August 15 2011. A World to Win News Service. Further fissures and cracks have appeared among Iran's top rulers, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the spiritual leader of the Islamic regime, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his close circle in charge of the government.
Given the love affair between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad over the last six years and specially Khamenei's support for Ahmadinejad during the 2009 election that sparked an uprising, this difference between the two factions was not taken very seriously by masses at the beginning.
But now the sudden intensification of this row and the aggressive approach of both sides has left little doubt about the depth and gravity of the differences. These developments have also proved an explanation for previous contradictory statements made by Ahmadinejad and high-ranking conservative clergy.
This new round of quarrels broke out in April of this year when Ahmadinejad tried to fire Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi. This was strongly opposed by Khamenei, who reinstated Moslehi. In protest, Ahmadinejad did not turn up at his office for 11 days, until finally Khamenei threatened to dismiss him.
Upon his return Ahmadinejad faced a flood of criticism and threats from different sections of the power structure, especially his chief of staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, a former director of the Cultural Heritage and Tourism Foundation whom the pro-Khamenei forces are now attacking as the main figure behind what they call the "deviant current" formed by Ahmadinejad, Mashaei and their circle.
Some members of Parliament moved to impeach Ahmadinejad for defying parliamentary resolutions. He was accused of vote buying (at $80 a vote) during the 2009 election. In late May Parliament voted to investigate the matter.
The groups of thugs whom the dominant factions of the regime, including Ahmadinejad, had used to disrupt meetings and speeches of reformist and other opposition leaders, were assigned to abort the president's speech marking the anniversary of the death of the Islamic Republic's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on 4 June.
Since the rift has become public, around 30 people close to Mashaei and Ahmadinejad have been arrested. Among them are deputy foreign minister Mohammad Sharif Malekzadeh, Ahmadinejad associate Abbas Amirifar and journalists at the newspaper Hafte Sobh believed to belong to Mashaei.
Several Web sites close to Ahmadinejad and Mashaei were shut down. Although Ahmadinejad had to retreat in most cases, he persisted in trying to merge six ministries into three despite parliamentary opposition. Further, he issued a circular to the relevant ministries taking a stand against the proposed separation of women and men students into different classes in the universities and the early retirement of university lecturers that is meant to purge not considered politically and religiously correct, both measures supported by Khamenei.
Ahmadinejad is also trying to take control of the religious foundations known as the Oqaf organisations currently under the control of Khamenei's office. If he succeeded, this would mean that Khamenei would lose the control of very strong financial institutions with billions of dollars in annual income. Consequently, this will be a hard fight for Ahmadinejad and his gang.
These are not the only spheres of contention between Khamenei's supporters in the regime and Ahmadinejad's group. Despite the president's retreat, he continues to hit back here and there. One of the most important conflicts has involved the Pasdaran Corps (the so-called Revolutionary Guards), the Islamic Republic's strongest military force. Mohammad Ali Jaffari, the Pasdaran chief commander, said on 4 July, "The Pasdaran have been assigned by the judiciary system to deal with those who are currently related to the deviant current."
This was the Pasdaran’s clear support for Velayat-e Faqih (the religious doctrine of "Rule by the Supreme Jurist", the source of Khamenei's authority), and at the same time an open threat against the Ahmadinejad-Mashaei gang. Ahmadinejad hit back only a day later when he indirectly accused the Pasdaran of smuggling. Speaking at a conference against contraband goods and currency, he said "The 55-60 billion cigarettes consumed annually in Iran are worth 2 billion dollars. This figure would incite the greed of the world's biggest smugglers, so it would easily tempt our brothers who are smugglers." Jaffari's quick denial – "This kind of talk is a deviation" – left no doubt that Ahmadinejad had targeted the Pasdaran.
The row also involved the Oil Ministry. Ahmadinejad had fired this minister and taken charge of this key ministry himself. This was opposed by the Council of Guardians, a key body whose members are appointed by Khamenei, which called his move illegal. Ahmadinejad tried to ignore this ruling but finally had to retreat. He nominated another man to head the ministry, but failed to win parliamentary approval. Finally, after a month of negotiations, he named Pasdaran general Rostam Qasemi Oil Minister, and parliament gave its approval 3 August.
The nature and importance of the differences
Contention among different factions has been a permanent feature of the Islamic Republic of Iran since its foundation in 1979. With the election of Mohammad Khatami as president in 1997, the Islamic regime broke into two main factions, on the one side the conservative clerics and on the other those who wanted some reforms in the political system in order to save the Islamic Republic. This division defined the conflicts within the Iranian ruling class until recently.
Ahmadinejad has been aligned with Khamenei and other conservative sections of the regime against the reformists. His victory in the 2005 presidential race and especially his 2009 re-election were disputed by his opponents; many observers believe these victories would not have been possible without the support of Khamenei, the Pasdaran and the Basij militia led by the Pasdaran. It is claimed that those who engineered his victory in 2009 had to boost the 9 millions ballots cast for him to more than 23 million votes overnight. When Khamenei stepped in to express strong support for Ahmadinejad even before any formal decision, that ruled out any serious investigation of possible fraud.
Thus the present contention is unusual. Until recently these regime factions had to unite against the reformists and more importantly against the masses and their uprising. Khamenei helped Ahmadinejad achieve power in order to control him, but Ahmadinejad wants to be independent. He believes, or at least pretends to believe, that he owes his appointment not to Khamenei and the Pasdaran but the twelfth Imam. (Shia Islam holds that the twelfth and final successor to Mohammed, or Imam, known as the Mahdi or redeemer, did not die but is hidden; when the situation is ripe he will reappear to cleanse the world of corruption).
What has forced these two factions to continue to coexist, despite the harsh accusations against each other?
Khamenei probably could have impeached Ahmadinejad and eliminate him and his circle, but it would not be easy because there are many contradiction in his way. The Islamic regime has just gone through an uprising that strongly shook its pillars. The regime may have suppressed the uprising, but the people's retreat doesn’t mean a decisive defeat. A great many people are determined to find another opportunity to fight back. The participation of hundred thousands of people chanting anti-regime slogans in February demonstrations in Tehran and many other cities in support of the people’s movements in North Africa and the Middle East was a clear indication of that spirit. It is fair to say that the regime has come out of this battle not stronger but weaker. Thus Khamenei cannot risk recklessly destabilising the regime.
However there are other aspects to this. Every new conflict within the regime has cost it a part of its social base and core supporters. It would not be easy for many Khamenei supporters to digest a new split with a faction that until recently was a close ally. At the least, that would be dispiriting to its followers. This makes it especially hard for Khamenei to go ahead with impeaching Ahmadinejad. Many observers believe that Khamenei wants to keep Ahmadinejad until the end of his term, but under close control and supervision. It is also believed that the clergy will disqualify Ahmadinejad's candidates for parliament and especially the next presidential election in 2013. (Under law, he is not allowed to run for a third term.)
What makes this conflict different from the previous ones is that the two ruling gangs have lined up against each other in the ideological, political, economic and military spheres. Along with policy disputes, there is also conflict over the control of massive sources of income, such as oil and gas exports and the import and export of other commodities.
Ahmadinejad's efforts to keep key government posts exclusively in the hands of his circle was a source of conflict even during his first term as president. Mashaei has been another bone of contention. In 2008, when he was Iran's First Vice President, parliamentarians and conservative clergy forced him to resign for making allegedly pro-US and pro-Israeli remarks on several occasions. Among other things, he said that "It is the Israeli government that is our enemy and we have no enmity against the Israeli people." Ahmadinejad defiantly responded to this dismissal by making Mashaei his chief of staff.
Ideological differences
What makes Ahmadinejad's habit of removing clergy from governmental posts all the more irritating to Khamenei and his gang is the way the president has been distancing himself from the idea of Velayat-e faqih without explicitly admitting it. In fact the concept of the imminent reign of the Mahdi – which Mashei is accused of concocting – is in the service of such approach.
Ahmadinejad's fascination with the twelfth Imam is well known. His implication that he has the Madhi's backing is interpreted as trying to work around Khamenei's position as the Supreme Jurist and in fact make his existence meaningless. The clergy was outraged by a recent documentary claiming that the twelfth Imam will reappear soon. They blamed Mashaei and "deviant current" for this film. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly announced that he is answerable only to the twelfth Imam. This is laying the bases for the elimination of the clergy from the state apparatus.
Further, Mashaei and Ahmadinejad apparently believe that Islam has begun to lose its grip and are increasingly appealing Iranian nationalism instead. Mashaei has emphasised that Shia Islam (Iran's majority religion) represents the highest understanding of Islam and that Iran has added to Islam's richness. Ahmadinejad, in a speech at the National Museum of Iran, praised Cyrus the Great, the pre-Islamic founder of the Persian Empire, as one of the greatest moral leaders in human history. He continues to praise Iran and its past in his speeches and interviews. Such remarks have infuriated the conservative clergy. Even Mesbah Yazdi, the ayatollah Ahmadinejad claims to follow, called the idea of an "Iranian Islam" a shameful deviation.
Combining Islam with nationalism has caused some contention in the moral and cultural sphere as well. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly remarked that hijab (the covering of women's hair, a core issue in Islamic fundamentalism) "is not the most important problem of our society". He has argued in favour of permitting women into football stadiums, another extremely contentious question. Like his intervention against the proposed separation of women and men into different classrooms in the universities, this is a move to win over the reformists' social base. It also reflects an effort to "modernise" Islam, though lvery slightly.
The economic and military spheres
What makes this conflict all the more alarming for the ruling power structure is that these policy differences are being accompanied by economic and possibly military jockeying.
Ahmadinejad and his circle have been attempting to use their positions in government to build a financial base that could enable them to withstand the rival faction. Kayhan, a newspaper that strongly supports the most conservative clergy, including Ayatollah Khamenei, followed its remarks regarding the political differences by expressing deep concern about the economic measures sought by this faction. Kayhan says that the "deviant current" and Ahmadinejad "have crossed the line of justice by appointing unjustified persons to the government and also by making suspicious moves in relation to financial resources in the oil and industrial sectors (acts which, according to reports, have increased greatly in the last two years)."
Preparing for a possible conflict, Ahmadinejad has worked to reinforce relations with the Pasdaran both economically (by giving them massive construction contracts) and politically (by giving important governmental posts to Pasdaran commanders). His government has also enhanced the financial powers of provincial governors, who are appointed by the president. The struggle over the oil ministry is vital because petroleum is the country's most important source of income. But control over the import and export of other commodities is also an important issue.
