoln himself was a candidate whose political life was, to a major extent, dependent upon his ability to articulate and explain the great issues of his age. The turning point in Lincoln’s candidacy actually came in February of 1860. The candidate from Illinois was invited to participate in a speaking tour. He went to Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut, but the big meeting was to be held in New York, where the lions of the new Republican Party were going to take the measure of the provincial from Illinois.

When Lincoln appeared on stage in an ill-fitting suit—he was hardly the most handsome man in the world and wouldn’t pass muster with our media today—there was something of a chuckle. Then he began to speak. He laid out in the next 90 minutes an extraordinarily comprehensive assessment of the constitutional issues posed by the slavery question.

He reviewed the position of all the founders. This was a detailed, concise, brilliant analysis, which almost overnight made it clear to everyone that Lincoln was a major force. And it transformed his candidacy into something that was credible. He became the Republican candidate and, fortunately, the president of the United States.

Look at the situation today. What issues have been discussed? What questions have been raised? Let us put it somewhat differently? What has been suppressed? What can’t be discussed?

The bloodbath in Iraq

This morning the media was full of reports of the conviction of Saddam Hussein and the decision that he is to be hanged. He was convicted for putting to death hundreds of Iraqis.

Let us consider another fact that has not been widely reported or discussed. It was briefly mentioned in the press but that was about it. It was a study put out by Johns Hopkins University in October. Johns Hopkins is a major institution, and it presented a study which established, based on the most advanced statistical methods, that the number of Iraqis who have died since March 2003 as a result of the American intervention and occupation is 655,000.

Six hundred fifty-five thousand human beings have perished as a result of this country’s invasion of Iraq. Six hundred fifty-five thousand!

I have heard various reports of the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein and the number of people killed. Even if one accepts the highest figure that I’ve seen, in the area of 150,000 to 200,000, that’s less than a third of the number of people who have died in just three years as a result of the American invasion.

Six hundred fifty-five thousand people represent approximately 2.5 percent of the population of Iraq. Two-and-a-half percent of the population! Apply that percentage to the United States. A cataclysm of that scale would have cost the lives of 7.5 million Americans out of a population of 300 million.

Saddam Hussein is to be held accountable for his crimes, though I must make the point that no one can accept, if one is serious about democratic rights, the procedures that were adopted by that court. But he’s been given the death penalty—a penalty that we oppose. But what shall be the punishment for those who have carried out a war, based on a violation of international law, resulting in the deaths of 655,000 people? What level of accountability shall there be?

One has an indication in the way the media responded. One would think that the report that 655,000 people had died would produce a massive shock throughout the country. Well, there were brief reports in the press. The day after the report appeared, Bush was asked at a press conference what his response was, and he simply said that the report was not credible. There was no follow-up question, and I haven’t seen a single article in the mainstream press—the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times—in which the statement by Bush that the Johns Hopkins University report was not credible was subjected to critical investigation.

The editor of the New York Times, Bill Keller, came to the University of Michigan, and one of our reporters asked him to explain the silence of his newspaper. He just brushed it off. The story has been simply dismissed.

Yet it should be the subject of the most intense discussion and debate within the United States, especially when one asks oneself: what will be the consequences? What must follow from a nation being implicated in so great a crime? Does one really think that the United States could wipe out two-and-a-half percent of a population of another country and not suffer consequences, not just in Iraq, but in our own country?

During the constitutional debates of 1787 in Philadelphia, one of the delegates, George Mason from Virginia, addressed the question of slavery. He was a slave owner, but an opponent of slavery. He said, in words that sent a chill down the spine of every delegate, “Unlike individuals, the crimes of nations are not punishable in another world, in the hereafter. The crimes of nations are punished in this world, and the form of that punishment is a national calamity.”

Seventy-five years later, the nature of that calamity was revealed: the American Civil War. And Lincoln, in his great second inaugural address, invoked the words of Mason when he said that the scourge of the war was the punishment for the crime of slavery, in which both North and South had participated.

The bloodbath orchestrated by the government of the United States, with the full collaboration of the Democratic Party and the media, has definite implications. The state of American democracy, its visible disintegration before our eyes, is one of the forms being taken by the developing national calamity.

The torture of Jose Padilla

Another development occurred recently which was also barely mentioned. Just last week, November 2, the New York Times ran a very strange Associated Press report on page 19, entitled “Padilla’s Papers Detail Charges of Mistreatment.” The article began, “Jose Padilla has asserted that he was tortured during his three-and-a-half years in custody as an enemy combatant, including being threatened with execution and forced to stand for long periods. Padilla’s lawyers are asking the federal judge to dismiss the terror support charges against him because he suffered from outrageous government conduct during more than 1,300 days in military custody.”

Padilla, as I’m sure you all know, is the man always referred to as “the former Chicago gang member.” That’s his persona. The report was referring to papers filed by Padilla’s lawyers one month earlier. It took one month for the New York Times to report that lawyers had filed papers detailing what amounts to the systematic torture of an American citizen.

In these legal papers Padilla’s lawyers detail and document the most horrifying treatment. Mr. Padilla was picked up in 2002. His lawyers explain that for a period of nearly two years, this man was kept in a state of complete isolation. He saw no one. He did not know what time of day it was, he did not know what time of year it was, he did not know where he was.

He was kept in a cell 7 feet wide and 12 feet long, he had no view of anything outside of his cell, he was not allowed to see daylight. He was kept in a unit of a prison facility in which he was the only captive.

His only human contact for just short of two years occurred when food was shoved into his cell. He was systematically abused physically, he was subjected to systematic and sustained sleep deprivation, he did not have any access to reading materials, he was even deprived of the right to clean himself for weeks at a time. When he was subjected to cleaning—and I use the word “subjected” advisedly—it was under the most abusive and humiliating circumstances. He did not have, for months at a time, a mattress or a pillow.

If one saw in a film the conditions under which Padilla was confined—a film about the treatment of a prisoner of some brutal totalitarian dictator—one would be horrified. Yet this is precisely what has happened to this man in the United States.

Again, what has been reported on it? Who has been questioned? His treatment has been dictated by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. That is where the authority for such treatment lies. We are now living in a country where this can happen.

I should add that Padilla was injected with PCPs and LSD. Everything has been done to destroy this man mentally, under conditions in which we don’t even know what he supposedly did.

Habeas corpus and the Military Commission Act of 2006

The last development that has taken place in the course of this election campaign, which should be brought to your attention, is the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This is perhaps the most significant expression of the actual state of American democratic institutions.

It is immensely important that this bill be studied and read. Not many people have—and this, in itself, is an important issue. Let me draw your attention to two wonderful studies of the American Revolution. One is called The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, and the other is The Making of the American Republic. Both books describe the environment that existed in the colonies—in particular, the acute sense of the danger posed to democratic rights.

The British were in some ways befuddled by the whole eruption, because the American colonials had far better conditions than were available to anyone in England. They couldn’t understand why the American colonists would become so extraordinarily upset over what appeared to them to be, at most, theoretical violations of rights, not real ones.

One of the English parliamentarians who was sympathetic to the colonial cause, Edmund Burke, said that the Americans were unusual in that they augured the approach of tyranny in every “tainted breeze.” The revolutionary leader John Dickinson said the difference between Americans and other nations that had lost their freedom was that the latter were not inclined to act until it was too late, until the abuses against their freedom had already taken effect. Americans, however, detected at an early stage threats to their liberty.

One of the tragedies of our present environment is that this skill has been largely lost. And therefore laws go into effect that contribute enormously to stripping people of their democratic rights before the people are aware it has happened.

What is a military commission? How is it different from a court martial?

A court martial is a military procedure in which rules of evidence prevail. There is a defense, which the military judges respect. The defense lawyer is expected to conduct a vigorous defense of his client and not be an arm of the military brass in the courtroom.

A military commission is another matter altogether. It is basically a form of drumhead justice. In the past, it has been used under conditions in which there was a complete breakdown of civilian courts—a war or civil war situation. Someone is dragged before a military commission and given rough justice.

A law has now been written as an extensive amendment to the uniform code of military justice which creates a class of people known as alien illegal enemy combatants who are effectively stripped of all rights. Anything can be done with them. Virtually all of the most critical rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are denied.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. That’s gone. The Fifth Amendment guarantees protection against self-incrimination. The new law, by justifying the most severe forms of interrogation, puts an end to that. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy trial. That’s thrown out. A man or woman can be held indefinitely as this law is written. The Eighth Amendment guarantees protection against cruel and unusual punishment. That’s gone.

We’re talking here of very serious matters, because all the rights that exist in the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights have their own extended history. They were the product of an assimilation of long historical experience.

Let us take the question of unreasonable searches and seizures. It was battled over in England for hundreds of years. And much of this, as otherwise in the Constitution, arose out of the experience of the struggle against the uncontrolled autocratic power of the king, of the monarchy.

In 1760, in arguing for a bill that would protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, William Pitt defended the sovereignty of the individual against an intrusive state: “The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”

The scale of the violation represented by the military commission law is summed up in two of its elements, which contain all the other violations within them. The first is an explicit statement under a section called “Habeas Corpus Matters.” It says, “No court, Justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States.”

What is habeas corpus? Many people do not know—which is frightening and, in some ways, an expression of the erosion that has taken place in democratic consciousness.

Habeas corpus is a writ that is the foundation of personal freedom. It means that you cannot be seized and thrown into custody without the state producing a legal justification for your incarceration. In other words, if you walk out of this meeting, a couple of guys grab you, throw you into a police van, and take you off to prison, you go into court and demand an explanation of the legal basis on which you are being held.

This new law creates a whole category of people who completely lose that right. So you’re back to conditions which prevail under dictatorships, or prevailed before this right was established, not simply in the American Revolution, but before that. In fact the origins of habeas corpus go all the way back to Magna Carta in the thirteenth century, and even further to the eleventh and tenth centuries.

What are the implications of this? The real fight for habeas corpus took place in England in the seventeenth century in the struggle of Parliament against the monarchy—the Stuarts—who claimed the divine right of kings. A series of laws was ultimately passed, the petition of rights, the great Habeas Corpus Act of 1639, in which the right to have oneself defended against seizure by the state in an abuse of power was decided. It was decided in law, but then a revolution was required, ultimately resulting in the execution of the monarch, in 1649, and still another—the Glorious Revolution— in which these rights were more or less secured.

This brings me to another important point. The new law is directed against alien enemy combatants. “Alien” means non-citizen. I have heard people say, “Well, it’s only non-citizens.”

From the democratic standpoint, this is entirely unacceptable. Aside from the fact that there are millions of people in the United States who are non-citizens, who have not been naturalized, habeas corpus historically has applied to all those who are in the country. To put it very simply: if someone commits a crime, he can’t claim that he’s excused from following the laws of the United States because he’s a non-citizen.

The application of habeas corpus has great historical resonance, which I want to illustrate in two important cases.

The first was the case of a man by the name of Robert Somerset. Robert Somerset was a slave who was brought by his master from Jamaica to England. His master was sojourning in England. There was a well-advanced movement against slavery in England, and it came to the attention of opponents of the slave trade that this man, Robert Somerset, was aboard an English ship in London harbor, about to be sent back to Jamaica by his owner, who had sold him and wanted to pocket the profit.

Attorneys in London got together, produced a writ, and went into court demanding Mr. Somerset be produced and an explanation given as to the legal basis for his incarceration aboard a ship in London harbor. The owner thought this was absurd. He had documents proving Somerset was his slave and he had sold him. No big deal.

One of the first questions that came up was the validity of the contract, and there were questions at least in the judge’s mind as to whether this was a valid contract—whether Mr. Somerset could have possibly been a party to his own incarceration as a slave.

Underlying the whole issue was slavery, and whether the laws of England, including habeas corpus, protected all those who were in England, even a man defined as a slave. A young attorney for Somerset made a speech in which he said, “The laws of England are too pure for a slave to breathe,” meaning that in England the air was free, all men partook of it, and slavery could not be invoked as a justification in England for holding a man in prison. Somerset was released. His owner was unhappy, but that was the beginning of the removal of all those who were called “sojourner” slaves, and it resonates in our own history.

The second was the infamous case of Dred Scott, in which the argument that non-citizens were not subject to constitutional protections came up. The argument was that because Dred Scott was black, he was therefore not a citizen and thus he could not petition the court for his freedom, on the grounds that once a slave always a slave. He had no constitutional rights.

So, when the statement is now made that an alien does not have rights of habeas corpus one sees a grotesque violation of constitutional and democratic principles, and the creation of an entire category of people with, essentially, no rights. Lincoln said, “This country cannot exist half slave and half free.” How can you have a constitutional system which becomes selective? All of these great historical issues are coming back and confronting us.

(World Socialist Web Site - David North, 14 November 2006)

Libellés :

Actualité - Rumsfeld Summoned for War Crimes

Berlin, Nov 14 (Prensa Latina) - A group of international lawyers charged former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Tuesday for atrocities committed by US soldiers in Iraq and the illegal Guantanamo Base, Cuba.

The lawyers presented a 220-page document to Germany´s federal Attorney General Monika Harms, local press reported.

The demand calls for Harms to open an investigation and then a trial against top US officials for war crimes committed in the framework of the so called anti-terror war.

The accusation is based on denunciations of tortures on at least eleven prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail, in Baghdad´s outskirts, and one prisoner at the Guantanamo base, in Cuba´s easternmost tip.

The violent methods used to obtain information during the interrogations were indirectly admitted by the White House, by recognizing the existence of the program known as Rendition.

German lawyers had previously presented fruitless accusations against top US officials, but they hope to have success this time, after Rumsfeld´s resignation amid the Republican failure in the recent midterm elections in United States.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - Oaxaca Rips Ruiz, maybe Calderon

Mexico, Nov 14 (Prensa Latina) - The Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO) announced the beginning of an action plan to insist on the removal of Gov. Ulises Ruiz.

Reinstallation of barricades, occupation of public offices and roadblocks are among the measures they will implement in the regions of that southern Mexican state.

According to APPO leader Zenen Bravo Castellanos, demonstrations could even extend against president-elect Felipe Calderon if on Dec 1, Ruiz is still in the post.

Meanwhile, the constitutive congress of that organization, ending Monday, decided that APPO will be collectively run without a particular leader.

A state council composed by 260 people will represent the eight regions of Oaxaca and the different sectors in the movement.

Former political prisoners and those who have arrest warrants against them for participating in the movement will be honor members.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

lundi, novembre 13, 2006

Actualité - Palestine: Butchery in Beit Hanoun

In the deadliest single attack on Palestinians in four years, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) killed 19 civilians at Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip on November 8. Seven homes were bombed in the early hours of the morning as the victims slept and, according to the Gaza-based United Nations Relief and Works Agency, more than 60 civilians were injured in the attack.

UNRWA reported: “The Al-Athamneh family lost 17 members including four women, five children and two infants, one of them two years old, the other 9 months old.” The family are refugees under UNRWA’s mandate. Aljazeera’s online news service reported on November 9 that Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni called the massacre “a regrettable incident”.

The shelling of the civilian homes on Hamad Street came at the end of a week-long siege of Beit Hanoun, dubbed “Operation Autumn Clouds” by the IDF, ostensibly aimed at halting the firing of Qassam rockets into Israel by Palestinian militants. The November 1-7 assault on the town of 28,000 people left at least 52 Palestinians dead.

The IDF besieged about 60 Palestinian militants in the Um al-Nasir mosque overnight on November 2. Early the next morning, a demonstration of 300 Palestinian women marched towards the mosque in order to protect the men trapped inside. The IDF opened fire on the unarmed protesters, killing two and injuring 40 others. The wounded women were not evacuated from the scene for 11 hours. In an online diary entry posted at Electronic Intifada on November 3, Dr Mona Elfarra from Al-Awda hospital reported that a wounded civilian bled to death while “waiting for a permit to go to hospital”.

Ambulances and paramedics were not only prevented from assisting victims of the onslaught: they were also deliberately targeted. On November 3, the IDF fired a rocket at a group of resistance activists and civilians near a school in Beit Lahia. The Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights reported that when medical crews arrived to assist the injured, a second rocket was fired, killing two paramedics and four other people, including a child.

The PCHR reported that on the morning of November 6, the IDF fired a missile towards the Jabalia Youth Club, hitting a group of schoolchildren and killing 16-year-old Ramzi Ash-Shafri. The same strike hit a kindergarten school bus collecting young children, seriously wounding 20-year-old teacher Najwa Awad E’khlayyef, who later had to have her arm amputated.

In addition to the extrajudicial executions of resistance activists, there were reports that all the men in Beit Hanoun aged 16-45 were rounded up for “questioning” and detained en masse. The New York Times reported on November 3 that through using loudspeakers, Israeli forces “ordered males aged 16 to 45 to gather at a square in the town. Many were put onto trucks and driven outside the town for questioning.” On November 5 the NYT reported an IDF claim that it was detaining 30 residents.