Observers believe that Ahmadinejad and Mashaei have been trying to establish some sort of relations with the US, despite major obstacles on both sides. There are unconfirmed reports of several meetings between the Iranian government and US officials, including one between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mashaei in the United Arab Emirates. That would be consistent with Ahmadinejad's general efforts to gain room to manoeuvre. Voluntarily complying with World Bank and IMF conditions and further integrating Iran into the global economy would help the Ahmadinejad circle increase their role and influence in the economic structure and gain the upper hand politically. It is worth mentioning that imports of the most basic necessities for the masses have increased tremendously during the last six years of Ahmadinejad's presidency.
Ahmadinejad's proposal to shift control of the religious endowments from the Khamenei to the provincial governors can be considered another move in this direction.
The clear support of Pasdaran commanders for Ayatollah Khamenei and the row between Ahmadinejad and Pasdaran head Jaffari has led many people to believe that the Pasdaran are part of the Khamenei faction and Ahmadinejad cannot count on its support. But Ahmadinejad's contradictory and complex relationship with the Pasdaran and vice versa indicates that the situation is still highly fluid. At least it can be said that there are unclear and blind points in this relationship that need thorough investigation. For example, his naming of Pasdaran commander Rostam Qasemi to be Oil Minster, the presence of several ex-Pasdaran commanders in his cabinet and the many ex-Pasdaran occupying high governmental posts all seem to indicate some kind of trust between the two groupings. Perhaps events in the near future will shed light on this relationship.
Some sources of this conflict
Given the history of contradictions and contention within the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is hard to believe that such fissures and divisions will come to an end. As far as the recent rift is concerned, more than anything else it represents an ideological crisis. Islam has lost some of its ability to provide the regime with legitimacy and stability. People are tired of a theocratic regime and looking for a way out. Many of the regime's founders and the hard core of its managers, including the regime reformists, have pointed out the ineffectiveness of the Islamic Republic as it is and have called for reform. The 2009 uprising revealed a deep ideological crisis within the system. Recent developments, including the revolt in the Arab countries, have added to the worries of some factions of the regime.
In such a situation different factions want to put forward their programme to save the system, even if that means sacrificing and replacing some of the most important pillars holding up the regime. Ahmadinejad and Mashaei have understood that necessity and want to reform the regime in their way. But their success is not guaranteed, and they have to fight other factions, some operating openly and others not now taking a public position (for example, the Pasdaran).
What is certain is that even if Ahamdinejad and Mashaei were eliminated or silenced, these kinds of splits would not come to an end because the system itself is their source. They are all part of the problem.
But the destructiveness of the crisis will not itself lead to the overthrow of the Islamic regime, or at least will not automatically lead to its replacement with a system that is desired by the people. In fact, in any foreseeable situation, one or other faction will try to save the regime and restructure it more efficiently within the global imperialist system, and will continue to oppress, suppress and exploit the masses of people in the service of world capitalism.
At the same time these new developments also have the potential to push the people to tail one or another ruling class faction. The hatred for Ayatollah Khamenei, who has monopolised the key positions in the Islamic power structure and is the symbol of a theocratic system, could give rise to a pragmatic approach that would mean, this time, supporting the Ahmadinejad-Mashaei gang, even though they were key targets in the recent people's uprising. Such an approach would will take the people into a useless cycle and neutralise their years of struggle and sacrifices.
However, such fractures could weaken the system even more and provide the opportunity for the revolutionary forces to advance and organise their ranks and the masses for a radical change in the country.
Mittwoch, 7. September 2011
London's Burning – the revolt of the youth
“Mindless violence” - “pure criminality” - “monsters taking over our streets” - the British politicians and media, from the Tories and Murdoch's rabid tabloids to Labour and the liberal BBC, have closed ranks to denounce the tide of unrest sweeping the country's cities. But what is taking place on Britain's streets is a revolt against an oppressive state apparatus that is enforcing an unjust society, an apparatus that has lost much of its legitimacy in the eyes of millions. It is a revolt against state-backed racism and the colonial mentality of the British ruling class towards black people. It is a refusal by hundreds of thousands of youth to accept a world where they are destitute, with no jobs and no future.
In an interview with the BBC Tuesday morning, Home Minister Theresa May set the official tone by ruling out of order any discussion whatsoever that the urban rebellions might be due to anything other than just “thieving and looting”. But what was the spark that set off this firestorm of rage? It was the killing of 29-year-old father of four Mark Duggan by the Metropolitan Police in the North London borough of Tottenham. Duggan was a resident of the Broadwater Farm Estate, a large social housing complex that was the setting for a powerful rebellion 26 years ago, when a police raid killed Cynthia Jarrett, the mother of a local community activist. Mark Duggan was widely known in the local community, who have been shocked and angered as details of the killing have emerged. He was killed by the police after an armed unit stopped the mini-cab he was travelling in.
According to the Evening Standard, the main London evening paper (‘Father Dies and Policeman Hurt in ‘Terrifying’ , shoot-out’, 05/08/2011), a 20-year-old eyewitness saw Mark Duggan killed while he was lying on the ground. The witness is quoted as saying: ‘About three or four police officers had both men pinned on the ground at gunpoint. They were really big guns and then I heard four long shots. The police shot him [Duggan] on the floor.’
The police initially claimed that Mark Duggan fired a bullet at a police officer which lodged in the officer’s radio, ‘luckily’ saving his life. It has since been reported that the bullet was in fact fired by a police weapon. Now the cop who shot Mark Duggan says he never claimed Duggan had fired at all. The whole story that Duggan fired first and the police acted in self-defence is now in shreds.
But here's the important part: most people were pretty sure there was a police cover-up even before the facts came out. Over and over again people have seen the police cloak their bloody repression in lies. When the young Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes was shot 6 times in the head in 2005 following the bombings on London's transport system, the police said he was behaving like a “terrorist”, only for it to be shown later he was doing nothing out of the ordinary. When Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor, was clubbed by a police sergeant during the April 2008 G8 protest and died, the police first denied they'd struck him at all and instead blamed the protesters. The Innocent Project documented how over a period of years nearly 200 people died while in police custody – but not a single cop ever went to prison for any of these deaths – as if every single death were somehow natural or brought on by the dead man himself.
And all this is part of a bigger web of lies and deceit, where the politicians and media tout their wars as being waged for “democracy” and “freedom”, when they are nothing but vicious wars for empire, and they call this capitalist dog-eat-dog hellhole of inequality and oppression the best system on earth.
The so-called Independent Police Complaints Commission say there is no truth in the allegations that Mark Duggan was killed in cold-blood by the police. And the politicians from the entire spectrum are saying, calm down, wait for its verdict. But what sort of credibility can this body have? The Director of the IPCC is Moira Stewart, a former Police Commander who was criticised for failing to pass on vital information to her superior, Ian Blair, then Police Commissioner, about the case of de Menezes. The IPCC is meant to investigate all killings by the police. Putting Moira Stewart in charge of investigations for the IPCC makes the organisation into a travesty.
Here we see the theory of checks and balances in capitalist democracy in action! The police investigated by the police and then declaring themselves completely innocent. Is it any wonder the oppressed peoples in areas like Tottenham have no faith in this system?
On top of this, police credibility has been seriously undermined when the Met's top two officers recently had to resign after it came out that they had taken gifts worth thousands from cronies of the Murdoch media empire and that Murdoch's agents had paid cops hundreds of thousands in bribes for personal phone numbers of crime victims, royals, and celebrities.
Labour Party politicians initially made some noise about how the revolts are being fueled by cutbacks by the Conservative-Liberal Democratic Party coalition. And the current government austerity programme, and the larger financial crisis it is part of, is indeed hitting people hard. Unemployment nationwide has almost doubled in 3 years, and it is especially high in places like Tottenham – for every job in the borough there are 54 young people there who need work, and the unemployment rate for Black youth is over 50%. One study reported that Tottenham is actually one of the areas of Britain that will be least affected by the government cutbacks – because there was almost nothing to be cut back to start with!
Tottenham and most of the other areas that have seen the most intense fighting – Peckham, Lewisham, Hackney, in London, Liverpool's Merseyside, and similar districts in Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham – all sit towards the bottom of the food chain inside imperialist Britain. And for 13 years, the very Party that working people, women, minorities and the poor generally were told was theirs – Labour – presided over an intensification of social and economic inequalities. As Tony Blair's top adviser Peter Mandelson infamously said of Labour, we are intensely at ease with people getting seriously rich. They have also turned out to be intensely at ease with people sinking into grinding poverty.
But as the rebellions continued, Labour has ditched its talk about the social causes of the rebellion and jumped into line with the entire British ruling establishment and begun to call for more repression – on BBC, former London Mayor “Red” Ken Livingstone is trying to prove himself “electable” in the upcoming Mayoral elections, by hailing the police, and calling for beefing up their ranks. Black Labour Party MPs or ex-MPs like Dennis Lammy have joined in, as has Dianne Abbott who said, “Cuts don't turn you into a thief.” Labour will undoubtedly renew their talk of how these events show the need to fight the “Tory cutbacks” - but only once they are sure that the rebellion has been crushed by brute force.
Deep down everyone knows why the police shot Mark Duggan. Black people in Britain have suffered the worst of all from imperialism. First black people were enslaved in the African Holocaust, then the lands were colonised in the nineteenth century ‘Scramble for Africa’. How does a nation that has committed such genocide justify its actions to itself? By telling itself that black people are ‘violent’ and ‘savage’ and deserve to be exploited and oppressed by ‘superior’ white people. It was these self-serving stereotypes that are the background for the mentality of the police officers that opened fire and killed Mark Duggan. The people who have protested and revolted will sense this, even if these views never appear in the mainstream media.
One of the main themes being put out by the media, including the BBC, is that the police have been going “too easy” on the youth rebelling in the streets. This has unleashed a frenzy of activity from the English Defence League, the British National Party and other racist thugs on social media networks. On so-called respectable blogging sites like Yahoo UK, there have been countless open calls not only to expel the immigrants but to outright “exterminate” them. But there is not a word of protest at this from any establishment figure.
And what about the endless stream of charges that, as Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, put it, “Let's be clear, the violence we saw last night had nothing to do with the death of Mr Duggan. It was needless opportunist theft and violence – nothing more, nothing less.” Several things need to be said about this. First, consider the hypocrisy of the political and media spokesmen of this system flying into a frenzy of outrage at inner city youth stealing trainers, mobile phones or other petty items. This ruling class built their system on the slave trade, they enforced a colonial empire at the cost of tens of millions of lives, and today they make hundreds of billions from an empire that stretches around the globe and is enforced at gunpoint in Afghanistan and Iraq. These world-class imperialist hypocrites have no right to condemn anyone for “looting and thieving”.
But let's take a closer look at the actual way the “thieving and looting” has gone down. In fact, it is very clear that, as the Guardian headlined their coverage on 9 August, “There was no doubting their aim: they wanted to fight the police.” Much of the youths’ tactics, lighting fires in side street dustbins and the like, have been aimed at drawing the police into fighting them on terrain where they have at least half a chance to get in some blows. The police, in turn, try to avoid that and instead have their own priorities – mainly defending prestigious corporate and government buildings, while conceding to the youth more space to go into areas without such targets.
So when the politicians and media point to the few flats or family shops that were burnt on the first night in Tottenham, it is important to be clear that it is the police themselves who are a major factor in determining what gets protected, and what doesn't. Furthermore, the revolts started in a spontaneous, angry outburst by teenagers who were necessarily inexperienced in struggle. Errors get made in the course of any struggle. There have been two more nights of revolts following the initial revolt in Tottenham, and it seems that despite the rapid spread of unrest, no or at least fewer homes have been destroyed by fire.
The masses taking part in this revolt or out on its fringes are full of the contradictions that come from being part of capitalist society, but being in its most oppressed sections. In one housing estate in the center of the fighting in Hackney, one Afro-Caribbean mother lamented that the youth were getting away from the original cause of justice for Mark Duggan, and was especially upset at the looting of local shops, but when her son and his mates showed up with a bag of new clothes for her, she was delighted: I'm on benefits, we've got nothing, she explained. Mothers struggled with their young sons and daughters not to go out, but shouted with glee when they saw projectiles strike home on a police van. A middle aged Iraqi political refugee clutched to his chest his valuable personal documents that he’d salvaged, and worried that the car burning in the street might ignite his flat just above, but was torn by sympathy for the youth, who were up against the very same forces who'd turned his own country into a killing ground. An Afro-Caribbean woman and her daughters gathered around a burning dumpster singing Bob Marley's song “Burning and Looting”.
It is true that numerous family shops and corner stores have been looted, and this is a source of mounting tension – shopkeepers, often from a single nationality, are forming teams in different areas to defend their shops, which offers the police real opportunities to fan the flames of infighting among the oppressed.
But at the heart of this welter of contradictions, the force driving these rebellions is a sense on the part of the youth that it's a chance to strike back at the larger forces dominating their lives and oppressing them, and they're running to seize that chance. A group of four British-born youth of Somali origin heading for the fighting in Hackney Monday night talked of how they felt that they had no one that they could count on but themselves and their mates, that they might have to drop out of college due to the recent massive hike in education fees, and that they considered themselves “revolutionaries”. One question in the air: how much were the youth influenced by the rebellions in the Middle East and North Africa?
It is also worth pointing out that despite the howls of outrage by the establishment about the “violence ruling England's streets”, there have been no reports of anyone but the police being specifically targeted by the youth. And despite the conflicts that have erupted from time to time on the streets between white, Asian and Afro-Caribbean youth, during these rebellions all comers of whatever race are still being greeted in a spirit of unity and solidarity – a theme that is spelled out repeatedly in the Twitter, Facebook and Blackberry messages that are flying over the airwaves.
Observers have also been struck by the patchwork of rebellion that has swept through the capital and now the country. Previous rebellions – Brixton and Tottenham in the 1980s in particular – were confined to a single area of the capital, in response to a particular outrage by the police. But as in the outbreaks of revolt in France a few years ago, fighting with the police has now erupted in at least 20 or more different districts in the capital plus several in cities in the Midlands, with the youth proving far more fluid and fast-moving than even the mobile police forces. It is no exaggeration to say that this has caused shock among establishment “talking heads”, who have struggled to explain this. They recoil at the idea that there are broad ranks of youth, numbering in the millions, who feel themselves to be excluded from society and to have no allegiance to its norms and rules and who long for the chance they are getting today.
This rebellion is fueled by anger at cutbacks, poverty, racism and the police. There is real fury right now at the brutality and oppression of a state apparatus that can just gun down a black man in cold blood then try and cover its tracks with lies and misinformation. But while this was the spark, the fact that this spark has caught fire and spread so far and so fast reflects much more than any one particular abuse. The police are the front-line enforcers of an entire capitalist system that is built on exploitation and inequality. In the eyes of the system, police violence is by default “legitimate” - because they are the armed defenders of property relations that lead to a handful accumulating fabulous wealth, while millions live with nothing, and no hope of ever having anything more. It is not chance that sees the cops stop young Black men on the street thousands of times a month, with almost no arrests – this is just the sharpest edge of an entire system, and efforts to reduce what is going on to one or another particular abuse will lead to trying to put plasters on the sores when what's needed is to get to the root cause and overthrow the system that is the source of all these abuses through revolution.
As night three of the rebellions winds down, the question on everyone's lips is, what next? Cries are going up for broad curfews or for the army to intervene, ideas that are being evoked even by liberal news presenters like the BBC's John Humphrys. One thing is sure: the justice and respect the masses crave and deserve will not be granted to them by this system.
In an interview with the BBC Tuesday morning, Home Minister Theresa May set the official tone by ruling out of order any discussion whatsoever that the urban rebellions might be due to anything other than just “thieving and looting”. But what was the spark that set off this firestorm of rage? It was the killing of 29-year-old father of four Mark Duggan by the Metropolitan Police in the North London borough of Tottenham. Duggan was a resident of the Broadwater Farm Estate, a large social housing complex that was the setting for a powerful rebellion 26 years ago, when a police raid killed Cynthia Jarrett, the mother of a local community activist. Mark Duggan was widely known in the local community, who have been shocked and angered as details of the killing have emerged. He was killed by the police after an armed unit stopped the mini-cab he was travelling in.
According to the Evening Standard, the main London evening paper (‘Father Dies and Policeman Hurt in ‘Terrifying’ , shoot-out’, 05/08/2011), a 20-year-old eyewitness saw Mark Duggan killed while he was lying on the ground. The witness is quoted as saying: ‘About three or four police officers had both men pinned on the ground at gunpoint. They were really big guns and then I heard four long shots. The police shot him [Duggan] on the floor.’
The police initially claimed that Mark Duggan fired a bullet at a police officer which lodged in the officer’s radio, ‘luckily’ saving his life. It has since been reported that the bullet was in fact fired by a police weapon. Now the cop who shot Mark Duggan says he never claimed Duggan had fired at all. The whole story that Duggan fired first and the police acted in self-defence is now in shreds.
But here's the important part: most people were pretty sure there was a police cover-up even before the facts came out. Over and over again people have seen the police cloak their bloody repression in lies. When the young Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes was shot 6 times in the head in 2005 following the bombings on London's transport system, the police said he was behaving like a “terrorist”, only for it to be shown later he was doing nothing out of the ordinary. When Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor, was clubbed by a police sergeant during the April 2008 G8 protest and died, the police first denied they'd struck him at all and instead blamed the protesters. The Innocent Project documented how over a period of years nearly 200 people died while in police custody – but not a single cop ever went to prison for any of these deaths – as if every single death were somehow natural or brought on by the dead man himself.
And all this is part of a bigger web of lies and deceit, where the politicians and media tout their wars as being waged for “democracy” and “freedom”, when they are nothing but vicious wars for empire, and they call this capitalist dog-eat-dog hellhole of inequality and oppression the best system on earth.
The so-called Independent Police Complaints Commission say there is no truth in the allegations that Mark Duggan was killed in cold-blood by the police. And the politicians from the entire spectrum are saying, calm down, wait for its verdict. But what sort of credibility can this body have? The Director of the IPCC is Moira Stewart, a former Police Commander who was criticised for failing to pass on vital information to her superior, Ian Blair, then Police Commissioner, about the case of de Menezes. The IPCC is meant to investigate all killings by the police. Putting Moira Stewart in charge of investigations for the IPCC makes the organisation into a travesty.
Here we see the theory of checks and balances in capitalist democracy in action! The police investigated by the police and then declaring themselves completely innocent. Is it any wonder the oppressed peoples in areas like Tottenham have no faith in this system?
On top of this, police credibility has been seriously undermined when the Met's top two officers recently had to resign after it came out that they had taken gifts worth thousands from cronies of the Murdoch media empire and that Murdoch's agents had paid cops hundreds of thousands in bribes for personal phone numbers of crime victims, royals, and celebrities.
Labour Party politicians initially made some noise about how the revolts are being fueled by cutbacks by the Conservative-Liberal Democratic Party coalition. And the current government austerity programme, and the larger financial crisis it is part of, is indeed hitting people hard. Unemployment nationwide has almost doubled in 3 years, and it is especially high in places like Tottenham – for every job in the borough there are 54 young people there who need work, and the unemployment rate for Black youth is over 50%. One study reported that Tottenham is actually one of the areas of Britain that will be least affected by the government cutbacks – because there was almost nothing to be cut back to start with!
Tottenham and most of the other areas that have seen the most intense fighting – Peckham, Lewisham, Hackney, in London, Liverpool's Merseyside, and similar districts in Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham – all sit towards the bottom of the food chain inside imperialist Britain. And for 13 years, the very Party that working people, women, minorities and the poor generally were told was theirs – Labour – presided over an intensification of social and economic inequalities. As Tony Blair's top adviser Peter Mandelson infamously said of Labour, we are intensely at ease with people getting seriously rich. They have also turned out to be intensely at ease with people sinking into grinding poverty.
But as the rebellions continued, Labour has ditched its talk about the social causes of the rebellion and jumped into line with the entire British ruling establishment and begun to call for more repression – on BBC, former London Mayor “Red” Ken Livingstone is trying to prove himself “electable” in the upcoming Mayoral elections, by hailing the police, and calling for beefing up their ranks. Black Labour Party MPs or ex-MPs like Dennis Lammy have joined in, as has Dianne Abbott who said, “Cuts don't turn you into a thief.” Labour will undoubtedly renew their talk of how these events show the need to fight the “Tory cutbacks” - but only once they are sure that the rebellion has been crushed by brute force.
Deep down everyone knows why the police shot Mark Duggan. Black people in Britain have suffered the worst of all from imperialism. First black people were enslaved in the African Holocaust, then the lands were colonised in the nineteenth century ‘Scramble for Africa’. How does a nation that has committed such genocide justify its actions to itself? By telling itself that black people are ‘violent’ and ‘savage’ and deserve to be exploited and oppressed by ‘superior’ white people. It was these self-serving stereotypes that are the background for the mentality of the police officers that opened fire and killed Mark Duggan. The people who have protested and revolted will sense this, even if these views never appear in the mainstream media.
One of the main themes being put out by the media, including the BBC, is that the police have been going “too easy” on the youth rebelling in the streets. This has unleashed a frenzy of activity from the English Defence League, the British National Party and other racist thugs on social media networks. On so-called respectable blogging sites like Yahoo UK, there have been countless open calls not only to expel the immigrants but to outright “exterminate” them. But there is not a word of protest at this from any establishment figure.