In its November 5 report, the PCHR said that the men had been taken to a detention facility the IDF had set up in Beit Hanoun’s college of agriculture. It stated, “Due to the difficulty in reaching the place, PCHR has not learned of the number of detainees, the ones released, or those transferred for detention inside Israel”. Thirty-three Palestinian legislators, including cabinet members, remain in Israeli custody, and the labour minister was kidnapped on November 2.

Mass murder and starvation

During the Beit Hanoun siege, the town was completely sealed. Water, electricity and phone lines were cut off, and the UN team that surveyed the damage on November 7 reported that more than 30 houses had been destroyed by shelling, with 100 more damaged. Writing from Gaza for Electronic Intifada on November 7, Rami Almeghari said that since the beginning of Operation Summer Rain on June 28 “1000 acres of orange and olive orchards have been razed” and “26 industrial and commercial facilities have been devastated” in Beit Hanoun alone.

On November 8, as the Israeli government was busy “regretting” the Hamad Street massacre, the IDF killed seven more Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, taking the death toll from the start of the month to 78. The toll since June is approaching 400. On October 30, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert boasted to a Knesset committee that since the beginning of its campaign, launched in response to the seizing of IDF corporal Gilad Shalit by the Palestinian resistance, the Israeli military has killed 300 “terrorists” in the Gaza Strip.

Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem responded on November 2 by pointing out “the IDF did indeed kill 294 Palestinians in Gaza since the abduction of Cpl. Gilad Shalit on June 26 and until October 27. However, over half of those killed — 155 people, including 61 children — did not participate in the fighting when they were killed. This in addition to the 137 who were killed while taking part in hostilities, and another two who were the targets of a targeted killing.”

Gideon Levy wrote in a November 5 Haaretz article, “These futile operations will not stop the Qassams, which are aimed at giving us and the rest of the world a painful reminder of the imprisoned and boycotted Gaza residents’ distress, which no one would notice if it were not for the Qassams”.

Alongside the military onslaught, there is another war being perpetrated on the Palestinians by Israel, with the active participation of the “international community” — economic strangulation, which is bringing Gaza ever closer to the brink of starvation. In an October 14 article, Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery wrote that there is a “great experiment” being conducted in Gaza: “Is it possible to force an entire people to submit to foreign occupation by starving it?”

The siege of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is aimed at crippling the government led by Hamas, which won the overwhelming support of Palestinian voters in January elections. Since June 27, when Israel bombed Gaza’s only electricity generator, which supplied more than half the territory’s electricity, Gazan households have had access to electricity for only a few hours per day, and tens of thousands are deprived of potable water.

The Gaza Strip, with 1.4 million residents, is virtually cut off from the rest of the world. Israel has repeatedly violated the agreement negotiated last year with the Palestinian Authority (PA) that the Rafah border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt should be operated by European Union observers, and food and medicine getting through to the Palestinians is dependent on the will of Israel. According to the World Food Program, “Gaza’s food security is an issue of serious concern”.

In a report in the November 1-7 Al Ahram Weekly, UNRWA director John Ging was quoted as saying that “the tragedy of over one million people completely dependent on food handouts can hardly be exaggerated”. “On several occasions”, he said, “we simply ran out of food”. Ging reported that “people are suffering serious symptoms of malnutrition”.

When Hamas formed government in March, the US and the EU, among other Western powers, cut off aid to the “terrorists” controlling the PA, while Israel stopped paying the taxes it collects on all Palestinian goods that pass through Israel. According to a November 1 International Monetary Fund report, there has been a 60% drop in the PA’s income since March.

Between April and September, the PA only received US$500 million, compared to $1.5 billion during the same period last year. The IMF report stated that the main reason for the huge decrease was Israel’s failure to give $360 million in Palestinian tax revenues to the PA. These sanctions by Israel and the West have caused disaster for the Hamas-led government, meaning it has been unable to pay the full salaries of the PA’s 175,000 public servants since March.

Washington and Israel long for a return to the pre-Hamas status quo, and are attempting to bolster the power of Fatah, the party that previously dominated Palestinian politics. Fatah was rejected by voters for its failed approach of collaboration with Israel in the struggle for national liberation since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords, as well as for serious corruption. By boycotting the Hamas government, and dealing politically and financially only with Fatah-aligned PA President Mahmoud Abbas, the “international community” is showing contemptuous disregard for the democratic will of Palestinians.

A section of the Fatah leadership has proven more than willing to put its interests ahead of Palestinian unity and resistance. Clashes between armed members of Fatah and Hamas left more than 20 dead in October, and the US has promised $26 million to boost Abbas’s presidential guard. US General Keith Dayton is currently arming and training forces loyal to Abbas in Jericho, and Israel is considering an appeal from Abbas to allow thousands of Jordan-based “Palestinian Liberation Army” fighters into Gaza to strengthen Fatah’s hand — not against Israel, but Hamas.

In the days before the butchery at Beit Hanoun, Hamas and Fatah were reportedly nearing a deal to form a national unity government, which it was hoped would force the so-called international community to lift the starvation blockade. This government was to comprise non-party professionals, and be formed on the basis of the Palestinian Prisoners’ National Conciliation Document, which contains an implicit recognition of the Israeli state.

In the wake of the massacre, Hamas has called for an end to the voluntary unilateral ceasefire it has largely observed for the past year-and-a-half, and for renewed attacks inside Israel.

(Green Left Weekly - Emma Clancy)

Libellés :

Actualité - Otto Reich : Funérailles pour un menteur

Si mentir était une maladie mortelle, Otto Reich se trouverait depuis longtemps en phase terminale : sa dernière prouesse dans le domaine de la tromperie, abstraction faite de son caractère grotesque, montre bien comment un individu au passé de délinquant confirmé peut continuer à faire les manchettes et à manipuler le public étasunien, avec la complicité d’organes de presse.

Le 26 octobre dernier, Reich a publié sur Internet un article qui s’est maintenant converti, sans aucun doute, en impair le plus spectaculaire de sa carrière peu connue de professionnel de la désinformation.

Ce jour-là, l’ex diplomate numéro un de l’Administration Bush pour l’hémisphère occidental, avec la plus grande sérénité, que si Fidel n’était pas déjà mort, il le serait en une question d’heures, et qu’il détenait la «confirmation de sa maladie terminale» obtenue de «sources usuelles mais de façon non conventionnelle».

Il ajoutait, sur le ton de celui qui sait tout et encore davantage, que le «gouvernement de Cuba a convoqué à La Havane des représentants des principaux médias internationaux pour négocier les meilleurs sièges, angles de caméras et entrevues» et pour «les informer des règles fixées pour la couverture des funérailles».

Ce qui suit est proprement délirant: Reich confie à ses lecteurs que le modèle de ces funérailles sorties de son imagination — aussi malade que cynique — est celui des funérailles du pape Jean Paul II.

L’ex conseiller de Bush fils pour l’Amérique latine poursuit avec une description échevelée d’un événement qui n’a jamais eu lieu.

Cette œuvre mémorable —qui sûrement aura contribué à la campagne permanente de désinformation menée selon le Plan Bush— est accompagnée d’une note complaisante où on mentionne que Otto J. Reich a collaboré avec George W. Bush entre 2001 et 2004, d’abord comme Secrétaire d’État adjoint, puis au Conseil de sécurité national.

Associé à Luis Posada et Félix Rodriguez

Sa biographie officielle que diffusaient les ambassades nord-américaines en Amérique latine, alors qu’il était fonctionnaire de la Maison blanche, omettait ses exploits les plus remarquables : comment il a aidé Félix Rodriguez Mendigutía, l’agent qui a ordonné l’assassinat du Che au nom de la CIA, et Luis Posada Carriles, le terroriste le plus dangereux du continent, à couvrir le gigantesque trafic de drogue contre armes qui alimentait la Contra nicaraguayenne.

Reich, en tant qu’ambassadeur nord-américain à Caracas, a machiné l’entrée de Orlando Bosch Avila, complice de Posada, sur le territoire des États-Unis.

Né accidentellement à Cuba, en 1945, d’un père autrichien, Reich s’est joint à la CIA alors qu’il fréquentait l’Université de la Caroline du nord, grâce à Frank Calzon qui orientera ses pas vers la Maison blanche.

Après avoir passé deux ans dans les rangs de l’armée, à Panama, (1967-69), Reich s’installe à Miami en 1972 où prospère la station JM/WAVE de la CIA qui multiplie les opérations terroristes contre Cuba. On y trouve Porter Goss que George Bush fils utilisera comme chef de l’Agence, et un nombre important d’autres terroristes qui réapparaîtront plus tard dans une succession d’actes criminels, depuis le Watergate jusqu’à l’Opération Condor.

Éminent frabiquant de fausses nouvelles

Reich est apparu à la vue du public nord-américain quand George Bush père, ex chef de la CIA, est devenu vice-président dans l’Administration Reagan. Il est alors nommé directeur du Départment Amérique latine de l’Agence nord-américaine pour le développement international (USAID) où John Bolton est conseiller général.

Il devient ensuite chef de ce qu’on appelait le Bureau de la diplomatie publique, une invention de la CIA pour effectuer officiellement, sous la couverture du Département d’État, des tâches de couverture et de désinformation. Il se trouve sous les ordres du colonel Oliver North.

Des années plus tard, un rapport du General Accountant Office révèlera la nature des opérations de désinformation menées par Reich dans la guerre sale menée au Nicaragua. Le public nord-américain découvre alors comment, en utilisant l’argent de ses impôts, il avait fabriqué toute une série de mensonges grossiers dans le but de désinformer tant les citoyens que les politiciens.

Il publiait des nouvelles qui prétendaient faire croire que les sandinistes nicaraguayens persécutaient les amérindiens Misquitos et qu’il avaient acheté plusieurs chasseurs Mig-29 à l’Union soviétique pour préparer des attaques aériennes contre le territoire nord-américain.

Il allait jusqu’à ordonner la rédaction de fausses déclarations qu’il faisait signer des noms de cabecillas mercenaires de la Contra.

Reich a publié des annonces qui sollicitaient des dons en faveur de la Contra afin de justifier l’apparition de l’argent du trafique de drogue, réuni par ses complices de Ilopango, dans les comptes de mercenaires antisandinistes, dans des banques de Gran Caiman et de Suisse.

À Caracas, il sort Bosh de sa prison

Quand l’opération explose au grand jour, Reich est soudainement nommé ambassadeur des États-Unis à Caracas, au Venezuela. Il y accomplit la mission de résoudre le cas de Orlando Bosch qui était détenu pour l’attentat désastreux contre le vol de Cubana. Il a alors obtenu pour lui un verdict complaisant d’une cour militaire.

Bosch porte alors l’étiquette de dangereux terroriste: il a reconnu publiquement — dans une entrevue publiée par le revue New Times — être responsable de plus de cinquante attentats réalisés par la CORU.

Bosch est arrivé aux États-Unis le 17 mai 1998 avec un visa accordé illégalement par Reich, malgré des directives contraires de fonctionnaires du Département d’État, et il a été immédiatement détenu pour avoir manqué à une libération conditionnelle concédée des années auparavant.

En juillet 1990, après une campagne déclenchée par Reich, la candidate au Congrès Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, son directeur de campagne, Jeb Bush, et ses partenaires de la Miami mafieuse, George Bush autorise sans grand risque la libération du pédiatre assassin.

En 1991 et 1992, Reich — il n’y a pas de limite à l’effronterie — représente les États-Unis à la Commission des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies, à Genève.

En 1996, il fonde RMA international et reçoit 600 000 dollars de la corporation Bacardi pour protéger ses intérêts et pour faciliter l’adoption de la loi assassine Helms-Burton, signée par Bill Clinton le 12 mars 1996, au milieu de la période spéciale dans l’île.

En janvier 2002, Otto Juan Reich était choisi comme secrétaire adjoint au Département d’État malgré la volonté du Congrès qui s’est refusé à donner son consentement à une nomination aussi scandaleuse.

On sait aujourd’hui comment, cette même année, il a encouragé des conspirateurs à réaliser le coup d’État raté contre le président vénézuélien Hugo Chavez et a orienté la campagne de désinformation.

En 2003, forcé d’abandonner son poste, il devient «envoyé spécial pour les initiatives de l’hémisphère occidentale», un poste qui lui permet d’autres «initiatives» comme la préparation du putsch contre le président haïtien Aristide et la création de la Commission d’assistance à une Cuba libre qui donnera lieu au Plan Bush et ses annexes secrètes d’agression.

Reich a démissionné le 4 mai 2004 pour réaliser, à son compte, des opérations de lobbying, en plus de se consacrer, avec la complicité d’une certaine presse qui feint d’ignorer son passé et l’utilise comme référence, à sa spécialité : le mensonge.

Sa dernière primeur pourrait cependant marquer la fin de ce qui lui restait comme valeur marchande. Et sa mort politique puisqu’il y a une limite au délire, même avec des lettres de course du clan Bush à la main.

(Granma International - Jean-Guy Allard)

Libellés :

Actualité - Protecting Neither Facilities nor People

Baghadd, Nov 7 - The Facilities Protection Service (FPS) created after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has become the principal set of death squads in Iraq, senior leaders say.

"The first accomplishment of Paul Bremer (former U.S. administrator in Iraq) in Iraq was dissolving the Iraqi army and all security establishments," a consultant with an Iraqi ministry told IPS on condition of anonymity. "The man was granted the highest decoration by his President for a job well done."

The U.S. occupation authorities and the Iraqi leaders working with them set up new army and police forces under supervision of the Multi National Forces (MNF). It was decided that each ministry could establish its own protection force away from the control of the ministries of interior and defence.

Under Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Order Number 27, the FPS was established on April 10, 2003, the day after the fall of Baghdad.

This document states: "The FPS may also consist of employees of private security firms who are engaged to perform services for the ministries or governorates through contracts, provided such private security firms and employees are licensed and authorised by the Ministry of Interior."

Global Security.Org, a U.S. based security research group, says: "The Facilities Protection Service works for all ministries and governmental agencies, but its standards are set and enforced by the Ministry of the Interior. It can also be privately hired. The FPS is tasked with the fixed site protection of ministerial, governmental, or private buildings, facilities and personnel."

The security website adds: "The majority of the FPS staff consists of former service members and former security guards. The FPS will now secure public facilities such as hospitals, banks and power stations within their district. Once trained, the guards work with U.S. military forces protecting critical sites like schools, hospitals and power plants."

General Harith al-Fahad of the former Iraqi army says the FPS turned out to be no such thing. "All the forces formed were actually militias, not organised forces, because they were formed according to rations given to each party in power," he told IPS at a café in Baghdad, with explosions echoing in the background.

"Those politicians brought their followers into the so-called security forces. Others took bribes of 500 to 700 dollars from each applicant to be accepted regardless of standard regulations."

When sectarian violence spread across Iraq after the Shia shrine in Samarra was destroyed in February this year, "the FPS appeared to be the main force that conducted assassinations in Baghdad, and there is evidence that they did it for money."

This seems to continue. U.S. officers training Iraqi police told reporters last week that infiltration of police units by militia members could delay the handover of control of the Iraqi security forces for years.

"How can we expect ordinary Iraqis to trust the police when we don't even trust them not to kill our own men?" Capt. Alexander Shaw said. Shaw is head of the police transition team of the 372nd Military Police Battalion, a Washington-based unit charged with overseeing training of all Iraqi police in western Baghdad.

"To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure we're ever going to have police here that are free of the militia influence," he said.

Most of the infiltration is coming from the two large Shia militias, the Badr Organisation that is the armed wing of the pro-Iranian Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and the Mehdi Army, the militia of the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Shaw said about 70 percent of the Iraqi police force has been infiltrated, and police officers are too afraid to patrol many areas of the capital.

"None of the Iraqi police are working to make their country better," Brig. Gen. Salah al-Ani, chief of police for western Baghdad told reporters recently. "They're working for the militias or to put money in their pocket."

Dr. Nameer Hadi recently left his post at a major Baghdad hospital because he felt threatened by the FPS.

"I saw them kill in cold blood a lady patient when they learned that she was the wife of a Sunni tribe leader," he told IPS. "I am a Shia believer, but this kind of crime is unbearable."

It is common knowledge in Baghdad that the FPS consists mainly of criminals who looted banks and government offices at the beginning of the U.S. invasion in April 2003. Many also believe that once the looters spent the money they stole, they needed a new source of income, and they were hired by local and regional powers for organised crime campaigns.

Iraq's interior minister Jawad al-Bolani rejected allegations last month that Iraq's police and military have played a major role in the death squads. He said it was the FPS, whose numbers he estimated to be 150,000, that was to blame for the astronomical level of violence.

"Whenever we capture someone, we rarely find anyone is an employee of the government ministries," Bolani said. "They've turned out to be mostly from the FPS."

In an interview on al-Arabiya satellite channel Oct. 21, official spokesman of the Iraqi government Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh accepted that security forces need to be "purified." He blamed mistakes made during the "Bremer Period" for the current level of killings.