And what about the endless stream of charges that, as Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, put it, “Let's be clear, the violence we saw last night had nothing to do with the death of Mr Duggan. It was needless opportunist theft and violence – nothing more, nothing less.” Several things need to be said about this. First, consider the hypocrisy of the political and media spokesmen of this system flying into a frenzy of outrage at inner city youth stealing trainers, mobile phones or other petty items. This ruling class built their system on the slave trade, they enforced a colonial empire at the cost of tens of millions of lives, and today they make hundreds of billions from an empire that stretches around the globe and is enforced at gunpoint in Afghanistan and Iraq. These world-class imperialist hypocrites have no right to condemn anyone for “looting and thieving”.
But let's take a closer look at the actual way the “thieving and looting” has gone down. In fact, it is very clear that, as the Guardian headlined their coverage on 9 August, “There was no doubting their aim: they wanted to fight the police.” Much of the youths’ tactics, lighting fires in side street dustbins and the like, have been aimed at drawing the police into fighting them on terrain where they have at least half a chance to get in some blows. The police, in turn, try to avoid that and instead have their own priorities – mainly defending prestigious corporate and government buildings, while conceding to the youth more space to go into areas without such targets.
So when the politicians and media point to the few flats or family shops that were burnt on the first night in Tottenham, it is important to be clear that it is the police themselves who are a major factor in determining what gets protected, and what doesn't. Furthermore, the revolts started in a spontaneous, angry outburst by teenagers who were necessarily inexperienced in struggle. Errors get made in the course of any struggle. There have been two more nights of revolts following the initial revolt in Tottenham, and it seems that despite the rapid spread of unrest, no or at least fewer homes have been destroyed by fire.
The masses taking part in this revolt or out on its fringes are full of the contradictions that come from being part of capitalist society, but being in its most oppressed sections. In one housing estate in the center of the fighting in Hackney, one Afro-Caribbean mother lamented that the youth were getting away from the original cause of justice for Mark Duggan, and was especially upset at the looting of local shops, but when her son and his mates showed up with a bag of new clothes for her, she was delighted: I'm on benefits, we've got nothing, she explained. Mothers struggled with their young sons and daughters not to go out, but shouted with glee when they saw projectiles strike home on a police van. A middle aged Iraqi political refugee clutched to his chest his valuable personal documents that he’d salvaged, and worried that the car burning in the street might ignite his flat just above, but was torn by sympathy for the youth, who were up against the very same forces who'd turned his own country into a killing ground. An Afro-Caribbean woman and her daughters gathered around a burning dumpster singing Bob Marley's song “Burning and Looting”.
It is true that numerous family shops and corner stores have been looted, and this is a source of mounting tension – shopkeepers, often from a single nationality, are forming teams in different areas to defend their shops, which offers the police real opportunities to fan the flames of infighting among the oppressed.
But at the heart of this welter of contradictions, the force driving these rebellions is a sense on the part of the youth that it's a chance to strike back at the larger forces dominating their lives and oppressing them, and they're running to seize that chance. A group of four British-born youth of Somali origin heading for the fighting in Hackney Monday night talked of how they felt that they had no one that they could count on but themselves and their mates, that they might have to drop out of college due to the recent massive hike in education fees, and that they considered themselves “revolutionaries”. One question in the air: how much were the youth influenced by the rebellions in the Middle East and North Africa?
It is also worth pointing out that despite the howls of outrage by the establishment about the “violence ruling England's streets”, there have been no reports of anyone but the police being specifically targeted by the youth. And despite the conflicts that have erupted from time to time on the streets between white, Asian and Afro-Caribbean youth, during these rebellions all comers of whatever race are still being greeted in a spirit of unity and solidarity – a theme that is spelled out repeatedly in the Twitter, Facebook and Blackberry messages that are flying over the airwaves.
Observers have also been struck by the patchwork of rebellion that has swept through the capital and now the country. Previous rebellions – Brixton and Tottenham in the 1980s in particular – were confined to a single area of the capital, in response to a particular outrage by the police. But as in the outbreaks of revolt in France a few years ago, fighting with the police has now erupted in at least 20 or more different districts in the capital plus several in cities in the Midlands, with the youth proving far more fluid and fast-moving than even the mobile police forces. It is no exaggeration to say that this has caused shock among establishment “talking heads”, who have struggled to explain this. They recoil at the idea that there are broad ranks of youth, numbering in the millions, who feel themselves to be excluded from society and to have no allegiance to its norms and rules and who long for the chance they are getting today.
This rebellion is fueled by anger at cutbacks, poverty, racism and the police. There is real fury right now at the brutality and oppression of a state apparatus that can just gun down a black man in cold blood then try and cover its tracks with lies and misinformation. But while this was the spark, the fact that this spark has caught fire and spread so far and so fast reflects much more than any one particular abuse. The police are the front-line enforcers of an entire capitalist system that is built on exploitation and inequality. In the eyes of the system, police violence is by default “legitimate” - because they are the armed defenders of property relations that lead to a handful accumulating fabulous wealth, while millions live with nothing, and no hope of ever having anything more. It is not chance that sees the cops stop young Black men on the street thousands of times a month, with almost no arrests – this is just the sharpest edge of an entire system, and efforts to reduce what is going on to one or another particular abuse will lead to trying to put plasters on the sores when what's needed is to get to the root cause and overthrow the system that is the source of all these abuses through revolution.
As night three of the rebellions winds down, the question on everyone's lips is, what next? Cries are going up for broad curfews or for the army to intervene, ideas that are being evoked even by liberal news presenters like the BBC's John Humphrys. One thing is sure: the justice and respect the masses crave and deserve will not be granted to them by this system.
Friedenscamp zerstört, Ernte gestohlen, Land geraubt
Die Angriffe gegen die zapatistische Bewegung im südmexikanischen Bundesstaat Chiapas haben sich wieder verschärft. Erst kürzlich zerstörten 150 Mitglieder der regierungsnahen Organisation der Kaffeeproduzenten von Ocosingo (ORCAO) die Küche des zivilen Friedenscamps in der zapatistischen Gemeinden Patria Nueva.
Seit Jahren nutzen freiwillige Beobachter aus Mexiko und dem Ausland über zehn solcher Camps, um Aktivitäten von Polizei, Militär und Paramilitär in der Aufstandsregion zu dokumentieren. Der Rat der Guten Regierung von Morelia, der eine von fünf Einflusszonen der Zapatistischen Befreiungsarmee (EZLN) verwaltet, prangerte die Zerstörung des Lagers in Patria Nueva an, stellte aber klar, dass die ORCAO-Angehörigen lediglich fehlgeleitete Helfershelfer des Staates seien.
Im Kommuniqué des Rates heißt es: »Die drei Ebenen der schlechten Regierungen waren zornig, weil sie nicht wollen, dass ihre Tricks bekannt werden. Darum organisierten sie unwissende Menschen, um ihre Todesprojekte in unsere autonomen Territorien einzuschleppen, wo wir auf unsere Weise regieren, so wie die Bevölkerung das möchte.«
Seit einigen Jahren setzen die Gegner der Zapatisten nicht nur Sicherheitskräfte und Paramilitärs gegen die Bewegung ein, sondern sie mobilisieren in zunehmendem Umfang aufgehetzte Regierungsanhänger und loyale Organisationen. Denn die Regierung will kritische Berichte vermeiden, wie sie bei Angriffen offizieller Kräfte kaum vermeidbar sind. Viele regierungsnahe Gruppen erhalten seit Jahrzehnten Geld vom Staat und sind dadurch in große Abhängigkeit geraten, so dass die Behörden mit vorauseilendem Gehorsam rechnen können, sobald sie auch nur andeuten, dass die Zahlungen eingestellt werden könnten .
Am 15. August meldete der zapatistische Rat von La Garrucha, dass zapatistische Bauern im autonomen Bezirk Francisco Villa von der ORCAO beschossen wurden. Das mexikoweite Netzwerk gegen Repression bewertete die Umzingelung der arbeitenden Bauern als eine paramilitärische Taktik mit dem Ziel, die EZLN, deren Waffen seit Mitte Januar 1994 schweigen, zu einer bewaffneten Reaktion zu provozieren.
Bereits Anfang August hatte die zapatistische Verwaltung von La Realidad bekannt gegeben, dass Angehörige verschiedener Parteien Kaffeepflanzungen von Zapatistas in der Gemeinde Monte Redondo zerstört hätten. Zudem seien Teile der Bohnen- und Maisernte geraubt und etwa 20 Hektar Land besetzt worden. Der Rat machte Gouverneur Juan Sabines verantwortlich, »der die Menschen betrügt und manipuliert«. Die Zapatistas reagierten nicht auf die Provokationen, die Regierung schwieg zu den Vorwürfen.
Nach Einschätzung des Anthropologen Gilberto López y Rivas wird der Paramilitarismus seit 1994 in Chiapas als Staatspolitik betrieben, »als repressive Antwort auf ökonomische, politische und soziale Probleme und als Vorhut des Kapitals«.
Hintergrund der Konflikte sind neben politischen Gründen – eine Ausweitung des zapatistischen Einflusses soll unbedingt verhindert werden – harte Wirtschaftsinteressen. Chiapas wird derzeit zu einem »Touristenparadies« ausgebaut, was der Regierung und den beteiligten Unternehmen jedoch nicht schnell genug geht, da die neoliberalen »Entwicklungsprojekte« auf erbitterten Widerstand zahlreicher oppositioneller Gemeinden stoßen. Weitere Vorhaben sind der Ausbau von Palmölplantagen – Chiapas ist bereits Produzent Nummer eins in Mexiko –, die Ölförderung und die Ausnutzung der immensen biologischen Vielfalt im Lakandonischen Regenwald. Als Interessenten im Hintergrund werden auch transnationale Konzerne wie Bayer und Monsanto vermutet.
Luz Kerkeling
http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/205450.wieder-angriffe-auf-zapatisten-in-chiapas.html
Seit Jahren nutzen freiwillige Beobachter aus Mexiko und dem Ausland über zehn solcher Camps, um Aktivitäten von Polizei, Militär und Paramilitär in der Aufstandsregion zu dokumentieren. Der Rat der Guten Regierung von Morelia, der eine von fünf Einflusszonen der Zapatistischen Befreiungsarmee (EZLN) verwaltet, prangerte die Zerstörung des Lagers in Patria Nueva an, stellte aber klar, dass die ORCAO-Angehörigen lediglich fehlgeleitete Helfershelfer des Staates seien.