With attacks on government targets mounting, it is also not certain how far the FPS has been effective in protecting facilities.

(Inter Press Service - Dahr Jamail & Ali al-Fadhily)

Libellés :

Actualité - Oaxaca Saga Snarls up

Mexico, Nov 12 (Prensa Latina) - Leaders of the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO) rejected on Sunday the executive proposal urging Gov. Ulises Ruiz to demonstrate whether he can rule that southern Mexican state.

For the social organization, the governor was unable to administrate the territory and further worsened the ongoing crisis.

Friday, the Secretariat of Government exhorted Ruiz to shortly reach an agreement with his opponents that illustrates governability in Oaxaca or leave power, although a date for the withdrawal of the federal police has not been set.

The city will be hand over to the local executive a day after the police begin to make the rounds, for him to prove his capacity to control Oaxaca.

Faced with the government ultimatum, Ruiz presented a six point plan to recover stability in the control of the state and reconcile opposition forces and the social movement.

However, APPO denounced that aggressive actions by paramilitary groups and agitators continue and once more pleaded for talks over the pull out of the federal forces.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - Les monopoles attaquent à volonté parce qu'ils le peuvent

Dans les secteurs de l'automobile, de la forêt et de la transformation alimentaire, les travailleurs et leurs communautés subissent des décisions prises par les monopoles qui ont de graves conséquences pour leur bien-être, voire pour leur droit d'être. Pour les principaux propriétaires du capital (valeur accumulée), la défense et l'expansion de leur richesse privée est la considération première. Les droits et l'existence des travailleurs, de leurs communautés et même des usines qui sont la propriété du grand capital sont considérés comme accessoires.

Les propriétaires de la valeur accumulée annoncent des fermetures et des mises à pied qui ont un impact dévastateur sur les travailleurs, les communautés et l'économie socialisée. Ils donnent à leurs plans de restructuration des prétentions élevées, comme Ford Motor, par exemple, qui donne à son plan de restructuration le nom «Vers l'avant», comme si cette appellation le rendait moins destructeur et moins douloureux et comme s'il s'agissait d'autre chose que de l'intérêt privé du monopole.

Les fermetures et mises à pied dans les plus petites villes et les régions éloignées frappent une partie importante de la population. La dévastation causée par les fermetures dans l'industrie forestière frappe durement les petites villes et régions du Québec et de l'Ontario. En Saskatchewan, où les 1 700 travailleurs de la transformation alimentaire de la petite ville de Saskatoon vont-ils trouver du travail après que Maple Leaf Foods ait détruit l'usine Mitchell/Intercontinental Packer acquise il y a à peine trois ans? Ces fermetures et mises à pied sont totalement irresponsables. Leurs conséquences sociales et personnelles sont énormes. Si les monopoles comme Ford, Weyerhaeuser/Domtar et Maple Leaf Food attaquent ainsi les travailleurs, c'est parce qu'ils le peuvent. Les dirigeants politiques partout au pays n'ont pas le courage de défendre leur responsabilité sociale envers la société, de défendre le bien public et de freiner l'élan des monopoles. Au contraire, les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux se servent de leur pouvoir pour légiférer et conclure des arrangements pour payer les riches.

Personne ne doit sous-estimer la gravité de cet assaut continuel contre la société et son économie socialisée, où les monopoles agissent impunément parce qu'ils le peuvent. Agir contre le droit de monopole d'attaquer à volonté est le défi qui se pose à la classe ouvrière et à ses alliés, au mouvement ouvrier et son objectif de défendre les droits des travailleurs, de leurs communautés et de la société dont ils dépendent. Seule une direction politique qui agit pratiquement pour arrêter de payer les riches et augmenter les investissements dans les programmes sociaux peut défendre la responsabilité sociale, défendre le bien public et s'opposer à la guerre. Toute action qui mène à un changement dans ce sens doit être soutenue.

(Le Marxiste-Léniniste - 9 novembre 2006)

Libellés :

dimanche, novembre 12, 2006

Actualité - He who pays the piper calls the tune: investigation of a Canadian media monopoly

Abstract

The Canadian Senate is concluding a national review on the state of the news media in Canada and questions are being raised about the need for new forms of regulation to protect diversity and a free press. This article examines a wealthy Canadian corporate empire which own significant media outlets. The Irving Group have been accused of censorship, predatory pricing, and draconian publishing contracts. The case study method is used to document examples of the way in which this company's monopoly media ownership is resulting in homogeneity of the news product and a decline in investigative reporting. The results indicate that the voice of the corporate world speaks loudly and the coverage of critical social issues is rare.

Introduction

"You must understand that New Brunswick is an Irving fiefdom. And as a Fiefdom should, it has its own House organ: the English language print media." So testified veteran political columnist Jackie Webster to assembled Canadian senators at their recent hearings on the state of Canadian news media. The Canadian senate's standing Committee on Transport and Communications was concluding a two-year study on the current state of Canadian media industries. During their stop in the province of New Brunswick, media scholars, journalists, politicians and members of the public came forward to give testimony about the Irving media monopoly. Accusations of censorship, predatory pricing, and draconian publishing contracts dominated the hearings. The senate's mandate has been to examine the appropriate role of public policy in helping to ensure that the Canadian news media remain healthy, independent and diverse. The Committee's study was launched in the context of tremendous changes in the media environment in recent years-notably, globalization, technological change, convergence and increased concentration of ownership.

Literature Review/Theoretical Premise

This article explores a case study in media monopoly. The Irving Group of Companies is examined in light of the concerns over the impact of media monopolies raised by political economy theorists. Political economy is a theoretical position that looks for the economic dimension underlying social and political life. "Political Economy [is] the study of the social relations, particularly the power relations, that mutually constitute the production, distribution, and consumption of resources."1 For example, when applied to the media, this would involve an examination of the ownership and economic control of the media. Political economy theorists would seek to highlight the fact that, to quote the First Lord Thomson of Fleet, "[i]t is the business of newspapers to make money." A political economy perspective emphasizes the need to examine the ownership of the press, the economic influence on the press by its for-profit nature, as well as direct and indirect influences by advertisers and/or government. Political economy emphasizes that the media is directly or indirectly affected by the social forces of our society-social forces that frequently are the expression of dominant economic interests and power.

The issue of ownership of the media has always been of central interest for those pursuing a critical analysis. Ownership is important because it addresses the adage that "freedom of the press is for those who own one." As John Porter wrote in The Vertical Mosaic, his landmark Canadian study, "the existing pattern of ownership is conservative, supporting the status quo over a wide range of social and economic policies."2 We can explore how much influence a media owner exerts on the content of the news, either directly through edict, or indirectly through the creation of an ideological climate that shapes the presentation of the journalists' work.

Canada's leading media scholar in the political economy tradition is James Winter, and one of his main focuses is on questions of ownership.3 Winter not only expresses grave concerns about the impact of private ownership on the media, but he places special emphasis on chain ownership, cross-media ownership, and the interconnection between media, economic and political elites. In his 1997 book, Democracy's Oxygen, Winter provides countless examples of the cozy, long-term links between media owners, their senior editors, and senior Canadian politicians. One of the consequences, he says, is the narrowness of the political discourse in the country's newspapers.

American scholars have also examined the consequences of ownership concentration for media content. Bagdikian notes that the lack of competition has resulted in a homogenous media product that serves the interests of a small number of owners. He argues that in the United States, the national news media have been remarkably inattentive to the growing economic and social failures induced by government policies benefiting large corporations and other powerful segments of society, at the expense of the general population.

While Washington and the national media put on their blinders, locally-controlled media remained alert to local evidence of policy failures. Predictably, however, these local stories-on, for example, savings and loan failures or fraud in federal programs-seldom made their way into national news that most affects policymakers in Washington.4

Bagdikian maintains that owners have always wielded enough influence that stories involving their own interests are reported in their favor. But now when a large corporate owner intervenes, alterations in coverage and analysis affect reports reaching millions. John Hannigan echoes these concerns, about the consequences of "global megamedia empires" on the availability of information and ideas.5

Some media scholars have focused on the general pro-capitalist climate of profit-oriented media. As Hackett, Pinet and Ruggles note: "Newspaper monopolies, for example, are largely attributable to the economic realities of mass advertizing and economies of scale in the newspaper industry."6 Several authors have examined the decision making processes of large media organizations and have found that there are a number of economic factors that serve to shape the news product and direct it to a status quo orientation. "The imperatives of keeping costs down and profits up affect the newsgathering procedures, content, and form of daily newspapers in every market."7 These factors include the cost-cutting measures so familiar to many journalist and media watchers where journalists are laid off. To replace the work of these people, the media rely instead on wire services. The use of wire services has the effect of reducing the amount of local news and importing coverage and perspectives from centralized news clearinghouses. The cutback in journalists usually means a reduction in investigative reporting, pursuit of non-traditional sources and the reliance on press releases and easy-to-locate officials and media handlers. Focus is restricted to the same institutions and sources and coverage tends to privilege pre-planned media events as opposed to spontaneous social problems.

Research Questions

The literature on monopoly media ownership indicates a series of questions that could be asked regarding the news product of a corporate media monopoly, in this case the Irving group of Companies. Is there evidence that the news product of a monopoly media organization is homogenous, with similar copy and views being expressed in the multiple holdings of the parent company? Is the news product identifiably pro-capitalist thereby reinforcing the corporate values of the parent company? Is the news product self serving so that the parent company influences the manner in which its own business ventures are reported on in the media outlets which they own? If the coverage is self serving, how much of this attributed to direct intervention by the media ownership and how much is due to internal censorship?

Research Design

This research is based on the case study approach. A case study is a holistic inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its natural setting. Researchers have used the case study research method for many years across a variety of disciplines. Social scientists, in particular, have made wide use of this qualitative research method to examine contemporary situations. Case study research provides the opportunity to gain an understanding of a complex issue and can extend experience or add strength to what is already known through previous research. Case studies emphasize detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions and their relationships. The leading scholar in the field, Robert K. Yin8 states that in this methodology, the case is an object of interest in its own right and the researcher aims to provide an in-depth elucidation of it. The merits of this approach include the possibility that case studies may generate anecdotal evidence that can illustrate general findings. Unlike random sample surveys, case studies are not representative of entire populations, nor do they claim to be. Drawbacks include questions about the transferability of the results to other case studies that may not share the unique characteristics of the case. Yin points out that generalization of results, from either single or multiple designs, is made to theory and not to populations. This article follows the model that Yin identifies as the "Critical case" in which the researcher chooses a case study on the grounds that it will allow a better understanding of a given hypothesis. A investigation of the media practices and product of the Irving Group serves to introduce readers to an important case study in media monopoly and a source of information regarding whether the claims of political economy media scholars are evident in this case. Given that the Irving Group have indicated an interest in moving into the American market, this case study may be of interest to American media scholars who would benefit from an introduction to a new player on the American media scene.

Background on the Irving Empire

Who are the Irvings and why this fuss about their media holdings? According to Canadian Business magazine, brothers Jim, Jack and Arthur Irving are the 4th richest Canadians after Ken Thomson, Galen Weston and former ebay president Jeff Skoll.9 The Irving empire includes over 300 companies10, has an estimated net worth of over 4 billion dollars11, and employs 8% of the New Brunswick labor force12 in operations that span forestry, transportation, and construction. The Irving group also owns the province's three English-language daily newspapers, the majority of the community papers and four radio stations.

[a law allowed one of Irving's companies to trespass and expropriate or use other owners' land or 'privileges' without asking for government permission to do so]

The Irving Group is a large, vertically-integrated collection of companies run by the three sons of the founder, legendary industrialist, K.C. Irving (1899-1992). These companies are limited in liability and publicly registered, but they are privately held, meaning that the public knows comparatively little about their dealings, and finding information about their operations is notoriously difficult. Labor lawyers in the province recall that there was even a case in which workers at an Irving-owned company failed in their unionization bid because they were unable to legally prove that the numbered company they worked for actually belonged to the Irvings.13 It is important to note that the rise of the Irving Group was based not only on the hard work of K.C. Irving, his sons, and his thousands of employees, but also on the start the K.C. got from his own family and from New Brunswick taxpayers. In the case of his family, his initial foray into business was supported by his father, a successful merchant and lumber baron. In the case of the provincial government, most of the major initiatives have been supported by municipal tax concessions, cheap water, government grants, low-interest loans and protection from "nuisance complaints."14 For example, in 1964, K.C. Irving got the New Brunswick legislature to pass a bill allowing, in words, "one of Irving's companies to trespass and expropriate or use other owners' land or 'privileges' without asking for government permission to do so."15

Though K.C. Irving was not a business theorist, by his own admission, he did strike upon a central means of capital accumulation. Appropriate surplus value from labour, pour it into new and existing enterprises, and continue this process as your enterprises increasingly occupy the dominant place in the monopoly sector of the economy. Eventually the Irvings would be part of a joint venture to build and operate Canada's largest oil refinery, and they would construct a deep water port in Saint John, called Canaport, to import and export crude and refined oil via supertankers. The Irvings built gas stations, so they needed construction capacity. They established or bought Ocean Steel, Irving Equipment Ltd., Strescon Ltd., Thorne's Hardware, and so on, to keep the control and profits in the group. The Irvings had goods to move, so they bought or created trucking arms, like Midland Transport and Sunbury Transport, and shipping, including Kent Lines, and tug boat capacity, in the form of Atlantic Towing Ltd. To build ships, they acquired the major shipyards in Saint John and Halifax, as well as some lesser operations in the region. They bought both saw mills and wood land at bargain prices, and these acquisitions supported each other. If they were producing forest products, they should own a Pulp and Paper Mill, which they acquired.

To retail their lumber, they established a hardware/lumber yard chain, Kent Building Supplies. They also established Kent Homes, a house prefabrication company that ships pre-built homes all over the region, and increasingly, all over the world. It was logical to produce newsprint, and to acquire the major customers for newsprint. So over a period of time they acquired the majority of the English-language newspapers. Other outlets for paper products such as Majesta paper towels, toilet paper and diapers followed.

Forbes business magazines' report on the world's richest people states that much of the family's trust is rumored to be held in tax-haven Bermuda.16 K.C. Irving left Canada suddenly and established himself as a resident of Bermuda after a series of skirmishes with the federal government over income, business and inheritance tax policies. From 1972 until his death, K.C. would visit New Brunswick for "6 months, less a day" each year17 leaving his sons in control of the daily operations of the company although he remained as majority shareholder. His will stipulated that his three sons could only divide or personally inherit the family fortune if they became non-Canadians.18

The Irvings have been in the newspaper business since 1944 and currently own all three English language daily papers in the province: Fredericton Daily Gleaner, Moncton Times and Transcript and the Saint John Telegraph Journal, which also circulates provincially in a slightly modified form as the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal. In addition the Irving's publishing arm, Brunswick News, has recently acquired ten subscription-based community weekly papers and several free community weeklies.19 The Irvings bought and then shut down two other community papers leaving only three non-Irving weeklies in the province. Irving-owned Acadia Broadcasting has four radio stations. They also own a news Web site called canadaeast.com.

Discussion

New Brunswickers face classic problems of monopoly media ownership in which homogeneity and a narrow range of opinion are common features of the news media. For example, all three New Brunswick daily papers ran editorials praising the appointment of former New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna as ambassador to the United States. While this editorial position may well reflect the view of each paper's editorial team, after 10 years as the leader of a provincial Liberal party that was soundly rejected at the polls at the end of his term, it is likely that many New Brunswickers share a different view. The three daily papers regularly take identical stances on current events. The homogeneity of the editorial position of the three papers means that people lose out on the ability to hear any other perspectives on many issues of importance.20

Living in New Brunswick where the majority of the press is owned by a single large capitalist enterprise means that the voice of the corporate world speaks loudly and the coverage of labor focuses on confrontational and controversial events such as strikes in which labor is scapegoated. For example, recently all three papers ran editorials critical of the New Brunswick teachers in their contract negotiations with the government. Phrases such as out of touch with reality, outrageously high salary increases, dragging students into the dispute, and distasteful game of chess were peppered throughout the editorials. Irving-owned media coverage of unionized workers regularly include phrases such as irrational, unreasonable, ludicrous and greedy. This reveals a pattern of Irving coverage of labour issues that typically portrays labour as the active and disruptive party.

Most problematic of all is the fact that the Irving empire is not exposed to investigative journalistic inquiry in the province's papers. Critical observers of the media can easily identify the self-serving nature of the Irving's media coverage. For example, all three Irving papers ran similar news headlines that defended their bosses from accusations of undue influence when it was revealed that they had given government ministers free plane trips and fishing junkets.