Im Kommuniqué des Rates heißt es: »Die drei Ebenen der schlechten Regierungen waren zornig, weil sie nicht wollen, dass ihre Tricks bekannt werden. Darum organisierten sie unwissende Menschen, um ihre Todesprojekte in unsere autonomen Territorien einzuschleppen, wo wir auf unsere Weise regieren, so wie die Bevölkerung das möchte.«
Seit einigen Jahren setzen die Gegner der Zapatisten nicht nur Sicherheitskräfte und Paramilitärs gegen die Bewegung ein, sondern sie mobilisieren in zunehmendem Umfang aufgehetzte Regierungsanhänger und loyale Organisationen. Denn die Regierung will kritische Berichte vermeiden, wie sie bei Angriffen offizieller Kräfte kaum vermeidbar sind. Viele regierungsnahe Gruppen erhalten seit Jahrzehnten Geld vom Staat und sind dadurch in große Abhängigkeit geraten, so dass die Behörden mit vorauseilendem Gehorsam rechnen können, sobald sie auch nur andeuten, dass die Zahlungen eingestellt werden könnten .
Am 15. August meldete der zapatistische Rat von La Garrucha, dass zapatistische Bauern im autonomen Bezirk Francisco Villa von der ORCAO beschossen wurden. Das mexikoweite Netzwerk gegen Repression bewertete die Umzingelung der arbeitenden Bauern als eine paramilitärische Taktik mit dem Ziel, die EZLN, deren Waffen seit Mitte Januar 1994 schweigen, zu einer bewaffneten Reaktion zu provozieren.
Bereits Anfang August hatte die zapatistische Verwaltung von La Realidad bekannt gegeben, dass Angehörige verschiedener Parteien Kaffeepflanzungen von Zapatistas in der Gemeinde Monte Redondo zerstört hätten. Zudem seien Teile der Bohnen- und Maisernte geraubt und etwa 20 Hektar Land besetzt worden. Der Rat machte Gouverneur Juan Sabines verantwortlich, »der die Menschen betrügt und manipuliert«. Die Zapatistas reagierten nicht auf die Provokationen, die Regierung schwieg zu den Vorwürfen.
Nach Einschätzung des Anthropologen Gilberto López y Rivas wird der Paramilitarismus seit 1994 in Chiapas als Staatspolitik betrieben, »als repressive Antwort auf ökonomische, politische und soziale Probleme und als Vorhut des Kapitals«.
Hintergrund der Konflikte sind neben politischen Gründen – eine Ausweitung des zapatistischen Einflusses soll unbedingt verhindert werden – harte Wirtschaftsinteressen. Chiapas wird derzeit zu einem »Touristenparadies« ausgebaut, was der Regierung und den beteiligten Unternehmen jedoch nicht schnell genug geht, da die neoliberalen »Entwicklungsprojekte« auf erbitterten Widerstand zahlreicher oppositioneller Gemeinden stoßen. Weitere Vorhaben sind der Ausbau von Palmölplantagen – Chiapas ist bereits Produzent Nummer eins in Mexiko –, die Ölförderung und die Ausnutzung der immensen biologischen Vielfalt im Lakandonischen Regenwald. Als Interessenten im Hintergrund werden auch transnationale Konzerne wie Bayer und Monsanto vermutet.
Luz Kerkeling
http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/205450.wieder-angriffe-auf-zapatisten-in-chiapas.html
Sonntag, 7. August 2011
Stellungnahme der Kommunistischen Partei Luxemburgs zur aktuellen »Euro-Krise«
Eine Krise des Systems
Kommunistische Partei Luxemburgs (August 2011), auf Kommunisten-online am 5. August 2011 – In dieser Woche sollen die Staats- und Regierungschefs zum wiederholten Mal zu einem teuren Krisentreffen in Brüssel zusammenkommen, um eine Lösung für die sogenannte Eurokrise zu finden. Ganz gleich, wie die Beschlüsse dieses »Sondergipfels« aussehen mögen, sie werden nichts anderes bewirken, als die Agonie des Systems zu verlängern. Da sich die Debatten der Staatenlenker ausschließlich damit beschäftigen, wie die Banken als eine wichtige Stütze des kapitalistischen Systems ungeschoren bleiben und die Aktionäre weiterhin Gewinne einfahren können, sowie damit, wie die Lohnabhängigen der Euroländer noch stärker zur Kasse gebeten werden können, wird auch dieses Treffen – ebenso wie die weiteren, die darauf folgen werden – zu keiner Lösung der Krise und zu einer weiteren Verschuldung der Staaten führen.
Als die Banken und Konzerne der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Frankreichs mit Hilfe der von ihnen bezahlten Politiker wenige Jahre nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg daran gingen, ihre Wirtschaftspolitik zu koordinieren und nach und nach die Grundlagen für die heutige Europäische Union zu schaffen, ging es ihnen nur darum, die besten Verwertungsbedingungen für das Kapital zu sichern. Alle Beschlüsse, die seit der Gründung der»Europäischen Gemeinschaft für Kohle und Stahl« im April 1951, an der auch Luxemburg beteiligt war, gefaßt wurden, dienten und dienen ausschließlich diesem Ziel.
Mit der Gründung weiterer wirtschaftlicher Zusammenschlüsse in den darauf folgenden Jahren, wie EWG, Euratom, Europäische Gemeinschaften, mit den Verträgen von Rom, Maastricht, Lissabon, Schengen wurde dieser Weg zementiert. Dazu gehört auch die Einführung des Euro als Einheitswährung für eine Gruppe von 17 Staaten. Die Aufnahme immer neuer Staaten in diesen Kreis war stets darauf gerichtet, möglichst viele Länder fest in das Herrschaftsgebiet der führenden EU-Staaten einzubeziehen. Die ökonomisch weniger leistungsfähigen Länder wie Griechenland, Spanien, Portugal wurden genötigt, immer mehr Waren aus den »Kernländern« der EU zu importieren.
Diese Importe wurden durch Kredite der Banken der Exportländer finanziert, und ebenso wurde die Vernichtung eigener Produktionskapazitäten in den schwächeren Ländern mit Geldern der EU subventioniert. Das führte dazu, daß Länder mit traditionell starker Landwirtschaft heute auf den Import von Agrarprodukten angewiesen sind. Diese Politik mußte zwangsläufig zu einer wachsenden Verschuldung dieser Staaten führen. Die EU und die in ihr bestimmenden Staaten haben nie etwas unternommen, was auch nur im Ansatz zu einer abgestimmten Wirtschafts-, Steuer- und Finanzpolitik geführt hätte. Jegliche Ankündigungen,»restriktive Regeln« auf den sogenannten Finanzmärkten einzuführen, Finanztransaktionen zu besteuern, Hedgefonds zu »bändigen« und»überzogene Spekulationen« zu unterbinden blieben leere Worte und führten niemals zu konkreten Beschlüssen – zumal derartige Restriktionen den Gesetzen des Marktes im Kapitalismus widersprechen würden. Das Ausmaß der Krise kommt auch darin zum Ausdruck, daß sie längst auch die USA, die stärkste kapitalistische Wirtschaftsmacht, in Bedrängnis gebracht hat.
Die gesamte Politik der EU, einschließlich aller Beschlüsse im Rahmen der kapitalistischen Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise, dient ausschließlich der Mehrung der Profite der Banken und Konzerne. Zu diesem Zweck werden soziale Errungenschaften, die von der Arbeiterbewegung über Jahrzehnte in harten Klassenauseinandersetzungen erkämpft wurden, Schritt für Schritt abgeschafft, werden die Lohnabhängigen einer zunehmenden Ausbeutung ausgesetzt. Privatisierungen von öffentlichem Eigentum werden zur Verschärfung der Lage beitragen.
Die gegenwärtige »Eurokrise« ist in Wirklichkeit keine Krise einer Währung, sondern eine Krise des kapitalistischen Systems. Sie ist Ausdruck des Widerspruchs zwischen der gesellschaftlichen Arbeit und der privaten Aneignung des geschaffenen Reichtums, wie er schon 1848 von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels im Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei beschrieben wurde. Zur Lösung dieser Krise taugen keine»Reformen« und erst recht keine Maßnahmen zur weiteren Umverteilung des gesellschaftlichen Reichtums von unten nach oben.
Die Kommunistische Partei bekräftigt ihre Auffassung, daß diese Krise nur wirksam bekämpft werden kann, indem der Grundwiderspruch des Kapitalismus aufgelöst wird, die Besitzverhältnisse grundlegend geändert und die Banken, Konzerne sowie alle wichtigen Produktionsmittel vergesellschaftet werden und die uneingeschränkte Macht des Kapitals ein für alle Mal beendet wird.
Das Zentralkomitee der Kommunistischen Partei Luxemburgs
Kommunistische Partei Luxemburgs (August 2011), auf Kommunisten-online am 5. August 2011 – In dieser Woche sollen die Staats- und Regierungschefs zum wiederholten Mal zu einem teuren Krisentreffen in Brüssel zusammenkommen, um eine Lösung für die sogenannte Eurokrise zu finden. Ganz gleich, wie die Beschlüsse dieses »Sondergipfels« aussehen mögen, sie werden nichts anderes bewirken, als die Agonie des Systems zu verlängern. Da sich die Debatten der Staatenlenker ausschließlich damit beschäftigen, wie die Banken als eine wichtige Stütze des kapitalistischen Systems ungeschoren bleiben und die Aktionäre weiterhin Gewinne einfahren können, sowie damit, wie die Lohnabhängigen der Euroländer noch stärker zur Kasse gebeten werden können, wird auch dieses Treffen – ebenso wie die weiteren, die darauf folgen werden – zu keiner Lösung der Krise und zu einer weiteren Verschuldung der Staaten führen.
Als die Banken und Konzerne der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Frankreichs mit Hilfe der von ihnen bezahlten Politiker wenige Jahre nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg daran gingen, ihre Wirtschaftspolitik zu koordinieren und nach und nach die Grundlagen für die heutige Europäische Union zu schaffen, ging es ihnen nur darum, die besten Verwertungsbedingungen für das Kapital zu sichern. Alle Beschlüsse, die seit der Gründung der»Europäischen Gemeinschaft für Kohle und Stahl« im April 1951, an der auch Luxemburg beteiligt war, gefaßt wurden, dienten und dienen ausschließlich diesem Ziel.