When the national media reported on the case of the then Canadian federal Industry minister Allan Rock, who made highly favourable policy decisions affecting the Irving empire after he went on a fishing trip hosted by the Irvings21, the national newspapers headlines read: "Rock faces new conflict-of-interest questions" (Globe and Mail, October 14, 2003), "Rock disregarded ethics ruling to advance Irvings' cause" (National Post, October 20, 2003), "New questions arise over Rock, Irvings" (Toronto Star, October 14, 2003). Yet a review of headlines from the New Brunswick papers reads: "Rock defends Irving trip" (Fredericton Daily Gleaner, October 11, 2003 pA3), "Audit of Irving deal shows no evidence of conflict" (Saint John Telegraph-Journal, October 18, 2003, pA1/A11), and "No Conflict in Fishing Trip" (Moncton Times and Transcript, October 11, 2003, pC3). Similarly, when it became apparent that the New Brunswick federal Member of Parliament, Claudette Bradshaw, had also benefited from Irving trips the Irving papers covered the story with the headline: "Bradshaw free flight scandal overblown" (Moncton Times and Transcript, October 23, 2003).

The adage that you don't bite the hand that feeds you means that the readers of the New Brunswick papers are being given a very different spin on news than readers in the rest of the country. In this case, the story attracted enough national media attention that local people had access to alternative perspectives by examining the national papers. However due to the for-profit orientation of the media industry, which emphasises wire-service filler over investigative local news coverage, it is increasingly common for New Brunswick news issues to be neglected by the national media. When the provincial papers are owned by the local mega corporation, it leaves limited options to gain another perspective.

For example, Irving Oil recently negotiated a tax rate for their Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick that gave the company a 25 year cap on the tax liability of the land which many observers say amounts to only 10% of the estimated value. The story was largely ignored outside of the province, though some newspapers were running headlines that stated "Decision to give N.B. gas plant a tax break could be based on wrong info" (Canadian Press Newswire, March 16, 2005) and "Hundreds protest tax breaks for Irving" (Broadcast News, April 13, 2005). However, the Irving-owned papers were lecturing their readers in editorials and news stories on the benefits of the deal and warning of the dire consequences that would result if the deal were rescinded. Headlines in the Irving papers included: "Benefits justify using tax cap" (Moncton Times and Transcript, March 18, 2005, pD6); "Scrapping deal would send bad message: Irving rep" (Saint John Telegraph-Journal, March 24, 2005, pA3); "Business leaders call deal a 'huge opportunity'" (Saint John Telegraph-Journal, March 16, 2005, pA4); "Business owner fears impact if tax concession is rescinded" (Saint John Telegraph-Journal, March 26, 2005, pA3).

The decline in investigative reporting of local and regional issues by the countries' national papers has also resulted in a situation where the Irving-owned media can at times act as agenda setters for the rest of the media. In these cases the Irving-owned media's version of certain events is reproduced uncritically in the national media without reference to the vested interests that the Irvings have on a particular issue.

The owners of the Irving papers have also been known to actively interfere in the papers' editorial policy. The history of the Irving's ownership of the media is peppered with stories of journalists forbidden to name the Irvings as the ones responsible for oil spills and of Irving executives prohibited from speaking to the press. In one case, the editor of the Saint John paper was denied permission to report that an Irving-owned tugboat had run aground for fear it would result in an insurance hike for the company.22 When Neil Reynolds, libertarian and legendary Canadian newspaper editor, left the Telegraph-Journal in 1995 after a stormy reign as editor, he told reporters that the paper's owner, J.K. Irving, called him every day, telling him what he liked and did not like in the paper.23

An incident during the 1997 Federal election provides some insight into the consequences of unsanctioned editorial action at an Irving-owned paper. In the weeks before the June 1997 federal election, the federal Liberal Party in New Brunswick was in electoral trouble. The province, like the region, was turning against the Chr?tien Liberals. A few days before the vote the Telegraph-Journal took an editorial position in favour of Jean Charest's Progressive Conservatives. J.K. Irving, the eldest of the three Irving brothers responded by writing a letter, published on the front page on election day, repudiating the editorial, and arguing instead that Canada needed a majority government and that the Liberals had done a good job and deserved another term. The Irvings, starting with their father, K.C., tended to support the Liberals, and J.K.'s son-in-law, Paul Zed (M.P.-Fundy Royal) was one of the Liberal incumbents who would go down to defeat later that day, despite J.K.'s efforts. This case shows that when the paper's editors took a position in opposition to that of their employers' they were publicly dressed down.24

For example, when the 27-month strike at Irving Oil concluded in 1996 with a humiliating defeat for the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers union, the company required a process of ideological re-education which was essentially a means for the company to control the hearts and minds of its now broken labour force. Returning workers at the refinery said that, in reality, the reorientation program was a combination "bitterness test" and "attitude alteration" exercise. Labour observers noted at the time that the Irvings were black listing the striking workers and the back to work protocol was identified as a "brainwashing" exercise.25

The strike at the refinery was identified as a significant sign of the changing labour relations climate in North America and globally

The strike at the refinery was identified as a significant sign of the changing labour relations climate in North America and globally. The strike began as a result of Irving Oil Ltd.'s efforts to mimic the flexibility and restructuring of labour seen in the southern U.S. and elsewhere as part of the changing face of global commerce. Its conclusion was seen as an example of rollback, whereby once gained social/political/economic progress was being rolled back as economic instability and recession allowed for a climate in which corporate and governmental power could be more directly exercised.

Not surprisingly, the words "brainwashing" and "blacklisting" of strikers never appeared in the Irving paper's coverage of the strike. Instead, the New Brunswick papers published the names of the 37 striking workers who were fired by the company under the headline "Not welcome at the Refinery."26 The re-orientation was described as a "back-to-work program" that was a "tough transition" for the men who "failed" and were "told to go home."27

But it is interesting to note that the Irving's coverage of the issue was paralleled in the only national newspaper at the time, the Globe and Mail. The Globe and Mail allowed the Irving-owned media to set the agenda on the tone and coverage of the strike and its unorthodox back to work protocol and presented virtually identical coverage to the national audience. It is also interesting to note that the Globe and Mail even avoided covering traditionally newsworthy elements to the story when they followed the Irvings' lead and avoided covering New Brunswick N.D.P. leader, Elizabeth Weir's, attention-getting press conference in which she suggested that the N.B. government should call in the Irving companies' loans if they did not agree to settle the strike. Thus when the national news media fall into line with the Irving-owned media's account of their own controversies, no one is provided with the range of opinion and perspective that is the heart of informative and independent journalism in a democratic society.

Research on the media coverage of their own companies also reveals that the papers routinely publish their own press releases as news stories. For example the Saint John Telegraph Journal prints an article entitled Refinery Hires 1,000 for Maintenance Project28 which is almost identical to the Irving oil press release on that topic entitled 1,000 Tradespeople 'Turnaround' Saint John Refinery.29

The papers routinely present the view that what's good for the company is good for the province. When Irving Oil maintained high production levels while replacement workers and management ran the plant during the 1994 refinery strike, the Irving-owned media heralded their accomplishment with laudatory headlines about this boon for New Brunswick's fiscal health. When strikers threatened to initiate a boycott of Irving products, this was proclaimed as a dire threat to the health of the provincial economy.30

Finally, the Irving's coverage of their own empire is particularly marked by a strategy of defeatism where those who oppose the company are routinely portrayed as naive, foolish and irrational in their futile effort to challenge the Irvings. For example coverage of the closure of the Irving-owned Saint John shipyard and the decertification of five unions reveals examples of this classic response. The Saint John Telegraph Journal's news coverage and editorial on the story was filled with phrases such as "end of an era," "stalemate," "spin their wheels" and "going nowhere fast." The media stated that the Irvings' compensation package to the union "isn't going to get any better" and "like it or not, we believe they hold all the cards."31

A consequence of this discourse of defeatism is that the public "may begin to feel increasingly alienated and disconnected from the civic life of their communities. They may develop a sense that they are without relevant, actionable information and, therefore, powerless to control the course of their own lives."32

More recent developments include the resignation of seven leading columnists who ceased their relationship with the Irving-owned papers when they were forced to sign a newly-instituted freelance contract that gave the company the right to re-publish articles in any form, in perpetuity, with no extra recompense to the author. Columnist Jackie Webster labeled the contract "draconian" and political commentator Dalton Camp asked the Toronto Star not to sell his syndicated national column to the Irving papers.33

Attention was focused on the Irving media monopoly recently when the Irvings took over the newly established free weekly paper Here in Saint John and Moncton. The urban-oriented independent papers were run by young writers in the province and offered a fresh collection of current events, music news and activism issues. Prior to buying out the indie papers directly, Brunswick News was accused of predatory pricing when they launched a similar paper called Metro Marquee and cut advertising prices by 25% to compete with Here. After the Here takeover, the company announced that it would merge the paper with Metro Marquee and expand into Fredericton. The new owners exercised their editorial control immediately by cancelling the sex column that is a standard element in most indie papers and not long after the new editor was fired for running a cover story on breast feeding. Greg Thompson, Conservative MP for Southwest New Brunswick, told the House of Commons this latest Irving purchase amounted to "media concentration at its worst."34

In a move that leaves some critics sceptical, the Irvings recently announced a $2 million dollar donation to the province's journalism schools for the launch of new endowed chairs: the Irving Chair in Journalism at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, and the Romeo LeBlanc Chair in Journalism sponsored by Brunswick News at Universit? de Moncton. While the universities receiving the new funds are overjoyed, concerns have been raised about the possible implications of new generations of journalism students learning from the very outset of their training who is paying the piper.

In 2005 a member of the Irving family took the helm of the Empire's media holdings. Jamie Irving, great-grandson to K.C. and son of Jim Irving, was named publisher of the Saint John Telegraph-Journal and New Brunswick Telegraph Journal after having served as publisher of one of the companies' community papers for a few years. Jamie, aged 28, studied journalism at Carleton and New York's Columbia University.35 While some argue that his journalism background spells good news for the development of a professional reporting culture at the Irving papers, others say that it is unlikely investigative journalism will ever be applied to family businesses.

New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada, catering to the needs of two language groups the English and the French-speaking "Acadians." The Irvings have also recently expanded their media operations to the Acadian press. Five French-language weeklies Le Madawaska, La République, La Cataracte, L'Hebdo Chaleur and L' Etoile are now Irving-owned. Charges of predatory pricing have been made as the Irvings compete for advertisers with the province's French-language daily, L'Acadie Nouvelle. This has many New Brunswick Acadians concerned. Marie-Linda Lord, a journalism professor at the Universit? de Moncton, told the Senate committee that it's critical for Acadians to control their own media voice in the province. Lord said the Acadian community should raise its awareness regarding concentration of media ownership in the province since the Acadian press is now seriously confronted with a high rate of assimilation. Since the Irving press has behaved like a "media predator," Lord suggested that a media watchdog should be set up to point a finger at the newspapers when they don't serve the public interest.36

Acadians in New Brunswick have a particular concern about the way in which Irving-owned media cover controversial issues affecting the province's two linguistic groups. In the 1960s, the province's first elected Acadian premier, Louis Robichaud, launched an unprecedented Equal Opportunity Program aimed at ensuring equal standards of government core services such as education and health across the province. Until this time, wealthy English areas had the money to hire good teachers and offer quality programs while poorer mainly French areas were often disenfranchised and under-served. The program, which has been heralded as tantamount to New Brunswick's own Quiet Revolution, also ended the practice of playing one municipality off against another in order to extract the lowest tax rates, which had benefited the Irvings. The program and its architect were consequently skewered in the Irving-owned press as "robbing Peter to pay Pierre." In particular, the Fredericton Daily Gleaner under the leadership of its editor and former-owner, Brigadier Michael Wardell, vilified Robichaud and directed his cartoonists to depict the premier daily as a moustache-wearing dictator, with a swastika on his arm and the caption "Little Hitler" written across the top.37 The anti-French bias of the paper extended for years and is not forgotten by many in the province.


The Irving media monopoly could be coming to a media outlet near you. The company has stated that they have a mandate to expand the media division outside of New Brunswick and have reportedly "kicked the tires" of a few newspapers in the region. Maine is one of the areas in which Brunswick News CEO, Rino Volpe, says he wants to explore purchasing print and radio outlets.38 The Irvings are already known to the citizens of New England. Irving Oil opened its first site in Bangor, Maine in 1972 and now the company has 800 Irving retail gas and 'Mainway' convenience stores throughout Atlantic Canada, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, with home heating and wholesale operations in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts. Irving Oil's Marketing Office is located in Portsmouth, New Hampshire and their US headquarters of the Irving Equipment division are in Burlington, Massachusetts. In Maine, the company owns several saw mills, and has 27 logging contractors and more than 40 trucking contractors working the in the Maine north woods. It owns 1.5 million acres in Aroostook County, ME making it the state's largest single landowner.39 In 2001, Irving Woodlands was named the Corporate Landowner of the Year by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. However, the Irving forestry operations in Maine have also been the subject of considerable criticism by American environmentalists who find fault with the company's reliance on clear-cutting, herbicide spraying and converting the forest to fast-growing plantations.

Conclusions

Previous Canadian governmental investigations into newspaper ownership have taken notice of the Irving media monopoly. In 1969 the Davey Committee, examining the concentration of media in Canada, noted that "Mr. Irving has created a private empire of New Brunswick, complete with its own official press." The committee report called New Brunswick a "journalistic disaster area"40 and recommended the formation of a government publications development fund "so that the loudest voice in town won't inevitably become the only voice in town." Aside from the creation of some press councils, none of its recommendations were adopted. A 1970s effort by federal anti-trust authorities to disassemble the Irving family newspaper monopoly in New Brunswick also failed. In 1981, a Royal Commission chaired by Tom Kent focusing on the daily press stated that too many newspapers were owned by large conglomerates with interests in many areas other than publishing.41 The commission recommended that regional monopolies like the Irving empire in New Brunswick be dismantled. In 1982, the Liberal government directed the CRTC not to issue or renew licences for businesses belonging to owners of daily newspapers. The directive had an impact on the Irving group, but was repealed in 1985.42

At the conclusion of the current senate hearings, committee member and former broadcaster, Senator Jim Munson, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) that it may be time to establish a media watchdog to ensure the public is being served by New Brunswick's Irving-owned newspapers. Munson said that after hearing the testimony, he was left a little worried about the limited variety of media coverage available to New Brunswickers who aren't getting a diversity of news and opinion. He stated that the Irving press should be doing a better job reflecting the different linguistic perspectives in the province. He encouraged the development of healthy media competition featuring strong investigative reporting and emphasized the important role of the CBC as an alternative source of information to the Irving press. When informed about the dramatic cuts to local CBC programming, he stated "Whoever gutted the regional programs in Atlantic Canada has to have his or her head examined. It's not always about money."43

Monopoly media in New Brunswick has resulted in a situation where the population is left with generic news content in which contextualized and critical discussions of important social and economic issues that affect the lives and livelihoods of neighbours and families are addressed in a skewed and self-serving manner. The Irvings control all of the English-language daily papers in the province, and now they also own the majority of the weekly community papers. This gives the giant corporation an unparalleled venue to promote its own interests as well as insulate itself from inquiries and criticism.

Policy analysts state that Canada is lagging behind most of the developed world when it comes to regulating media ownership. European countries faced with similar challenges caused by monopoly media set concrete limits on media concentration so that, by law, no person or company may own or control all of the media in a single area and companies and individuals are restricted in the percentage of the media market they can own. In some nations, whenever a merger enables a company to control a specific press market or strengthen its already controlling position, a national government cartel office is required to intervene to prevent the merger. Currently, the European Commission is proposing legislation to restrict the reach of big media corporations and control the spread of cross-media ownership. In addition, other countries have put in place press subsidy schemes whereby a diversity of newspapers, not always supported by private corporate advertisers, are provided public financing.44 Media watchers are calling on the Senate committee to make decisive recommendations along these lines. They fear that unless they do so, the consolidation and convergence within the monopoly media will have successfully undermined society's formation of a free and independent press and brought us full circle back to a system where freedom of the press is for those who own one.

Endnotes

1 Vincent Mosco, The Political Economy of Communication (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996), 25.

2 David Hayes, Power and Influence (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 1995), 135.

3 Jsmes Winter, Democracy's Oxygen: How Corporations Control the News (Montr?al: Black Rose Books, 1997); James Winter, Common Cents: Media Portrayal of the Gulf War and Other Events (Montr?al: Black Rose Books, 1992); Maude Barlow and James Winter, Big Black Book (Toronto: Stoddart, 1997).

4 Ben Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly (Boston: Beacon Press, 1992), xvii.

5 Cited in B.D. Singer, ed., Communications in Canadian Society, 4th edition (Toronto: Nelson Canada, 1995), 311.

6 R. Hackett, R. Pinet and M. Ruggles, "News For Whom? Hegemony and Monopoly Versus Democracy in Canadian Media," in H. Holmes and D. Taras, eds, Seeing Ourselves: Media Power and Policy in Canada (Toronto: Harcourt Brace Canada, 1996), 257-272.

7 Robert M. Entman, Democracy Without Citizens: Media and the Decay of American Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 92.

8 Robert K. Yin, Case Study Research Methods (Thousan Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994).

9 "The Rich 100: Our Sixth Annual Ranking of Canada's Wealthiest People," Canadian Business Magazine (December 2004). 2004-12-06. Retrieved April 28, 2005. http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lifestyle/article.jsp?content=20041206_63986_63986

10 John DeMont, Citizens Irving: K.C. Irving and His Legacy (Toronto: Doubleday Canada Limited, 1991), 4.

11 "Report on the World's Richest People," Forbes (2005). Retrieved April 27, 2005. http://www.forbes.com/static/bill2005/LIRWZIM.html?passListId=10& passYear=2005&passListType=Person&uniqueId=WZIM&datatype=Person

12 New Brunswick department of Intergovernmental and International Relations news release (October 20, 2003). Retrieved October 22, 2003. http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/news/iga/2003e0944ig.htm

13 Personal interview with Michele Caron, Law professor, Universite de Moncton, 1999.

14 Russell Hunt and Robert Campbell, K.C. Irving: The Art of the Industiralist (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, Ltd., 1973), 115.

15 "Hall of Fame," Report on Business (November 2003).

16 "Report on the World's Richest People," Forbes (2005). Retrieved April 27, 2005. http://www.forbes.com/static/bill2005/LIRWZIM.html?passListId=10 &passYear=2005&passListType=Person&uniqueId=WZIM&datatype=Person

17 Harry Bruce, "Smilin' Jack Gets Off on Wrong Foot," Halifax Herald (June 6, 2004). Retrieved April 27, 2005. http://www.herald.ns.ca/cgi-bin/home/displaypackstory?2004/06/06+193.raw+FE04Jun06+2

18 "Hall of Fame," Report on Business (November 2003).

19 Irving-owned community weekly papers include: (Bathurst) Northern Light, (Grand Falls) Victoria County Star, (Hartland) The Observer, Le Madawaska, Miramichi Leader, Miramichi Weekend, (Sussex) Kings County Record, Woodstock Bugle, and Campbellton Tribune. The Irvings bought and then shut down Oromocto Post-Gazette and Northside News. The company also owns the French-language paper L'Etoile. Irving-owned Acadia Broadcasting has four radio stations, including CHSJ Fm 94.1offering country music in Saint John, "The Tide" a country music radio station in St. Stephen (TCHTD FM 98.1), "The Wave" (CHWV FM 97.3) a youth-oriented station in Saint John, and adult contemporary CKBW FM 98.1 in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia.

20 "McKenna Good Fit for U.S," Fredericton Daily Gleaner (January 11, 2005), pA7; "McKenna Will Improve Relatons," Moncton Times and Transcript (January 15, 2005), pD8; "A Champion in the Making," Saint John Telegraph Journal (April 5, 2005), pD6.

21 On Nov. 21, 2002, at a joint meeting he chaired of two cabinet committees, Mr. Rock presented an incentive plan to aid struggling Canadian shipbuilders. The Irvings are Canada's largest shipbuilders. On June 27, 2003, the industry department gave the Irvings a $55-million grant to help convert an idle Irving shipyard in Saint John for other uses (Robert Fife, "Rock Disregarded ethics ruling to advance Irvings' cause," Ottawa Citizen (October 16, 2003).

22 DeMont, op. cit..

23 Mark Leger, "He's Hired, He's Fired, He's Rehired, He's ...," Ryerson Review of Journalism (Spring 1995), 46-53.

24 Erin Steuter, "The Irvings Cover Themselves: Media Representations of the Irving Oil Refinery Strike, 1994-1996," Canadian Journal of Communication 24:4 (1999), 629-647.

25 Bob Hicks, President of the New Brunswick Federation of Labour quoted in Halifax Chronicle-Herald (January 30, 1997), A12.

26 Saint John Telegraph Journal (June 13, 1996).

27 Saint John Telegraph Journal (January, 1997).

28 "Refinery Hires 1,000 for Maintenance Project," Saint John Telegraph Journal (October 3, 2003), pA5

29 http://www.irvingoilco.com/media_release/turnaround.htm

30 Steuter, 1999.

31 "Time to Get on With Prosperity," Saint John Telegraph Journal October 10, 2003 pA1/A11.

32 Helmet Shah, "Journalism in the Age of Mass Media Globalization." http://www.idsnet.org/Papers/Communications/HEMANT_SHAH.HTM (2003).

33 Patrick Toner, "They're Not Evil, but They May Be Incompetent," Here Weekly (January 6-15, 2005). Retrieved April 27, 2005. http://www.herenb.com/saintjohn/issues/0601/evil.html

34 Sarah Fenn, "In the Belly of the Beast," This Magazine (January, 2005). Retrieved April 27, 2005. http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2005/01/bellyofthebeast.php

35 Leah Fitzgerald, "Citizen Irving," King's Journalism Review (October 22, 2001). Retrieved April 27, 2005. http://journalism.ukings.ns.ca/kjr/2001-2002/lfitzgerald.htm

36 "Acadian Media Professor Slams Irvings," CBC. http://nb.cbc.ca (April 22, 2005). Retrieved April 27, 2005. CBC. http://nb.cbc.ca

37 John G. Bryden, "Debates of the Senate," Hansard, 2nd Session, 36th Parliament Volume 138:83 (October 19, 2000). Retrieved April 27, 2005. http://www.parl.gc.ca "Equal Opportunity Visionary Honoured in N.B.," National union of public and general employees (October 2001). Retrieved April 27, 2005. http://www.nupge.ca/news_2001/news_oc01/n26oc01b.htm

38 "Irving Explores Media Expansion," CBC. http://Nb.cbc.ca (April 5, 2004). Retrieved April 27, 2005.

39 "Bowater Sells 1 Million Acres to Irving," The Bangor Daily News (October 22, 1998). Retrieved April 2005.http://www.powerlink.net

40 Douglas How and Ralph Costello, KC: The Biography of KC Irving (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 1993+, 250.

41 Mary Vipond, The Mass Media in Canada (Toronto: Lorimer, 1992), 69.

42 "Concentration of Newspaper Ownership: Historical Reference Points for an Analysis of Concentration," Department of Canadian Heritage (2002). Retrieved April 27, 2005. http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca

43 "Senator says N.B. needs press watchdog." CBC. http://nb.cbc.ca (Apr 25, 2005). Retrieved April 27, 2005. http://nb.cbc.ca

44 Policy recommendations are informed by the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers brief entitled "For Democratic Media" and "The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom" retrieved April 15, 2011105.

Source: WEB Journal of Mass Communication Research

*Dr. Erin Steuter teaches in the Sociology Department of Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick (CANADA, E4L 1A7). She can be reached at esteuter@mta.ca, or (506) 364-2285.

(Tiré de Shunpiking)

Libellés :

Actualité - L'Assemblée générale demande encore une fois aux États-Unis de mettre fin au blocus de Cuba

Le 8 novembre, pour la quinzième fois consécutive depuis 1992, l'Assemblée générale des Nations unies a réclamé la levée du blocus économique, commercial et financier imposé à Cuba par les États-Unis depuis 46 ans.

Dans une résolution adoptée par 183 voix pour, 4 voix contre (États-Unis, Îles Marshall, Israël, Palaos) et une abstention (Micronésie), l'Assemblée générale exhorte tous les États à s'abstenir de promulguer ou d'appliquer des lois et mesures d'embargo, conformément aux principes de la Charte des Nations unies et du droit international, lesquels consacrent notamment la liberté du commerce et de la navigation.

L'Assemblée a en outre demandé aux États-Unis d'abroger ces lois et chargé le secrétaire général de faire rapport de la mise en application de la résolution à la prochaine session de l'Assemblée générale, en septembre prochain.

Prenant la parole lors du vote, le ministre cubain des Relations extérieures, Felipe Pérez Roque, qui présentait le projet de résolution, a estimé que la guerre économique lancée par les États-Unis contre Cuba, «la plus longue et la plus cruelle qui ait jamais existé», était «qualifiable d'acte de génocide».

Le ministre a également dénoncé les manoeuvres des États-Unis pour essayer de détourner l'attention de ce crime contre son pays. Il a dit qu'après avoir échoué à obliger des délégations européennes à présenter un amendement à la résolution, les États-Unis se sont arrangés pour que l'Australie le fasse.

Pérez Roque a dit que les États-Unis ont obtenu la complicité de l'Australie après un coup de téléphone au ministre des Affaires étrangères de ce pays.

L'Australie n'a pas l'autorité morale de parler de droits humains à Cuba, dit le ministre, qui ajoute que le gouvernement australien s'était prêté au jeu des États-Unis en se faisant la figure de proue de l'amendement.

Le gouvernement australien est un complice de l'impérialisme étasunien, a-t-il dit. Il est une espèce d'«impérialisme de proche» dans le Pacifique, toujours prêt à servir ses mentors à Washington.

Pérez Roque a noté que le gouvernement australien soumet les peuples autochtones de son pays à un véritable régime d'apartheid. L'Australie, qui soutient également le centre de détention maintenu par les États-Unis à Guantanamo, territoire cubain illégalement occupé par les États-Unis, et les procès sommaires dans des tribunaux militaires pour des prisonniers torturés, dont plusieurs Australiens, n'a pas l'autorité morale de critiquer Cuba.

Disant que les États-Unis mentent quand ils affirment que Cuba se sert de l'embargo comme prétexte pour justifier ses propres faiblesses, il a expliqué que le blocus impose des limites incroyables à son pays, interdisant entre autres le commerce et le tourisme en provenance des États-Unis, empêchant Cuba de se servir du dollar dans ses transactions financières internationales et interdisant aux banques étasuniennes et à leurs filiales dans des pays étrangers de faire affaires avec Cuba.

Les États-Unis empêchent également la Banque mondiale et la Banque interaméricaine de développement d'accorder des crédits à Cuba. Qui plus est, ils ont imposé ces interdictions criminelles à d'autres pays, empêchant des hommes d'affaires de pays étrangers d'investir à Cuba et menaçant ceux qui ne respectent pas l'interdiction d'être bannis des États-Unis, a-t-il ajouté, accusant les États-Unis de vouloir recolonialiser Cuba.

Pérez Roque a demandé au président des États-Unis, George W. bush, de rendre public le contenu de l'annexe secrète du Plan Bush pour la Transition à Cuba. Il a noté qu'une particularité importante de cette nouvelle élucubration de 93 pages est qu'elle est maintenue secrète «pour obtenir sa réalisation effective» et «pour des raisons de sécurité nationale». S'agit-il de nouveaux plans d'assassinat contre des dirigeants cubains, plus d'actes terroristes, une agression militaire?, a-t-il demandé.

Pérez Roque a expliqué aux membres de l'Assemblée générale les nouvelles mesures de la Maison blanche pour renforcer le blocus, dont une augmentation des transmissions de radio et de télévision en violation ouverte des normes de l'Union internationale des télécommunications et l'application de peines sévères aux personnes et aux entreprises qui ne respectent pas le blocus.

Il a également parlé des mesures prises par Washington pour bloquer les échanges entre les églises et de l'interdiction d'envoyer de l'aide humanitaire aux organisations religieuses oeuvrant à Cuba.

Le ministre cubain a également critiqué les tentatives des États-Unis de bloquer des programmes mis au point par Cuba dans le domaine de la santé. Il a dit que Washington pourrait tenter d'empêcher Cuba d'acquérir l'équipement médical nécessaire.

Le délégué des États-Unis, Ronald Godard, a présenté la position éhontée des États-Unis. Il a dit que l'«embargo. est une affaire bilatérale qui ne concerne pas l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU. Il s'agit selon lui de mesures maintenues uniquement pour encourager l'exercice des droits humains, politiques et socio-économiques par tous les Cubains et pour s'assurer que ces droits ne soient pas réservés «à des dirigeants privilégiés».

Il a accusé Cuba de cynisme en disant qu'en présentant cette résolution contre le blocus à chaque année, Cuba demande à tout le monde de blâmer les États-Unis pour les problèmes de Cuba et de tourner le dos à la suppression des droits politiques, humains, économiques et du travail des Cubains depuis 40 ans.

(Centre de nouvelles de l'ONU, Prensa Latina, Agencia Cubana de Noticias)

(Le Marxiste-Léniniste)

Libellés :

vendredi, novembre 10, 2006

Actualité - Israel Wary of Retaliation in Gaza

Beirut, Nov 11 (Prensa Latina) - Israel has mounted intense surveillance of Gaza Strip and West Bank Friday to avoid attacks in reprisal for their air strike against a Palestinian locality, which has left 19 dead so far. The Tel Aviv government said on Friday that the technical failure of radar made various missiles turn 500 meters from their course, accidentally targeting a Palestinian residential area.

Israeli Minister of Defense, Amir Peretz, ordered an investigation on Thursday, in an attempt to justify the massacre of the Palestinians, which has been internationally condemned.

Israeli Haaretz daily reported that at least seven missiles hit Palestinian homes with 13 people sleeping inside.

Palestinian women went to the streets of the old part of Jerusalem on Thursday to protest against the Israeli massacre on Palestinians.

There is currently a balloon with high resolution cameras watching movements of the population.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - Obrador for Human Rights Commission in Oaxaca

Mexico, Nov 10 (Prensa Latina) - Mexican opposition leader Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador asked the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) to intervene in the state of Oaxaca, where the list of missing and murdered people continues to grow.

The leader says area governor Ulises Ruiz, accused of human rights violations, has remained in power because of political maneuvering by the controversially elected Partido Revolucionario Institucional president Felipe Calderón.

During a nationwide tour, Obrador said his truly legitimate government will do much more for the people than those in power, who act like "police, protecting the violent few."

He called on the people to attend the symbolic inauguration act on November 20 in Mexico City main square, highlighting his main goals are to protect the people and defend national heritage.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - Pour la 15e fois consécutives l’ONU condamne le blocus des États-Unis contre Cuba

183 pays ont appuyé la résolution cubaine, quatre ont voté contre et un s’est abstenu

New York – L’Assemblée générale de l’Onu a adopté le mercredi 8 novembre pour la quinzième fois consécutive et par une majorité écrasante, une résolution condamnant le blocus des États-Unis contre Cuba et exigeant sa levée.

La résolution a obtenu le soutien supplémentaire d’un pays par rapport à l’année dernière, avec 183 voix en faveur, 4 contre – États-Unis, Israël, Palau et les îles Marshall – et une abstention, la Micronésie.

59 pays avaient appuyé le texte en 1992 lors de la première présentation de la résolution, un chiffre qui s’est élevé à 179 en 2004, 182 en 2005 et 183 cette année.

À cette occasion, l’Australie avait présenté un amendement au texte, qui a été repoussé par l’Assemblée générale.

La résolution adoptée «exhorte encore une fois les États où existent et continuent d’être appliquées des lois et des mesures de ce type, dans un délai le plus bref possible et selon leur normes juridiques, à prendre les mesures nécessaires pour les abroger ou les laisser sans effet».

L’Assemblée générale réitère que les pays qui adoptent de telles sanctions ne respectent pas «leurs obligations envers la Charte des Nations unies et le droit international, qui entre autres réaffirment la liberté de commerce et de navigation».

D’accord avec la résolution annuelle, Cuba fait le bilan des derniers douze mois de sanctions.

À cette occasion, La Havane a dénoncé «le durcissement des sanctions contre les citoyens et les entreprises, avec l’accent mis spécialement sur les agences de voyages, qui ont fait l’objet d’audits et de sanctions».

«Les pressions contre des organisations religieuses, les universitaires et les organisations non gouvernementales nord-américaine se sont aussi intensifiées dans le but d’empêcher le développement des liens et des échanges avec leurs homologues à Cuba».

RÉSULTATS DU VOTE SUR LA RÉSOLUTION CONTRE LE BLOCUS

Total des pays - 192

Pour - 183 Contre - 4 Abstention - 1

N’ont pas participé: 4 (Nicaragua, Côte-d’Ivoire, Iraq et le Salvador)

• Afrique sub-saharienne: Total des pays - 47

Pour - 46 Contre - 0 Abstention - 1

N’ont pas participé: 1 (Côte-d’Ivoire)

• Afrique du Nord et Moyen-Orient: Total des pays - 19

Pour - 17 Contre - 1 Abstention - 1

N’ont pas participé: 1 (Irak)

• Asie: Total des pays - 22

Pour - 22 Contre - 0

• Amérique latine: Total des pays - 18

Pour - 16 Contre - 0 Abstention - 2

N’ont pas participé: 2 (Nicaragua et Salvador)

• Caraïbes: Total des pays - 15

Pour - 15 Contre - 0

• Europe occidentale et autres États: Total des pays - 29

Pour - 28 Contre - 1 (États-Unis)

• Europe orientale et autres États: Total des pays - 28

Pour - 28 Contre - 0

• Iles du Pacifique: Total des pays - 14

Pour - 11 Contre - 2 (Iles Marshall et Palau) Abstentions - 1

(Granma International)

Libellés :

Actualité - La guerre économique livrée parles États-Unis contre Cuba équivaut à un acte de génocide

Intervention de Felipe Pérez Roque, ministre des Relations extérieures de la République de Cuba, sur le thème 18 de l’agenda de l’Assemblée générale intitulé «Nécessité de mettre fin au blocus économique, commercial et financier imposé à Cuba par les États-Unis d’Amérique

Le 8 novembre 2006, New York

Madame la Présidente,
Messieurs les délégués,

Pour la quinzième fois consécutive, Cuba présente devant l’Assemblée générale le projet de résolution intitulé «Nécessité de mettre fin au blocus économique, commercial et financier imposé à Cuba par les États-Unis d’Amérique».