Mit der Gründung weiterer wirtschaftlicher Zusammenschlüsse in den darauf folgenden Jahren, wie EWG, Euratom, Europäische Gemeinschaften, mit den Verträgen von Rom, Maastricht, Lissabon, Schengen wurde dieser Weg zementiert. Dazu gehört auch die Einführung des Euro als Einheitswährung für eine Gruppe von 17 Staaten. Die Aufnahme immer neuer Staaten in diesen Kreis war stets darauf gerichtet, möglichst viele Länder fest in das Herrschaftsgebiet der führenden EU-Staaten einzubeziehen. Die ökonomisch weniger leistungsfähigen Länder wie Griechenland, Spanien, Portugal wurden genötigt, immer mehr Waren aus den »Kernländern« der EU zu importieren.
Diese Importe wurden durch Kredite der Banken der Exportländer finanziert, und ebenso wurde die Vernichtung eigener Produktionskapazitäten in den schwächeren Ländern mit Geldern der EU subventioniert. Das führte dazu, daß Länder mit traditionell starker Landwirtschaft heute auf den Import von Agrarprodukten angewiesen sind. Diese Politik mußte zwangsläufig zu einer wachsenden Verschuldung dieser Staaten führen. Die EU und die in ihr bestimmenden Staaten haben nie etwas unternommen, was auch nur im Ansatz zu einer abgestimmten Wirtschafts-, Steuer- und Finanzpolitik geführt hätte. Jegliche Ankündigungen,»restriktive Regeln« auf den sogenannten Finanzmärkten einzuführen, Finanztransaktionen zu besteuern, Hedgefonds zu »bändigen« und»überzogene Spekulationen« zu unterbinden blieben leere Worte und führten niemals zu konkreten Beschlüssen – zumal derartige Restriktionen den Gesetzen des Marktes im Kapitalismus widersprechen würden. Das Ausmaß der Krise kommt auch darin zum Ausdruck, daß sie längst auch die USA, die stärkste kapitalistische Wirtschaftsmacht, in Bedrängnis gebracht hat.
Die gesamte Politik der EU, einschließlich aller Beschlüsse im Rahmen der kapitalistischen Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise, dient ausschließlich der Mehrung der Profite der Banken und Konzerne. Zu diesem Zweck werden soziale Errungenschaften, die von der Arbeiterbewegung über Jahrzehnte in harten Klassenauseinandersetzungen erkämpft wurden, Schritt für Schritt abgeschafft, werden die Lohnabhängigen einer zunehmenden Ausbeutung ausgesetzt. Privatisierungen von öffentlichem Eigentum werden zur Verschärfung der Lage beitragen.
Die gegenwärtige »Eurokrise« ist in Wirklichkeit keine Krise einer Währung, sondern eine Krise des kapitalistischen Systems. Sie ist Ausdruck des Widerspruchs zwischen der gesellschaftlichen Arbeit und der privaten Aneignung des geschaffenen Reichtums, wie er schon 1848 von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels im Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei beschrieben wurde. Zur Lösung dieser Krise taugen keine»Reformen« und erst recht keine Maßnahmen zur weiteren Umverteilung des gesellschaftlichen Reichtums von unten nach oben.
Die Kommunistische Partei bekräftigt ihre Auffassung, daß diese Krise nur wirksam bekämpft werden kann, indem der Grundwiderspruch des Kapitalismus aufgelöst wird, die Besitzverhältnisse grundlegend geändert und die Banken, Konzerne sowie alle wichtigen Produktionsmittel vergesellschaftet werden und die uneingeschränkte Macht des Kapitals ein für alle Mal beendet wird.
Das Zentralkomitee der Kommunistischen Partei Luxemburgs
Pressemitteilung der National-Demokratischen Front der Philippinen (NDFP) vom 8. Juli 2011
ZUM TREFFEN ZWISCHEN SENATOR FRANCIS PANGILINAN UND NDFP-VERHANDLUNGSDELEGATIONSLEITER LUIS JALANDONI UND NDFP-POLITISCHEN HAUPTBEVOLLMÄCHTIGTEN JOSE MARIA SISON
übersetzt von Jens-Torsten Bohlke
auf Kommunisten –online am 13. Juli 2011 – Der Vorsitzende der Verhandlungsdelegation der National-Demokratische Front der Philippinen (NDFP) Luis Jalandoni und Prof. Jose Maria Sison, Politischer Hauptbevollmächtigter der NDFP, hießen Senator Francis Pangilinan, den Vorsitzenden des Senatsausschusses für Landwirtschaft und Lebensmittel und des Komitees für Soziale Gerechtigkeit und Ländliche Entwicklung im Informationsbüro der NDFP in Utrecht/Niederlande am 7. Juli 2011 freundlich willkommen.
Senator Pangilinan kam seinerseits als Senatsgesandter der Regierung der Philippinen, um die Friedensverhandlungen zwischen der Regierung der Philippinen und der NDFP zu fördern und die Durchführung der formellen Gespräche zwischen der Regierung der Philippinen und der Verhandlungsdelegation der NDFP in Gang zu bringen.
Pangilinan legte seine Vorschläge für die Lösung der sozialökonomischen und politischen Probleme und seine Gründe, warum es diesbezüglich Hoffnung für die Philippinen gibt, zur Beachtung bei der NDFP vor. Jalandoni versicherte dem Senator, dass die Führung der NDFP und die Verhandlungsdelegation seine Vorschläge ernsthaft studieren werden.
Jalandoni und Pangilinan stimmten darin überein, dass es für die Friedensverhandlungen dringend erforderlich ist, angesichts der schweren Probleme in den Philippinen voranzukommen und in Reaktion auf den Wunsch des philippinischen Volkes solche Probleme durch umfassende Vereinbarungen über die grundlegenden gesellschaftlichen, wirtschaftlichen und politischen Reformen anzupacken.
Sie waren sich über die Notwendigkeit für die Verhandlungsdelegationen einig, bald in formelle Gespräche einzutreten. Bezüglich der Gegenseitigen Arbeitsausschüsse über die Sozialen und Wirtschaftlichen Reformen und der Arbeitsgruppen für Politische und Verfassungsrechtliche Reformen waren sie sich einig, Durchführung ihrer Arbeit am Tisch bald wieder aufzunehmen.
Jalandoni wies auf die Notwendigkeit der Einhaltung der Gemeinsamen Vereinbarung über die Sicherheits- und Immunitätsgarantien (JASIG) und der Freilassung der 17 politischen Gefangenen hin, welche durch das JASIG geschützt sind. Pangilinan verpflichtete sich, bei der Suche nach Freilassung der besagten politischen Gefangenen zu helfen.
Pangilinan und Jalandoni einigten sich auf die Wünschbarkeit einer Partnerschaft oder eines Bündnisses zwischen der Regierung der Philippinen und der NDFP auf der Grundlage einer allgemeinen Erklärung der gemeinsamen Absicht, welche Waffenstillstand rechtfertigt und die Verhandlungen die umfassenden Vereinbarungen in den Grundbegriffen und im Detail ausarbeiten lässt.
Der Vorsitzende der NDFP-Verhandlungsdelegation argumentierte, dass gemäß der Umfassenden Vereinbarung über die Beachtung der Menschenrechte und des Internationalen Humanitären Rechts (CARHRIHL) die politischen Gefangenen schnellstens freigelassen werden müssen. Sie sind entweder wegen ihrer politischen Überzeugung oder Zugehörigkeit oder als Opfer von politischer Unterdrückung im Gefängnis und falschen Anschuldigungen wegen gemeiner Verbrechen oder politischer Angriffe ausgesetzt worden. Pangilinan verpflichtete sich, diese Sache mit der Delegation der Regierung der Philippinen zusammen mit der Möglichkeit Präsident Aquinos des Gewährens einer Amnesty für politische Gefangene zu diskutieren.
(gez) Senator Francis Pangilinan
Vorsitzender, Senatsausschuss für Landwirtschaft und Nahrungsmittel
Vorsitzender, Senatsausschuss für Soziale Gerechtigkeit und Ländliche Entwicklung
(gez) Luis Jalandoni
NDFP Verhandlungsdelegation Vorsitzender
(Sgd) Prof. Jose Maria Sison
NDFP Politischer Hauptbevollmächtigter
Quelle: E-Mail der KP der Philippinen an die Redaktion
Weitere Informationen und Fotos:
http://www.ndfp.net/j
übersetzt von Jens-Torsten Bohlke
auf Kommunisten –online am 13. Juli 2011 – Der Vorsitzende der Verhandlungsdelegation der National-Demokratische Front der Philippinen (NDFP) Luis Jalandoni und Prof. Jose Maria Sison, Politischer Hauptbevollmächtigter der NDFP, hießen Senator Francis Pangilinan, den Vorsitzenden des Senatsausschusses für Landwirtschaft und Lebensmittel und des Komitees für Soziale Gerechtigkeit und Ländliche Entwicklung im Informationsbüro der NDFP in Utrecht/Niederlande am 7. Juli 2011 freundlich willkommen.
Senator Pangilinan kam seinerseits als Senatsgesandter der Regierung der Philippinen, um die Friedensverhandlungen zwischen der Regierung der Philippinen und der NDFP zu fördern und die Durchführung der formellen Gespräche zwischen der Regierung der Philippinen und der Verhandlungsdelegation der NDFP in Gang zu bringen.
Pangilinan legte seine Vorschläge für die Lösung der sozialökonomischen und politischen Probleme und seine Gründe, warum es diesbezüglich Hoffnung für die Philippinen gibt, zur Beachtung bei der NDFP vor. Jalandoni versicherte dem Senator, dass die Führung der NDFP und die Verhandlungsdelegation seine Vorschläge ernsthaft studieren werden.
Jalandoni und Pangilinan stimmten darin überein, dass es für die Friedensverhandlungen dringend erforderlich ist, angesichts der schweren Probleme in den Philippinen voranzukommen und in Reaktion auf den Wunsch des philippinischen Volkes solche Probleme durch umfassende Vereinbarungen über die grundlegenden gesellschaftlichen, wirtschaftlichen und politischen Reformen anzupacken.
Sie waren sich über die Notwendigkeit für die Verhandlungsdelegationen einig, bald in formelle Gespräche einzutreten. Bezüglich der Gegenseitigen Arbeitsausschüsse über die Sozialen und Wirtschaftlichen Reformen und der Arbeitsgruppen für Politische und Verfassungsrechtliche Reformen waren sie sich einig, Durchführung ihrer Arbeit am Tisch bald wieder aufzunehmen.
Jalandoni wies auf die Notwendigkeit der Einhaltung der Gemeinsamen Vereinbarung über die Sicherheits- und Immunitätsgarantien (JASIG) und der Freilassung der 17 politischen Gefangenen hin, welche durch das JASIG geschützt sind. Pangilinan verpflichtete sich, bei der Suche nach Freilassung der besagten politischen Gefangenen zu helfen.