Nous le faisons pour défendre les droits du peuple cubain mais aussi ceux du peuple nord-américain et ceux des peuples que vous représentez devant cette Assemblée.

La guerre économique livrée par les États-Unis contre Cuba, la plus prolongée et la plus cruelle qu’on connaisse, équivaut à un acte de génocide et constitue une violation flagrante du Droit internationale et de la Charte des Nations unies. En 48 ans, le blocus nord-américain a représenté pour Cuba des pertes supérieures à 86 milliards de dollars. Sept Cubains sur dix vivent sous le régime du blocus depuis leur naissance et résistent aux effets de cette guerre qui a pour objectif de nous réduire par la faim et les maladies.

Le blocus empêche Cuba de commercer avec les États-Unis et de recevoir de ce pays des touristes. Il interdit à Cuba d’utiliser le dollar dans ses transactions internationales et de recevoir des crédits ou de réaliser des opérations avec des banques nord-américaine ou leurs filiales dans d’autres pays.

Le blocus ne permet pas à la Banque mondiale ou à la Banque interaméricaine de développement de concéder à Cuba ne serait-ce qu’un modeste crédit.

Plus grave encore que tout ceci: le blocus des États-Unis impose ses dispositions criminelles aux relations de Cuba avec les autres pays membres de cette Assemblée générale.

Messieurs les délégués, nous venons de voir le représentant du Gouvernement des États-Unis répéter devant cette Assemblée les mêmes arguments fallacieux et les mêmes mensonges que toutes les années précédentes.

Il ment quand il dit que l’embargo est un thème bilatéral.

Il ment quand il dit que Cuba peut commercer et acheter à d’autres pays ce qu’elle ne peut pas acheter aux États-Unis.

Il ment quand il dit que les États-Unis ne poursuivent pas les cargos d’autres pays qui tentent d’accoster à Cuba.

Il dit aussi à cette Assemblée que Cuba se sert du blocus comme d’un prétexte. Je répète donc au distingué délégué ce que je lui ai dit l’an dernier: si le gouvernement des États-Unis considère que Cuba se sert du blocus comme d’un prétexte, pourquoi ne nous prive-t-il pas du prétexte en levant le blocus? Pourquoi ne pas éliminer le blocus de Cuba si, à son avis, Cuba l’invoque comme prétexte justifiant ses prétendus échecs?

Le blocus interdit tout commerce avec Cuba aux entreprises installées dans vos pays, Messieurs les délégués, pas seulement aux entreprises nord-américaines mais aussi aux entreprises des pays que vous représentez à cette Assemblée et qui sont des filiales de compagnies nord-américaines. Ne peuvent pas non plus toucher les ports nord-américains les bateaux battant pavillon de vos pays, Messieurs les délégués, s’ils ont préalablement transporté des marchandises en provenance ou à destination de Cuba. C’est ce que dit la loi Torricelli, signée par le président Bush père en 1992.

Le blocus nord-américain interdit aussi aux entreprises du reste du monde, celles de vos pays, Messieurs les délégués, d’exporter aux États-Unis des produits contenant des matières premières cubaines. Il empêche ces mêmes entreprises d’exporter à Cuba des produits ou des équipements contenant des pièces nord-américaines pour plus de 10%. Voilà la vérité.

Le blocus, Messieurs les délégués, poursuit les hommes d’affaires d’autres pays, pas seulement ceux des États-Unis, mais ceux d’autres pays, vos compatriotes, s’ils se proposent d’investir à Cuba. Eux-mêmes et leurs familles sont menacés de se voir refuser l’entrée aux États-Unis, et même d’être traduits en justice devant des tribunaux nord-américains. C’est ce que signifie la loi Helms-Burton, de 1996.

Je ne vais pas m’attarder sur des exemples qui étayeraient ce que j’ai dit. Monsieur le Secrétaire général a distribué un rapport détaillé, rassemblant les contributions de 96 pays et de 20 organismes et organisations internationales, qui démontrent sans équivoque les souffrances et les pénuries imposées par le blocus à la vie et au développement du peuple cubain.

Par contre il nous semble crucial, Messieurs les délégués, d’informer l’Assemblée générale du plan de reconquête de Cuba approuvé par le président Bush en mai 2004 et actualisé en juillet 2006. Il y est exposé clairement ce que le gouvernement nord-américain ferait de notre pays s’il parvenait un jour à en assumer le contrôle.

Selon le président des États-Unis, le point le plus important consisterait à restituer tous leurs biens à Cuba aux anciens propriétaires. Cela impliquerait, par exemple, de priver de leurs terres des centaines de milliers de paysans qui aujourd’hui, à Cuba, en sont propriétaires à titre individuel ou sous le statut de coopératives, pour y rétablir le latifundium. Cela supposerait aussi l’expulsion de leurs logements de millions de propriétaires cubains, pour rendre immeubles et terrains à leurs anciens possesseurs.

Le président Bush a annoncé que le processus devait être accéléré et se déroulerait sous le contrôle total du gouvernement des États-Unis, qui constituerait à cette fin une Commission pour la restitution des droits de propriété.

Une autre structure verrait le jour: le Comité permanent du Gouvernement des États-Unis pour la reconstruction économique de Cuba, qui dirigerait l’imposition à Cuba d’un programme d’ajustement néo-libéral draconien, incluant la privatisation sauvage des services d’éducation et de santé et l’élimination de la sécurité et de l’assistance sociale. Les retraites et pensions seraient supprimées et les retraités se verraient offrir la possibilité de travailler dans le bâtiment au sein d’un dénommé Corps de retraités cubains.

Le président Bush reconnaît qu’«il ne sera pas facile» d’appliquer le plan à Cuba. Par conséquent, il charge le Département d’État de constituer, «comme une priorité immédiate», un appareil répressif dont on imagine aisément qu’il sera entraîné aux brutales techniques d’asphyxie qui aux yeux du vice-président Cheney ne constituent pas des tortures, pour suffoquer l’interminable résistance du peuple cubain. Il prévoit même que la liste des Cubains qui seront poursuivis, torturés et massacrés «sera longue».

Il est aussi prévu de constituer un Service central d’adoption d’enfants, qui aurait pour mission de remettre à des familles des États-Unis ou d’ailleurs les enfants dont les parents seraient morts au combat ou victimes de la répression.

Ce programme cynique et brutal de recolonisation d’un pays, après destruction et invasion, serait dirigé par un personnage déjà nommé et portant le titre ridicule, qui rappelle celui de Paul Bremer, de «Coordonnateur pour la transition à Cuba». Il s’agit d’un certain Caleb McCarry, dont l’unique antécédent notoire est qu’il entretient des relations d‘étroite amitié avec les groupes terroristes d’origine cubaine qui continuent de planifier et d’exécuter depuis Miami, en toute impunité, de nouveaux plans d’assassinat et de sabotage contre Cuba. Ce sont ces mêmes groupes qui demandent au président Bush de remettre en liberté le terroriste Luis Posada Carriles, auteur du sabotage en vol d’un avion civil cubain, alors même que cinq courageux combattants antiterroristes cubains se voient infliger des peines de prison cruelles et prolongées aux États-Unis, où ils sont incarcérés depuis 1998.

Deux ans après sa proclamation, Messieurs les délégués, une partie du plan est déjà en cours d’exécution.

Ainsi, de nouvelles restrictions ont été imposées aux visites familiales à Cuba de Cubains résidant aux États-Unis.

Les Nord-Américains qui voyagent à Cuba sont en butte à un véritable harcèlement. Ces deux dernières années, plus de 800 personnes ont dû payer de lourdes amendes pour avoir voyagé dans notre pays.

Des restrictions supplémentaires pèsent aussi sur l’envoi d’aide financière aux familles cubaines.
Les échanges académiques, culturels, scientifiques et sportifs ont pratiquement été éliminés.

Depuis 2004, 85 compagnies ont été sanctionnées pour violations du blocus contre Cuba.

La persécution féroce de toute transaction financière et commerciale avec Cuba s’est intensifiée. Ledit Groupe d’identification d’actifs cubains fouille le monde entier, en quête de tout ce qui pourrait ressembler de près ou de loin à un paiement depuis ou à destination de Cuba, et les résultats s’en font déjà sentir.

Outre le renforcement du blocus, le président Bush a approuvé en mai 2004 59 autres millions de dollars pour payer ses quelques mercenaires à Cuba dans le but de fabriquer une opposition intérieure inexistante, et pour payer des campagnes de propagande et de transmissions illégales de radio et de télévision contre Cuba.

Mais tout cela a été en vain. Le président Bush s’est aperçu que le temps lui manquait et qu’il ne pouvait respecter sa promesse envers les groupes extrémistes cubains de la Floride. Ses problèmes intérieurs et extérieurs s’accroissaient et croissent et la Cuba socialiste continuait et continue ici, droite et inflexible.

Alors, le 10 juillet 2006, le président Bush a ajouté de nouvelles mesures à son plan.

Une particularité importante de cette nouvelle élucubration de 93 pages c’est qu’il contient une annexe secrète, avec des actions contre Cuba qui ne sont pas rendues publiques et ils expliquent que c’est «pour obtenir sa réalisation effective» et «pour des raisons de sécurité nationale».

Sont-ce de nouveaux plans d’assassinat contre des dirigeants cubains, plus d’actes terroristes, une agression militaire? Depuis cette tribune, nous mettons en demeure aujourd’hui, devant l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies, le président George W. Bush de rendre public le contenu de ce document, qu’il n’a pas eu jusqu’à présent le courage de révéler.

Le plan prévoit aussi, bien sûr, davantage d’argent. Cette fois il s’agit de 80 millions de dollars en deux ans et pas moins de 20 millions par année jusqu’à la défaite de la Révolution cubaine. C’est-à-dire, pour toujours.

Les transmissions de radio et de télévision contre Cuba sont aussi en augmentation, en violation ouverte des normes de l’Union internationale des télécommunications.

D’un autre côté, on redouble d’efforts pour créer une dénommée «coalition» de pays pour appuyer le soi-disant «changement de régime» à Cuba.

Le plan de Bush met surtout en avant l’application extraterritoriale de la guerre économique contre Cuba.

Ainsi, de nouveaux mécanismes sont mis en place pour perfectionner la machine qui applique les réglementations du blocus et de nouvelles sanctions sont adoptées. Parmi celles-ci se détachent, par sa nouveauté, les poursuites pénales contre les violateurs.

On annonce, en vertu du 3e chapitre de la loi Helms-Burton, l’autorisation pour engager des poursuites auprès des tribunaux nord-américains contre les investisseurs étrangers à Cuba, en particulier ceux venant de ces pays qui soutiennent la continuité de la Révolution cubaine.

On établit aussi une application plus rigoureuse du 4e chapitre, qui refuse l’entrée aux États-Unis des investisseurs cubains et de leurs familles, mais destinée maintenant à poursuivre spécialement ceux qui investissent dans l’exploration et l’extraction de pétrole, le tourisme, le niquel, le rhum et le tabac.

Comme instrument pour s’en prendre aux ventes de niquel cubain vers d’autres marchés – non pas à destination du marché nord-américain, mais pour poursuivre les ventes cubaines à des entreprises situées dans les pays que vous représentez ici dans cette Assemblée –, a été créée la dénommée «Force de travail inter-agence du niquel cubain».

Le harcèlement contre les échanges entre les églises nord-américaines et cubaines s’est perfectionné et l’envoi de dons humanitaires à des organisations religieuses cubaines a été interdit.

Mais il y a une nouvelle mesure de blocus approuvé par le président Bush et qui mérite un commentaire à part. Le document établit que les États-Unis refuseront toute exportation concernant des équipements médicaux qui peuvent être utilisés dans des programmes d’attention pour des patients étrangers.

C’est-à-dire que le gouvernement des États-Unis, qui a toujours fait le maximum pour faire échouer les programmes de coopération médicale menés par Cuba, reconnaît aujourd’hui que sa persécution va jusqu’à essayer d’empêcher l’achat par Cuba des équipements nécessaires.

J’insiste sur ce que j’ai déjà évoqué à propos du blocus qui concerne maintenant les échanges entre les Églises des États-Unis et les Églises cubaines; on interdit aux Églises aux États-Unis d’envoyer aux Églises amies à Cuba des dons humanitaires, des fauteuils roulants, des médicaments ou des produits à but humanitaire. Le blocus du président Bush contre Cuba l’amène à même déclarer aux Églises nord-américaines et cubaines; il essaie même de proscrire le commandement de Dieu. Et, en deuxième lieu, il tente d’empêcher Cuba d’acheter des équipements médicaux pour des programmes de coopération médicale internationale.

Il est indispensable de fournir quelques détails sur ce sujet :

- Depuis 1962, année où les médecins cubains ont fourni pour la première fois une aide à l’étranger, en Algérie, presque 132 000 médecins, infirmiers et techniciens cubains de la santé ont apporté leur aide dans 102 pays.

- Actuellement, 31 000 collaborateurs cubains de la santé prêtent leurs services dans 69 pays. Dans 69 pays, je répète, travaillent aujourd’hui 31 000 collaborateurs cubains de la santé, dans de nombreux pays que vous représentez ici.

- Messieurs les délégués: Un contingent médical spécialisé en catastrophes et dans les situations d’urgence a été fondé le 19 septembre 2005, précisément au milieu du fléau qui s’est abattu sur 2 millions de pauvres et de noirs du Sud des États-Unis à la suite de l’effet combiné de l’ouragan Katrina et de l’irresponsabilité et de l’insensibilité de son gouvernement. Il est composé de 10 000 membres bien entraînés et équipés et porte le nom d’un jeune nord-américain, Henri Reeve, mort glorieusement en 1873 dans les champs de Cuba, avec le grade de général de notre Armée de Libération. À ce moment, plus de 1 500 médecins cubains étaient prêts pour partir vers les zones les plus touchées et sauver je ne sais combien de vies, qui ont été perdues face au refus du président Bush de les recevoir.

- Un total de 2 564 membres de ce contingent a travaillé durant 8 mois au Pakistan, après le séisme. Ils ont construit 32 hôpitaux qui ont ensuite été offerts à ce peuple frère. Ils ont soigné 1 million 800 000 patients et sauvé 2 086 vies. Ensuite, 135 autres médecins cubains ont fourni leur aide en Indonésie et construit deux hôpitaux, aussi offerts; ils ont soigné 91 000 patients et réalisé 1 900 interventions chirurgicales.

- Des médecins cubains avaient travaillé auparavant durant des catastrophes naturelles survenues au Pérou en 1970, au Venezuela en 1999, au Sri Lanka et en Indonésie en 2004 et au Guatemala en 2005, pour ne citer que quelques exemples.

Si le président Bush réussissait dans son plan cynique, Cuba serait empêchée d’apporter à d’autres peuples, à ceux que beaucoup d’entre vous représentent ici, messieurs les délégués, ses modestes et généreux efforts dans un domaine où personne ne peut nier notre développement et notre expérience.

- Depuis 2004, Cuba a développé l’Opération Miracle, en vertu de laquelle ont été opérés gratuitement de la vue presque 400 000 patients de 28 pays, sans compter quelque 100 000 cubains.

Bien que notre pays ne pourrait pas payer seul toutes les dépenses afférentes, aujourd’hui les médecins, les techniciens, la technologie et les équipements cubains ont créé les capacités pour opérer un million de latino-américains et de caribéens par année.

Si l’offensive nord-américaine arrivait à paralyser cet effort, un nombre équivalent de personnes victimes de plus de 20 maladies ophtalmologiques perdraient la vue. Le gouvernement des États-Unis le sait mais il ne renonce pas pour cela à son plan macabre d’asphyxier Cuba. Cela pour ne parler que de ceux qui sont soignés pour la vue et non des centaines de millions de personnes qui profitent des programmes intégraux de santé des médecins internationalistes cubains.

Cuba non seulement prête des services médicaux: elle forme actuellement plus de 46 000 jeunes étudiants de médecine de 82 pays du Tiers monde à Cuba et dans leurs propres pays.

Madame la présidente,
Messieurs les délégués,

Mais Cuba ne se rendra, ni ne faiblira en promouvant ces plans humanistes, symboles de ce qu’un monde de paix, de justice et de coopération est possible. L’engagement de Cuba envers les droits de chaque déshérité de la planète est plus fort que la haine des bourreaux.

Messieurs les délégués:

Des millions de Cubains sont maintenant dans l’attente de la décision que vous prendrez. Nous vous demandons d’appuyer aujourd’hui le respect au droit de Cuba qui est aussi le respect aux droits des peuples que vous représentez. Nous vous demandons de voter en faveur du projet de résolution Nécessité de mettre fin au blocus économique, commercial et financier imposé par les États-Unis d’Amérique contre Cuba.

Nous le faisons le front haut, optimistes et sûrs, avec l’espoir de répéter les vers du poète de notre génération, parce qu’à Cuba, messieurs les délégués,

Personne ne va mourir, toute la vie
Est notre talisman, est notre manteau.
Personne ne va mourir, moins encore maintenant
Que le chant de la Patrie est notre champ

Et s’ils nous imposent la guerre, il n’y aura pas assez de soldats pour couvrir les pertes qu’ils subiront face à un pays qui a résisté et s’est préparé pour sa défense durant plus de 45 ans.

Messieurs les délégués:

Le discours que j’ai préparé pour présenter notre projet de résolution se termine ici. Cependant, un fait inédit dans cette assemblée m’oblige; à dire quelques mots additionnels. Pour la première fois depuis qu’en 1992 l’Assemblée a commencé à considérer le sujet du blocus contre Cuba, le gouvernement des États-Unis essaie de saboter ce vote, par un amendement.

Après plusieurs semaines à exercer des pressions brutales, les États-Unis ont constaté qu’ils ne pouvaient renverser l’appui écrasant que ce projet de résolution obtient. Il ont alors tenté de faire en sorte qu’un grand nombre de délégations s’abstiennent et ils ont échoué. Ils ont enfin menacé et exercé un chantage pour qu’elles se retirent et ils ont échoué de nouveau.

Et finalement, ils ont décidé de boycotter ce vote, de distraire l’attention du sujet principal qui est son blocus contre Cuba, violation flagrante du Droit international, et ils ont décrété que la délégation de l’Australie présenterait le projet d’amendement élaboré à Washington.

J’ai ici, messieurs les délégués, les talking points distribués par les États-Unis depuis lundi le 6, demandant un appui pour un amendement que l’Australie n’a fait sien qu’hier, mardi, en après-midi. Il est curieux que la délégation des États-Unis demandait un appui dans ce document pour un amendement que l’Australie n’avait toujours pas décidé de présenter.

Les États-Unis ont tenté de faire en sorte qu’un pays de l’Union européenne le présente et n’y est pas arrivé; ils ont cherché un appui parmi d’autres pays et n’a pu le trouver non plus.

Finalement, un appel de très haut niveau depuis Washington au ministre des Relations extérieures australien a déterminé que l’Australie se prête au rôle d’homme de paille de l’amendement des États-Unis.

Cet amendement est-il réellement, messieurs les délégués, l’expression d’une préoccupation véritable de l’Australie? Non. C’est seulement la preuve de sa soumission abjecte au gouvernement des États-Unis.

Mais, en outre, l’Australie n’a pas l’autorité morale pour tenter de faire référence aux droits de l’homme à Cuba.

Le gouvernement de l’Australie est complice de l’impérialisme nord-américain. Une sorte d’impérialisme de poche, toujours prêt, dans le Pacifique, à suivre ses mentors de Washington.

Ainsi, il a non seulement collaboré et envoyé des troupes avec l’armée nord-américaine à la guerre du Vietnam où 4 millions de Vietnamiens ont perdu la vie, mais il a aussi participé avec enthousiasme, avec plus de 2 000 soldats, à l’invasion de l’Irak, une guerre préventive absolument illégale. Il y a toujours aujourd’hui 1 300 soldats australiens qui demeurent là-bas alors que seulement 22% de la population de l’Australie appuie cette aventure.

Le gouvernement australien qui soumet la population aborigène du pays à un véritable apartheid, n’a pas de morale pour critiquer Cuba. Le gouvernement australien qui appuie le centre de tortures que les États-Unis maintiennent à Guantanamo et qui appuie les procès sommaires devant des tribunaux militaires de prisonniers humiliés et torturés là-bas, y compris des prisonniers australiens, n’a pas de morale pour critiquer Cuba.

Les États-Unis encore moins. Nous avons tous vu les images de la prison d’Abou Ghraib, les images effrayantes de Guantanamo. Nous savons qu’ils ont organisé et maintiennent des prisons clandestines et des vols secrets par lesquels ils ont déplacé des prisonniers drogués et menottés.

Nous avons vu les images d’horreur de l’ouragan Katrina quand on a condamné à mourir des êtres humains pour être noirs et pour être pauvres. Avec tout ce que nous savons, cette assemblée ne peut être trompée et manipulée.

Pour cela, au nom de Cuba, nous vous demandons, messieurs les délégués, de voter d’abord en faveur de la Motion de non action que nous présenterons pour faire face à l’amendement présenté par l’Australie puis de voter en faveur du projet de résolution L.10 présenté par Cuba.

Le délégué des États-Unis a invoqué à cette assemblée le nom sacré de José Marti, Apôtre de l’indépendance de Cuba, dans son intervention; il salit le nom glorieux pour les Cubains, l’homme qui a dit que la guerre qu’il organisait à Cuba pour l’indépendance était davantage pour empêcher à temps que les États-Unis d’Amérique s’étendent avec encore plus de force sur les Antilles. Que l’on invoque José Marti pour justifier le blocus offense notre délégation.

Mais je rappelle à l’Assemblée et à la délégation nord-américaine en particulier que José Marti a aussi dit que «les tranchées d’idées valent mieux que les tranchées de pierre», et ce sont les tranchées d’idée qui rendent invincible le peuple noble, généreux et héroïque que je représente ici.

Merci beaucoup.

(Granma International)

Libellés :

jeudi, novembre 09, 2006

Actualité - Chavez: Reprimand Vote for Republicans

Caracas, Nov 8 (Prensa Latina) - The defeat of the US Republican Party in the congressional elections was described as a punishment vote for Bush´s aggressive policy, by the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

In a meeting with foreign correspondents, Chavez attributed the result to open rejection of the Iraq war that has caused thousands of deaths, the patriot-law to suppress freedoms in the United States and approval to build a wall on the border with Mexico.

Similarly, the dignitary considered that the US population rejected the corruption in its government and its incapacity in various areas, as witness the abandonment of the people after the passage of Hurricane Katrina.

Regarding the Latino vote, Chavez asserted that Bush received a real beating, with a 73 percent rejection, mainly due to the border wall initiative, which he said is not only against Mexico but against all of Latin America.

Commenting on the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Chavez augured “the fall has begun” for the Bush administration, and said heads will begin to roll.

The Venezuelan president challenged the US president, head of “a savage government,” to “for moral reasons” submit himself to a revocation referendum, as Chavez had done, or to move up the elections. This would be a dignified way out of the many tensions of the world, he concluded.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - New Sandinistas for Peace, Harmony

Managua, Nov 8 (Prensa Latina) - The indisputable electoral victory of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua is the fitting reward for an electoral campaign that advocated peace and reconciliation as the Sandinista Movement s new standards.

Since the electoral race began in July, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) started out with a totally different image, with the Sandinista leader resorting to a conciliatory speech.

In his tours of neighborhoods and cities, the former president (1984-1979) gave details of his government program, explaining with a clear language and astonishing figures that the neoliberalism imposed by the previous governments over the last 16 years is the only one responsible for Nicaragua being the continent s second poorest country.

"The FSLN is the only party able to end with poverty in Nicaragua," he affirms, while calling on followers and adversaries to give him a new chance to prove it.

Now that he has been finally elected president, Ortega is faced with the challenge of meeting all his promises, in "peace and reconciliation." Aware of that and loyal to his commitment, the president elect has already "extended his hands" to his adversaries to work together for the good of the country.

"We cannot speak of winners and losers, because in this process all of us should work together for the good of Nicaragua", Ortega stated in his first statement after being confirmed as winner.
He also encouraged all citizens to "give Nicaragua a sign of stability, placing our commitment to overcome poverty above our political stances."

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

Actualité - Oaxaca Conflict Returns to Senate

Mexico, Nov 8 (Prensa Latina) - The Mexican Senate agreed to the PRD party (Revolucion Democratica) exhortation to reanalyze removal of powers in Oaxaca while six deputies from that state (5 PRD and one PT Trabajo) began an indefinite hunger strike to achieve that end.

The striking senators want Oaxaca declared ungovernable and the removal all state powers, especially of Gov. Ulisis Ruiz, in light of the wave of persecution, arbitrary arrests, and social destabilization provoked by the federal police sent in by President Vicente Fox.

Contrarily, representatives of PRI (Revolucionario Institucional, the party of Gov. Ruiz) and governing PAN (Accion Nacional) defeated this motion once before and criticize the hunger strike as unbefitting members of Congress.

Meanwhile four thousand women marched in Oaxaca yesterday to urge withdrawal of the occupying military and the reappearance, alive, of the nearly 100 people arrested since October 29. The women were met with water shot from a military tank but persevered in their demands.

Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO) radio last night reported an attack with live ammunition at a barricade by the Oaxaca State Police - considered Ruiz´ private army, but with no report of injuries. Seventeen people, mostly teachers, have been murdered since the Oaxaca protest began in June.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)

Libellés :

mercredi, novembre 08, 2006

Actualité - Israeli artillery shells residential area in Beit Hanoun killing 19 civilians

10 children, 7 women among dead

Beit Hanun- Israeli artillery fired several tank shells at a residential neighbourhood in the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Hanoun early today, killing at least 18 members of an extended family, including 10 children, as they slept, health officials said.

The tank shells landed around a compound of four apartment buildings in Beit Hanoun, the northern border town that has been the latest focus of the Israeli offensive. Gaping holes were torn into the structures, owned by four brothers from the al-Athamna family who lived side by side. A large pool of blood collected in front of the houses, and stairs in an outside stairway were covered with blood.

Dr. Kamal Al-Assalai, director of Kamal Edwan hospital in Beit Lahia told reporters that more than 20 civilians were wounded and killed. He added, “Our hospital received more than 13 body and tens of causalities.

Asma al-Athamna, 14, an eyewitness told reporters that she and her family woke up on a sound of an explosion. Her mother quickly ordered everyone out of the house.

Abbas Condemns the shelling

In a press conference held early today in Gaza City, President Abbas strongly condemned the shelling and warned that Israel would have to "shoulder all the consequences for these crimes”.

Abbas told reporters, “Israeli does not want peace, security, or stability”. He added, “We must continue our national dialogue as it is the only way to face the continuous Israeli aggression against our people”. He added, “We can not go one with the dialogue-for-dialogue process, dialogue must be fruitful”. “This is no doubt a terrible, despicable crime that Israel has committed against our people," he told Palestine TV. "We tell the Israelis, you are not seeking peace at all, but are destroying all chances for peace. You must therefore bear all the consequences of these crimes”, said Abbas.

[...]

Five Palestinians executed in Jenin

Israeli occupation forces killed 5 Palestinians in Al-Yamoun village near Jenin City. According to eyewitnesses, the Israeli soldiers opened fire towards a house in the village and arrested four civilians who were executed later by the soldiers. The fifth was shot dead as he was standing in the balcony of his house.

(Palestine Media Center - November 7, 2006)

Libellés :

Actualité - Afghanistan : Genocidal Crossing of the Rubicon

The Marxist-Leninist vehemently condemns the wanton slaughter of civilians by the U.S. and U.S.-led coaltion forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. October 30, eighty-one young Muslim students, including many teenagers, and one teacher were assassinated in Bajaur, Pakistan by the U.S. and Pakistan armed forces. The school residence where they were sleeping early Monday morning was completely destroyed by missile strikes.

The cold-blooded slaughter of young Muslim males was hailed as a victory in the monopoly-controlled media. The U.S., British and Canadian governments and the mass media have reached the genocidal crossing of the Rubicon where mass imprisonment, torture and wanton killing of Muslims are deemed necessary in the endless "war on terror."

When imprisonment, torture and slaughter of an identifiable group become acceptable and routine, is that not well down the bloody road of genocide? Such cruel and backward activity and behaviour are well entrenched in European and U.S. state-organized practices and values. They form part of medieval politics and ideology that ooze forth when mass democratic opposition has been weakened or is not effective for whatever reason.

Monday night October 30, the U.S. NBC news with Brian Williams was triumphal in its report of the slaughter in Bajaur. NBC's Pentagon reporter Jim Miklaszewski gave a blow-by-blow rendition of the "deadliest-ever attack against suspected militants." Miklaszewski said unnamed Pentagon officials told him the initial strike on the school came from a CIA predator drone firing hellfire missiles. About ten minutes later Pakistani helicopters arrived and fired as well. This time frame is corroborated by villagers who report hearing the initial large explosions and then some minutes later hearing the helicopters arrive. (See excerpts from Dawn below.)

The U.S. government later denied the direct involvement of a CIA drone firing missiles although it did admit to giving satellite, drone and other intelligence assistance.[1]

Several articles in Asian newspapers have noted the premeditated nature of the Bajaur mass slaughter. The attack comes just weeks before the U.S. elections where the Bush political party is trailing its rival. The other coldly devious aspect is that later in the day leaders of the people of the Bajaur region were scheduled to meet with representatives of the Pakistan central government to sign a peace deal similar to others signed earlier in nearby regions. The meeting has now been cancelled and the peace deal put in doubt.

Canadian military forces are actively engaged in this slaughter of people of the Muslim faith. History has shown clearly that medieval genocidal practices will not stop without a mass democratic movement that negates this backward trend in Anglo-U.S.-European imperialist culture and politics.

It is reported that following the slaughter, on October 31, an estimated 20,000 tribesmen "crowded into Khar, six miles from where the school that was shredded in air strikes on Monday." Cries of "Down with America" rang out. Speakers vowed "to go to Afghanistan to oust American and British forces." The Guardian newspaper writes that the Khar rally "was the largest of several across the Northwest frontier, Sindh and Punjab provinces, where American flags and effigies of Geoge Bush were burned."

Excerpts from Pakistani Newspaper Dawn, October 30

Eighty-two people were killed, 12 teenagers among them, in an air strike at a religious seminary in Damadola in the Bajaur tribal region on Monday morning.

Local residents believe the air strike was carried out by fixed-wing U.S. drones which fired hellfire missiles at the compound, killing all those inside the seminary, including its administrator Maulvi Liaqat Ali.

"Pakistani helicopters arrived 20 minutes later and fired rockets at the hillside," one resident said.

Surprisingly, the strike on Damadola, the second since January, came the day the government was expected to sign a peace agreement with militants in Bajaur replicating the September 5 truce reached with militants in North Waziristan.

Locals in Chenagai, a small hamlet in Damadola, a village some 13km northeast of the regional headquarters, Khaar, said two loud explosions had woken them up at around 5am.

One missile hit the compound while the other landed in a nearby stream, they said. The seminary was completely flattened. That was followed by a third strike from a second drone, they said.

About 15 minutes later, they said, three helicopter gunships of the Pakistan Army arrived and fired a few rockets that slammed into nearby hills.

"Spy planes (drones) have been flying over the area for the last few days," Akhunzada, a local resident said.

"There were two big explosions. They were so powerful that they shook the earth and rattled our doors and windows," Sahibzada Haroon Rashid, the Jamaat-i-Islami member in the lower house of parliament, who lives barely a kilometre away from the bombed-out seminary, told Dawn on telephone from Khaar.

He said the helicopters arrived at the scene a good 15 minutes later, firing a few rockets before flying back.

"Those were small thuds -- nothing in comparison to the big explosions that preceded them minutes earlier," he said.

Like many other residents, Sahibzada Haroon is convinced the seminary was bombed by U.S. drones and Pakistan owned the air strikes up to cover up the whole incident and avoid embarrassment.

"Absolutely. I have no doubt in my mind that it was done by the Americans and we are now making a futile attempt to cover it up," he said.

Local residents rushed to the scene of the bombing and pulled out the dead. Few bodies were found to be unharmed as locals collected mutilated body parts from under the single-storey building.

There was no 'high-value target' or any foreign militant among those killed, local residents and government officials said.

Shops and markets were closed in the entire Bajaur region as news of the latest bombing spread. Thousands of angry Bajauris turned up at the first funeral of about 20 victims at 9am.

Maulana Faqir Mohammad, in his emotional speech, vowed to continue 'jihad' against the U.S. and alleged that the bombing was an attempt to wreck peace in the tribal region. He announced that a black day would be observed on Tuesday and asked his followers to vent their anger in a peaceful manner.