Pangilinan und Jalandoni einigten sich auf die Wünschbarkeit einer Partnerschaft oder eines Bündnisses zwischen der Regierung der Philippinen und der NDFP auf der Grundlage einer allgemeinen Erklärung der gemeinsamen Absicht, welche Waffenstillstand rechtfertigt und die Verhandlungen die umfassenden Vereinbarungen in den Grundbegriffen und im Detail ausarbeiten lässt.
Der Vorsitzende der NDFP-Verhandlungsdelegation argumentierte, dass gemäß der Umfassenden Vereinbarung über die Beachtung der Menschenrechte und des Internationalen Humanitären Rechts (CARHRIHL) die politischen Gefangenen schnellstens freigelassen werden müssen. Sie sind entweder wegen ihrer politischen Überzeugung oder Zugehörigkeit oder als Opfer von politischer Unterdrückung im Gefängnis und falschen Anschuldigungen wegen gemeiner Verbrechen oder politischer Angriffe ausgesetzt worden. Pangilinan verpflichtete sich, diese Sache mit der Delegation der Regierung der Philippinen zusammen mit der Möglichkeit Präsident Aquinos des Gewährens einer Amnesty für politische Gefangene zu diskutieren.
(gez) Senator Francis Pangilinan
Vorsitzender, Senatsausschuss für Landwirtschaft und Nahrungsmittel
Vorsitzender, Senatsausschuss für Soziale Gerechtigkeit und Ländliche Entwicklung
(gez) Luis Jalandoni
NDFP Verhandlungsdelegation Vorsitzender
(Sgd) Prof. Jose Maria Sison
NDFP Politischer Hauptbevollmächtigter
Quelle: E-Mail der KP der Philippinen an die Redaktion
Weitere Informationen und Fotos:
http://www.ndfp.net/j
Das Wunder von Chapultepec
(Mexiko-Stadt, 28. Juni 2011, cimac).- Die 70-Jährige Frau musste drei Autobusse nehmen und dann noch acht Kilometer auf dem Leidensweg der Kriegsopfer laufen. Ihr 24-jähriger Sohn hatte sie gebeten, nicht Don Sicilia zu besuchen, da sie schon vom Stellvertreter Nr. 23 der Zetas (kriminelle Vereinigung aus Mexiko und Guatemala und Beteiligte am Drogenkrieg in Mexiko, Anm. d. Ü.) empfangen werden sollte, der die Liste mit den Verschwundenen aus Durango, Tamaulipas und Coahuila besitzt. Die Mutter jedoch nahm ihren Rosenkranz und bat den Dichter Don Sicilia, ihren Fall Präsident Calderón zu überbringen.
Drei Jahre lang hatte die Mutter von zwei vermissten Jugendlichen die Staatsanwaltschaft und den Bürgermeister angefleht und auch beim Gouverneur vorgesprochen. Nun hoffte sie, das Glück zu haben, von der großmütigen Hand des Präsidenten auserwählt zu werden, um einen der tausendfachen Vermisstenfälle aufzuklären. Warum denn nicht ein Wunder?
Die Abmachung mit dem Sohn war klar: Wenn der Präsident uns nicht empfängt, dann machen wir mit den anderen weiter, Hauptsache uns hilft irgendjemand, sie zu finden.
40.000 Tote und kein Strategiewechsel
40.000 Ermordete, hunderte gewaltsam Verschwundene (im Auftrag irgendeiner Autorität) und tausende ununtersuchte, unaufgeklärte Entführungen. Und die von Javier Sicilia organisierten Märsche vereinten den Aufschrei eines Landes, das sich der Illusion eines Wunders hingibt, angesichts der Unmöglichkeit, Gerechtigkeit zu erreichen – in der Hoffnung, dass Präsident Calderón aus irgendeinem politisch unerklärlichen Grund Mexiko zerknirscht um Verzeihung bitten würde; dass er, durch die Tränen der Mütter bewegt, den Rückzug seiner Truppen bekannt geben würde und die zuverlässige Untersuchung der Staatsanwaltschaft von tausenden, von den Behörden aufgeschobenen oder ignorierten Fälle der letzten fünf Jahre (um nur von denen des Krieges zu sprechen).
Außer Reporterin zu sein, habe ich zehn Jahre lang einen stark gesicherten Schutzraum für Gewaltopfer geleitet Dabei habe ich gelernt dass, wie sehr ich mich auch für die Verteidigung der Opfer einsetze, nur viereinhalb Prozent der Fälle untersucht werden – und von diesen kommen gerade mal zwei Prozent vor Gericht.
Im Jahr 2004 (vor dem Krieg und den 40.000 Toten) wurden von den 11.900.000 begangenen Vergehen nur eineinhalb Millionen von der Staatsanwaltschaft untersucht.
Millionen hilfesuchende Familien ignoriert
Entschuldigen Sie, dass ich mich wiederhole, von beinahe zwölf Millionen Familien, die zu den Behörden eilen, um „Hilfe“ bei der Aufklärung der Verbrechen zu ersuchen, wird zehn Millionen die Tür vor der Nase zugeschlagen. Und nun kommt auch noch der Krieg dazu.
Aber abgesehen von öffentlichen Handlungen sagt ein Drittel der KlägerInnen, dass nach zwei Jahren nichts mit ihren Fällen passiert ist. Die Staatsanwaltschaft ihrerseits berichtet, dass sie in den nördlichen Staaten 24 Monate im Rückstand ist.
Laut des Bundesamtes für öffentliche Sicherheit SSP (Secretaría de Seguridad Pública) gibt es 426.600 PolizistInnen im Land, doch nur 36.600 davon sind mit Ermittlungen beauftragt. Von diesen arbeiten 10.000 in der Armee und der Marine. So bleiben 20.600 ErmittlerInnen für ganz Mexiko. So kann man leicht ausrechnen, was dabei rauskommt.
Zu wenig Ermittler, unfähige Staatsanwälte
Nach Angaben des Nationalen Instituts für Strafrecht INACIPE (Instituto Nacional de Sciencias Penales) werden beinahe zwei Drittel der Fälle vor Gericht verloren, da die StaatsanwältInnen keine Berichte zu schreiben wissen und der Inhalt der Anzeigen für die RichterInnen somit unverständlich ist.
Die Familien wenden sich an die Politiker und den Präsidenten, da die Exekutive laut Gesetz die Kontrolle über die zwei wichtigsten Elemente der Strafverfolgung hat: Die Staatsanwaltschaft und die Verwaltung sind lediglich dem Gouverneur und dem Präsidenten untergeordnet.
Es ist allgemein üblich, dass die Gouverneure sich Opfer aussuchen, die soziale Führungsrollen entwickeln, um sie zu Verbündeten zu machen, zu „Beratern“, um ihre Mobilisierungsfähigkeit und ihre moralische Kraft zu neutralisieren. Es ist kein Zufall, dass Calderón bei seinem Treffen mit Sicilia die Mutter umarmte, die ihn anflehte und nicht diejenige, die von Würde und Gleichheit sprach.
Struktureller Wandel nötig
Es ist wichtig das Gespräch zu suchen und auch um die politische und historische Bedeutung solcher Treffen zu wissen. Aber es wäre schlimm, wenn diese Treffen nur zu Interventionen des Präsidenten von Fall zu Fall führten, und nicht zu einem strukturellem Wandel für die zwölf Millionen Menschen, die von der Justiz abgewiesen werden.
Sicher ist, dass jeder seine Aufgabe hat. Die Mütter und Väter kehren auf ihr verwüstetes Land zurück, wo die parallele Amtsgewalt sie erwartet und ihnen anbietet Probleme zu lösen, wozu das System nicht in der Lage ist.
Genau das muss uns daran erinnern, dass Gespräche über die Rekonstruktion des sozialen Gefüges Hand in Hand mit der Erläuterung neuer staatlicher Strategien gehen müssen, die die Rechtssprechung erleichtern und offen legen. Denn solange sich nicht die ganze Gesellschaft sicher fühlen kann und nicht weiß, dass sie das Gesetz zu beachten hat, da es sie beschützt, wird sie nach anderen Wegen suchen, die das ganze Land weiterhin schwächen werden.
Solange wir nicht in der Lage sind, zusammen mit dem Staat zu fordern, dass Gleichheit umgesetzt und angewendet wird, da sie jedem zu gute kommt; solange wir nicht in der Lage sind zu wissen, dass die Gesellschaft sich erziehen kann und muss um frei zu leben, gesund und ohne Gewalt, werden wir nicht vorankommen.
Deshalb lohnt es sich, ohne Angst über die Folgen des Krieges zu sprechen, aber auch über das was der Krieg verbirgt. Andernfalls werden die Gläubigen fortfahren, für ein Wunder zu beten, das niemals eintreten wird.
URL: http://www.npla.de/de/poonal/3437-das-wunder-von-chapultepec
Sonntag, den 31. Juli 2011
von Lydia Cacho
Drei Jahre lang hatte die Mutter von zwei vermissten Jugendlichen die Staatsanwaltschaft und den Bürgermeister angefleht und auch beim Gouverneur vorgesprochen. Nun hoffte sie, das Glück zu haben, von der großmütigen Hand des Präsidenten auserwählt zu werden, um einen der tausendfachen Vermisstenfälle aufzuklären. Warum denn nicht ein Wunder?
Die Abmachung mit dem Sohn war klar: Wenn der Präsident uns nicht empfängt, dann machen wir mit den anderen weiter, Hauptsache uns hilft irgendjemand, sie zu finden.
40.000 Tote und kein Strategiewechsel
40.000 Ermordete, hunderte gewaltsam Verschwundene (im Auftrag irgendeiner Autorität) und tausende ununtersuchte, unaufgeklärte Entführungen. Und die von Javier Sicilia organisierten Märsche vereinten den Aufschrei eines Landes, das sich der Illusion eines Wunders hingibt, angesichts der Unmöglichkeit, Gerechtigkeit zu erreichen – in der Hoffnung, dass Präsident Calderón aus irgendeinem politisch unerklärlichen Grund Mexiko zerknirscht um Verzeihung bitten würde; dass er, durch die Tränen der Mütter bewegt, den Rückzug seiner Truppen bekannt geben würde und die zuverlässige Untersuchung der Staatsanwaltschaft von tausenden, von den Behörden aufgeschobenen oder ignorierten Fälle der letzten fünf Jahre (um nur von denen des Krieges zu sprechen).
Außer Reporterin zu sein, habe ich zehn Jahre lang einen stark gesicherten Schutzraum für Gewaltopfer geleitet Dabei habe ich gelernt dass, wie sehr ich mich auch für die Verteidigung der Opfer einsetze, nur viereinhalb Prozent der Fälle untersucht werden – und von diesen kommen gerade mal zwei Prozent vor Gericht.