Note

1. The original NBC story can be viewed at: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619.

(The Marxist-Leninist Daily - 3 November, 2006)

Libellés :

Actualité - Examples of Adverse Effects of U.S. Blockade

U.S. Blocks Internet

As the result of U.S. restrictions to the internet, the bandwidth allowed for the entire country of Cuba to connect to the internet is almost the same as the one granted to private or corporate users in other countries, the daily newspaper Juventud Rebelde reported.

In Australia, Bangladesh, Great Britain, Italy, or the U.S., an internet user can access a high speed service with chances of direct transfer of up to 24 megabytes per second. In Norway or Japan, that figure tops 100, the newspaper said.

However, Cuba, a country with over 11 million people, can use through satellite, only 65 megabytes per second of bandwidth for output and 124 megabytes per second for input.

Since the internet was created, the U.S. has been hindering Cuba's use of the worldwide information network, while strongly accusing the Cuban government of depriving the peoples access to the internet.

Due to the U.S. blockade laws, Cuba cannot connect to international fibre optic channels that pass very close to its coasts, forcing it to connect via satellite, which is more expensive and limited. As a result, Cuban authorities give priority to its social use by physicians, scientists, students, professionals, research institutions, cultural personalities, among others.

International organizations have rated that strategy as a model for developing countries. In Cuba there are 1,370 websites, 940,000 e-mail users, and another 219,000 internet users, Juventud Rebelde says.

U.S. Double Morality on Migratory Matters

Addressing the Heads of State and Government during the 16th Ibero-American Summit held recently in Montevideo, Uruguay, Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage denounced U.S. double morality on migratory matters. Highlighting the example of U.S. relations with Cuba, Lage explained that the U.S. has maintained for decades a policy whose aim is to provoke a massive exodus as a pretext for a campaign against the island and military aggression.

A Latin American who decides to live in the United States is an immigrant, while a Cuban is a political exile who escaped from a communist regime, Lage said.

An illegal emigré who is Latin American is returned to his/her country, but if the person is a Cuban, once he is in the United States, by virtue of the Cuban Adjustment Act, he immediately receives residency and permission to work. After a year there, he receives permanent residence automatically.

"The Bush administration," stated Lage, "suspended migratory talks, limited remittances to $300 quarterly and restricted trips to the island of Cuban emigrés to every three years, only for grandparents, sons or grandchildren and siblings."

U.S. Blocks Remittances and Trade

Remittances to Cuba, funds sent home by family members working abroad, are limited to $300 per quarter for Cubans working in the U.S. Violations of these arbitrary regulations are subject to fines by the U.S. Treasury and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which this year imposed $265,270 in fines on U.S. companies and private citizens for violating the blockade. Twenty-three people were fined a total of $57,265 and four companies paid $208,000 for violating such regulations, including exceeding the limit on remittances to Cuba.

A recent OFAC report says fines on private people ranged from $1,000 to $17,500 per violation, while in 2005 it charged $529,000 dollars to eight companies and 487 people.

Among the victims of this policy are Dresser-Rand Group ($171,305), Archer Daniel Midland consortium and its subsidiary Finora Canada Ltd ($13,750) and Augsburg College, Minn. ($9,000).

World Health Organizations Denounce Blockade

The World Health and Pan-American Health Organizations have expressed their opposition to the U.S. government's blockade on Cuba, Cuban newspapers reported.

Both institutions state the country's importance for developing health, capacity of research, willingness to include results and innovations and its solidarity with other countries, Prensa Latina wrote.

Difficulty and denial of visas to Cuban health scientists and authorities, as well as to U.S. scientists to travel to Cuba are other consequences of the blockade.

The U.S. also forbids publishing and broadcasting Cuban scientific articles in the U.S. and restricts common mechanisms of access to technologies, goods and equipment.

(Prensa Latina)

(The Marxist-Leninist Daily - November 8, 2006)

Libellés :

Actualité - Cruel and Irrational Attack Against Cuba

On November 8, the UN General Assembly will condemn, for the fifteenth time, the inhuman economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. against Cuba since July 6, 1960. Meanwhile, Washington continues to increase pressure against the Caribbean island. With new draconian measures adopted on May 6, 2004 and July 10, 2006, the White House carries on its irrational and cruel policy.

As a matter of fact, on October 10, 2006, a new group was created to reinforce restrictions against Cuba. The objective of this group is to go after travel agencies, companies and citizens that break the U.S. laws implemented against Cuba.

Alexander Acosta, the U.S. Attorney for South Florida, presented this astounding new body (Cuban Sanctions Enforcement Task Force, CSETF) formed by several governmental agencies such as the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the U.S. Department of Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Trade Department and the Customs and Border Protection services (CBP).

Acosta said that the reinforcement measures against Cuba are one of the political priorities of the United Sates. "We want to make perfectly clear that the federal agencies are fully alert to make sure they enforce the regulations against Cuba."

So any Cuban who visits his sick mother in Cuba without an exit permit issued by the Treasury Department, who stays on the island for more than 14 days every three years, who spends more than $50 USD a day during their 14-day stay, or who sends a remittance to his cousin, aunt or his Communist Party member father, can be condemned to 10 years in prison and a $1 million USD fine.

Likewise, any American tourist who spends a weekend in Havana could receive the same sanctions.

The U.S. Federal Attorney for South Florida justified these measures underlining the importance of "hastening the transition to democracy in Cuba.'' Since 2004, travel between Cuba and the U.S. has decreased by 54 percent, according to OFAC. In 2005, U.S. sanctions against Cuba cost a total of $4.1 billion USD to the Cuban economy, totaling $86 billion USD since 1960.

Economic sanctions against Cuba also have an extraterritorial nature, affecting foreign companies. Therefore, any product containing 10 percent or more of U.S. components cannot be exported to Cuba.

Likewise, any product containing any Cuban component cannot be sold in the U.S. market. For instance, a French baking company has to prove to the U.S. Treasury Department that its products do not contain a single gram of Cuban sugar before distributing them in the U.S. market.

A Japanese automobile company also has to prove that its cars do not contain a single gram of Cuban nickel before having access to the U.S. market.

The U.S. government has just added Dutch bank Netherland Caribbean Bank (NCB), a branch of the ING group, to its black list due to its trade relations with Cuba. Now, NCB cannot conduct business with any U.S. citizen or company. The economic sanctions against Cuba are not a bilateral matter at all.

U.S. Blockade Attempts to Crush Cuba With Diseases

In March 2006, the U.S. Treasury Department stopped close to 100 American scientist, neurologists, and physicians from taking part in the Fourth International Conference on Dying and Comas taking place in Havana. According to authorities, such participation was not in line with U.S. foreign policy.

In September 2006, the U.S. denied a visa to Cuban Health Minister José Ramón Balaguer, who had been invited to participate at a meeting of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), held from September 25 to 29. He could not attend the event despite Cuba being one of the founding members of that organization. Again, Washington did not respect the obligations of countries that are the headquarters for international organizations.

There are endless examples of the adverse effects of the U.S. economic sanctions. It is time to end this sordid and cruel attack against the Cuban population.

(From Rebélion)

(Granma - Salim Lamrani)

Libellés :

Actualité - U.S. Interference in Nicaraguan Election - Oliver North in Nicaragua: The Height of Cynicism

In reality, the empire does not know what else to do in its campaign to create fear and discredit around Daniel Ortega's campaign leading up to the November 5 elections in which, according to all sides, he would be the leading candidate in the first round and possibly the winner.

With that in mind, Dan Burton, the fascist U.S. legislator and associate of the Cuban-American mafia, and Donald Rumsfeld, the discredited U.S. Secretary of Defense, have been visiting Managua in an active and overt sapping operation.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez acted as a virtual intermediary in a teleconference from Washington addressed to reporters in Nicaragua, who were summoned to hear him by the Northern country's embassy. This is not even to mention the systematic Yankee proconsul work being undertaken in Managua by Paul Trivelli, who has been traveling all over Nicaragua seeking -- belatedly -- a coordination of rightist forces, which he has not been unable to do and has to content himself for now with giving support to the candidacy of banker Eduardo Montealegre of the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance.

According to news reports the Cuban-born Gutierrez warned that a victory by Ortega "would scare off foreign investors and endanger Nicaragua's participation in the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States."

You can't get much clearer than that.

Added to that, the online edition of the British newspaper The Guardian revealed that the White House has threatened to eliminate U.S. investment in Nicaragua if Daniel Ortega wins the presidency, while the State Department warned its citizens about possible outbreaks of violence before, during and after the November 5 elections, and urged those living in that country not to go out into the streets, and those planning to visit not to do so.

The State Department warning has certainly caught the attention of analysts and political commentators, who have also received information from the Army, the police and the Electoral Council confirming the adoption of measures to prevent any "outbreak of violence," although to date, no intelligence information would lead them to believe that will happen.

The polls, for their part, show the Sandinista leader -- who is standing for the third time since losing power in 1990 in an alliance with forces formerly against his government and even with ex-Contra representatives -- ahead of his main rivals. The majority of surveys say he is likely to win more than 30%, and some even show him with 37%, which would enable him to win in the first round.

In Nicaragua, in order to win the presidency, the candidate must obtain 35% or more of the vote and a difference of at least five percentage points over the closest rival. The polls and political analysts are not ruling out a second round, in which right-wing forces -- if they want to block his government program -- would have to unite.

It is in this high-pressure scenario that none other than former Colonel Oliver North arrived in Managua; the man with an indisputable record of service in the dirty war against the Sandinista Revolution and the Nicaraguan people when he was National Security advisor to the Republican government of Ronald Reagan, and who for five years directed illegal operations in Central America that became a secret supply network for the Contra forces.

Now, the former military officer is not just an associate of a company that hires torturers to go to Iraq, paying them up to $120,000 per year, he also acted as a reporter for the right-wing news network Fox News on the first days of U.S. aggression in that Arab country. That is the same network that has mounted an unconstrained campaign to discredit Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution.

While first-, second-, and third-class Washington spokespeople reiterate that North did not go to Nicaragua under Washington's orders, most believe that his services have been sold to the highest bidder, whoever is most interested in Ortega losing the election.

North's presence in Managua is a slap in the face for the people of that sister nation, who cannot forget that during that dirty war, 30,000 Nicaraguans died and that Central American country's economy was shattered. After taking a photo with José Rizo, the candidate of the governing Liberal Constitutional Party (PLC), of the adipose and corrupt ex-president Alemán, North told everyone who would listen that a victory for Daniel Ortega would be "the end of Nicaragua" and in that sense, he constantly added, "I think this is something that should concern all of us."

In the days leading up to November 5, further specimens of Washington's fauna will sink their claws into Managua with the goal of seeing Ortega fall at the polls; the latter's winning card is not what he did in the past, at least during the early years of the Revolution, but in the disaster created by the neoliberal governments that followed.

The 4.2 million Nicaraguans living in poverty; 35% of the population illiterate; 800,000 children outside of the school system; 1.5 million people going hungry every day, and the docile and servile submission of their rulers to Washington in the last 16 years are sufficient reason to not vote for Montealegre or Rizo, just to cite those with the best possibilities in this election.

The Great Nicaragua Unity Wins alliance, in which the Sandinista Front brought together conservatives, former Contras and sectors of the right, and which more than a few have criticized, has, if the polls are right, a real possibility of contesting the representatives of neoliberalism for the presidency, both in the first and second rounds -- if, as Washington has announced, there are no "outbreaks of violence" or electoral fraud.

If it were victorious, the Sandinista Front would have a second historic opportunity to govern with all and for the good of all.

(Granma International - Nidia Diaz)

Libellés :

Actualité - Coup in Iraq reportedly in the making

Iraqi army officers are reportedly planning to stage a military coup with US help in order to oust the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, reports the United Press International.

"Washington is becoming increasingly impatient with the failure of Maliki's government in quelling sectarian violence threatening to plunge Iraq in an all-out civil war," reports UPI.

In response to increasing US pressure for a crackdown on Shia militias hostile to the American occupation and public criticisms of Maliki by American military commanders and politicians, the Prime Minister complained that the US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad and the Bush administration were undermining the idea that he was the sovereign head of a democratic government, reports the WSWS.

“I’m a friend to the United States, but not America’s man in Iraq,” Maliki told Khalilzad, according to Hassan Senaid, one of Maliki’s advisors.

The proposed plan, according to the UPI source, stipulates that the new Iraqi army, with the assistance of US forces, will take control of power, suspend the constitution, dissolve parliament and form a new government. The military will also take direct control of the various provinces and the administration after imposing a state of emergency.

(The Dominion - Hillary Bain Lindsay)

Libellés :

Actualité - Débâcle électorale pour Bush et les républicains

Washington, 7 novembre - L’opposition démocrate a récupéré la majorité à la Chambre des députés du Congrès des États-Unis, ce qui met fin à douze années de contrôle républicain et ouvre la voie à ce qui s’annonce comme une opposition dure au président George W. Bush, dont les politiques feront très certainement l’objet d’enquêtes parlementaires dès l’année prochaine.

Les démocrates ont décroché plus des 15 sièges qu’il leur fallait gagner pour assumer le contrôle de la Chambre basse, selon toutes les chaînes nord-américaines d’information, informe ANSA.

Au moment de mettre sous presse, les démocrates s’étaient aussi adjugés trois des six sièges nécessaires pour contrôler le Sénat. Ils sont aussi la majorité parmi les gouverneurs.

La course au contrôle de la Chambre haute apparaissait beaucoup plus difficile que l’autre.

Quoi qu’il en soit, il s’agit pour les démocrates d’une victoire historique. Ce sont eux qui devront se prononcer sur les lois proposées par le président Bush pour mettre en œuvre ses politiques : depuis l’occupation de l’Irak jusqu’à la hausse des impôts, en passant par la santé, l’éducation et la réforme migratoire.

La démocrate Nancy Pelosi, une des critiques les plus acerbes de Bush, sera le nouveau porte-parole de la Chambre des représentants. C’est la première fois qu’une femme assume cette fonction aux Etats-Unis.

Au quartier général des démocrates, à Washington, le sénateur Charles Shumer, de New York, a promis que si la victoire démocrate se confirme dans les deux Chambres, «cela changera le cours» de la politique nord-américaine : de l’Irak à l’éducation en passant par la santé et les relations de Washington avec le reste du monde.

(Granma)

Libellés :

mardi, novembre 07, 2006

Actualité - Faisons avancer la lutte pour de nouveaux arrangements

Voice of Revolution salue les nombreux milliers de personnes partout aux États-Unis, du nord au sud, de l'est à l'ouest, qui prennent position contre la guerre et qui rejettent les plans du président et du Congrès pour la guerre et la répression.

Tout au long du mois d'octobre et jusqu'au jour d'élections, les gens ont multiplié les efforts pour renforcer leur résistance, bâtir leurs collectifs, nombreux et variés, et organiser des actions unies pour faire avancer la lutte pour les droits.

Nous saluons l'appel à manifester devant la Maison blanche le jour des élections. Cette action est un message clair que le peuple ne s'appuiera pas sur les politiciens et leurs élections pour mettre fin à la guerre et qu'il s'appuiera plutôt sur ses propres forces, qu'il continuera de rassembler ses forces combattantes pour ouvrir une voie vers l'avant. Nous saluons les candidats anti-guerre qui se présentent comme candidats indépendants ou en alliance avec les petits partis. Ils prennent position en dépit de tout ce qui est fait pour les exclure. Nous saluons tous ceux qui ont fait le serment de paix de l'électeur, résolus à voter uniquement pour les candidats qui exigent un arrêt immédiat de la guerre et qui s'opposent à toute guerre d'agression. Nous convions tous les électeurs américains à voter pour des candidats anti-guerre et à manifester devant la Maison blanche le 7 novembre.

Ce qui ressort dans la situation actuelle, c'est la nécessité de nouveaux arrangements axés sur la volonté du peuple d'exercer son droit de se gouverner. Ce besoin de nouveaux arrangements trouve son expression dans les élections actuelles: les candidats contre la guerre, le serment de paix de l'électeur, les manifestations, débrayages et manifestations le Jour des élections. Les électeurs réclament leur droit de décider de la plate-forme des candidats et se préparent à rejeter une élection qui marginalise leurs opinions et leur vote. Beaucoup s'éveillent à la réalité des arrangements actuels, des arrangements qui bloquent les candidats anti-guerre et qui ne laissent pas de choix aux électeurs, personne qui représente leurs intérêts. Cet éveil est dû en partie au fait que les Démocrates affichent une position fortement pro-guerre.

La machine du Parti démocrate, souvent allant directement à l'encontre des désirs des militants à la base qui sont contre la guerre, s'est arrangée pour que 20 des 22 candidats dans les courses dites «chaudes», soient des candidats pro-guerre. Ainsi, s'il y a une majorité démocrate au Congrès, ce sera une majorité pro-guerre. La sénatrice Hillary Clinton, une figure de proue du Parti démocrate, est non seulement en faveur de la poursuite de la guerre en Irak (avec sa proposition de «redéploiement») mais se joint à ceux qui réclament une action militaire contre l'Iran et la Républiqu