Im Jahr 2004 (vor dem Krieg und den 40.000 Toten) wurden von den 11.900.000 begangenen Vergehen nur eineinhalb Millionen von der Staatsanwaltschaft untersucht.
Millionen hilfesuchende Familien ignoriert
Entschuldigen Sie, dass ich mich wiederhole, von beinahe zwölf Millionen Familien, die zu den Behörden eilen, um „Hilfe“ bei der Aufklärung der Verbrechen zu ersuchen, wird zehn Millionen die Tür vor der Nase zugeschlagen. Und nun kommt auch noch der Krieg dazu.
Aber abgesehen von öffentlichen Handlungen sagt ein Drittel der KlägerInnen, dass nach zwei Jahren nichts mit ihren Fällen passiert ist. Die Staatsanwaltschaft ihrerseits berichtet, dass sie in den nördlichen Staaten 24 Monate im Rückstand ist.
Laut des Bundesamtes für öffentliche Sicherheit SSP (Secretaría de Seguridad Pública) gibt es 426.600 PolizistInnen im Land, doch nur 36.600 davon sind mit Ermittlungen beauftragt. Von diesen arbeiten 10.000 in der Armee und der Marine. So bleiben 20.600 ErmittlerInnen für ganz Mexiko. So kann man leicht ausrechnen, was dabei rauskommt.
Zu wenig Ermittler, unfähige Staatsanwälte
Nach Angaben des Nationalen Instituts für Strafrecht INACIPE (Instituto Nacional de Sciencias Penales) werden beinahe zwei Drittel der Fälle vor Gericht verloren, da die StaatsanwältInnen keine Berichte zu schreiben wissen und der Inhalt der Anzeigen für die RichterInnen somit unverständlich ist.
Die Familien wenden sich an die Politiker und den Präsidenten, da die Exekutive laut Gesetz die Kontrolle über die zwei wichtigsten Elemente der Strafverfolgung hat: Die Staatsanwaltschaft und die Verwaltung sind lediglich dem Gouverneur und dem Präsidenten untergeordnet.
Es ist allgemein üblich, dass die Gouverneure sich Opfer aussuchen, die soziale Führungsrollen entwickeln, um sie zu Verbündeten zu machen, zu „Beratern“, um ihre Mobilisierungsfähigkeit und ihre moralische Kraft zu neutralisieren. Es ist kein Zufall, dass Calderón bei seinem Treffen mit Sicilia die Mutter umarmte, die ihn anflehte und nicht diejenige, die von Würde und Gleichheit sprach.
Struktureller Wandel nötig
Es ist wichtig das Gespräch zu suchen und auch um die politische und historische Bedeutung solcher Treffen zu wissen. Aber es wäre schlimm, wenn diese Treffen nur zu Interventionen des Präsidenten von Fall zu Fall führten, und nicht zu einem strukturellem Wandel für die zwölf Millionen Menschen, die von der Justiz abgewiesen werden.
Sicher ist, dass jeder seine Aufgabe hat. Die Mütter und Väter kehren auf ihr verwüstetes Land zurück, wo die parallele Amtsgewalt sie erwartet und ihnen anbietet Probleme zu lösen, wozu das System nicht in der Lage ist.
Genau das muss uns daran erinnern, dass Gespräche über die Rekonstruktion des sozialen Gefüges Hand in Hand mit der Erläuterung neuer staatlicher Strategien gehen müssen, die die Rechtssprechung erleichtern und offen legen. Denn solange sich nicht die ganze Gesellschaft sicher fühlen kann und nicht weiß, dass sie das Gesetz zu beachten hat, da es sie beschützt, wird sie nach anderen Wegen suchen, die das ganze Land weiterhin schwächen werden.
Solange wir nicht in der Lage sind, zusammen mit dem Staat zu fordern, dass Gleichheit umgesetzt und angewendet wird, da sie jedem zu gute kommt; solange wir nicht in der Lage sind zu wissen, dass die Gesellschaft sich erziehen kann und muss um frei zu leben, gesund und ohne Gewalt, werden wir nicht vorankommen.
Deshalb lohnt es sich, ohne Angst über die Folgen des Krieges zu sprechen, aber auch über das was der Krieg verbirgt. Andernfalls werden die Gläubigen fortfahren, für ein Wunder zu beten, das niemals eintreten wird.
URL: http://www.npla.de/de/poonal/3437-das-wunder-von-chapultepec
Sonntag, den 31. Juli 2011
von Lydia Cacho
California prisoners stage massive hunger strike
1 August 2011. A World to Win News Service. Thousands of prisoners in the US state of California launched a hunger strike on 1 July.
This protest was spearheaded by hundreds of inmates at Pelican Bay State prison subjected to inhumane conditions of solitary confinement in the the Security Housing Units [SHU]. Although these prisoners began taking food again in the third week of July, thousands of people in other California prisons also began a hunger strike in support of the demands of the Pelican Bay, which they share, for adequate food and warm clothing, an end to almost total solitary confinement for decades and collective punishment, phone calls and photos and even the right to have calenders to keep track of time in their windowless cells.
In short, their demand is that they be treated as human beings.
While some success has been achieved and core demands acknowledged by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), there is great concern that prison authorities may retaliate against individual or groups of prisoners, families of prisoners and their attorneys and representatives.
The US is a global fortress of injustice. It is infamous for its prison camps, from Bagram in Afghanistan to Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo in Cuba, where thousands of captives have been systematically tortured and subjected to extreme abuse. American ships are still functioning as off-shore torture centres. Further, Washington is the world leader in the outsourcing of repression, not only continuing to "render" its captives to allied governments to be tortured and sometimes killed, but also backing and often commanding regimes that imprison, torture and murder on a mass scale to put down movements that threaten imperialist domination.
The other side of the coin is what the rulers of the US do to people in their "homeland". While the number of political prisoners there is far smaller than in some countries under the American boot, figures like the Native American leader Leonard Peltier and the African-American journalist and activist Mumia Abu Jamal have been kept in dungeons for decades in retaliation for the mass revolts of the 1960s and 70s and as a warning to people today.
The repression against ordinary people in the US who are not political prisoners, however, is no less telling about the fundamental nature of American imperialist rule. With 2.3 million people behind bars, the US has both the world's largest number of prisoners and by far the largest percentage of its population in prison. China is second to the US with 1.6 million prisoners even though it has over four times the population. The majority of US prisoners are Black and Hispanic, far greater than their proportion of the population, reflecting the oppression of minority peoples within the US as well as repression against poor people in general. In Washington D.C. three out of four young Black men are expected to serve some time in prison, while in other major US cities 80 percent of young African-Americans now have criminal records.
Following are edited excerpts from recent articles on this struggle in Revolution, newspaper of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (revcom.us ).
The prisoners at Pelican Bay are heroically taking a stand, in the most isolated, inhumane conditions, to refuse to be treated like animals. Because of this, a light is being shined on the torture and inhumanity going on behind these prison walls.
The hunger strike started 1 July – demanding an end to what amounts to torture and brutally inhumane conditions. The weekend of 2-3 July, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) reported that 6,600 prisoners, in 13 different prisons, refused food in solidarity with the strike.
From the very outset, the hunger strike has inspired and tapped into a deep well of sentiment of people outside the prisons who have come together in growing numbers to initiate actions of solidarity. Press conferences, demonstrations, solidarity hunger strikes and more have occurred in several cities in the US and a number of cities internationally. Family members of prisoners; religious leaders; people from the inner-city communities where mass incarceration is a crime of epidemic proportions; organisations that have been working to assist prisoners and their families during and after incarceration; researchers and investigative reporters who have documented the magnitude and depth of the state-sanctioned torture taking place inside prisons throughout the country; and radical and revolutionary forces have come together and taken action on the prisoners' behalf.
The 13th day of the strike, alarming, urgent reports started coming out that the medical condition of some of the prisoners was at a severe crisis. Mediators in contact with prisoners reported that some of the strikers had lost 25-35 pounds [11-15 kilos]. According to a 13 July press release from Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity, a source with access to the medical condition of the prisoners said the health of the hunger strikers was quickly and severely deteriorating – that some were in renal failure and had been unable to make urine for three days; and some had blood sugars measuring in the 30 range, which can be fatal if not treated. Legal representatives who visited prisoners in the Pelican Bay SHU on 12 July reported that many prisoners were experiencing irregular heartbeats and palpitations, dizziness, shortness of breath and other respiratory problems; some were suffering from diagnosed cardiac arrhythmia. There were reports that prisoners at Calipatria State Prison and Corcoran, on a hunger strike in solidarity with the prisoners at Pelican Bay, were also in a dangerous medical condition.
From the beginning, the CDCR refused to even consider any of the demands of the prisoners.
The prisoners want an end to long-term solitary confinement where they are kept in windowless cells with no human contact for 23 hours a day, in some cases for decades. They want an end to collective punishment, and the practice of "debriefing", which amounts to forced interrogation on alleged gang affiliation. They are asking for decent food, rehabilitation and education programs, one phone call per week, one photo per year, two packages a year, more visiting time, permission to have wall calendars, and warm clothing.
The CDCR argues that these prisoners are the "worst of the worst" and deserve what they are getting. But as human beings, we need to be clear: nobody – no matter what they have done –deserves to be tortured. Nobody deserves to be put in such extreme conditions of isolation where prison guards try to extinguish everything that makes you human, that keeps you physically and mentally alive, that connects you with the world and other people, that gives you a reason to live, to love, to learn and think.
What would it mean if people on the outside don't stand up and do everything they can to make sure these prisoners don't die, to really fight for these prisoners to be treated like human beings? What would this say about our humanity? But also, what will it mean if hundreds and thousands of people do stand up together, wage a determined struggle for the just demands of these prisoners, and in this way, assert our own humanity?
As a statement from prisoners in Corcoran Prison put it: "It is important for all to know Pelican Bay is not alone in this struggle and the broader the participation and support for this hunger strike and other such efforts, the greater the potential that our sacrifice now will mean a more humane world for us in the future."
Close your eyes and imagine you're in a cell that's 8 x 10 feet [7.5 square metres] with no windows, no air, just concrete walls all around you. This tomb includes a slab of cement to sleep on, a toilet and sink. That's it. You’re deprived of human contact. Your food is shoved through a slot in the door. You can’t take a photo of yourself to send to your family. Maybe once a day, but maybe not, you are let out of this cell for one hour, into a space a little bigger, with a little bit more air. You are denied medical care. And if the guards decide you're not cooperating – for something as minor as not returning a food tray or banging on the door – a team of them, in full riot gear, with batons, handcuffs, will "extract" you from your cell, hogtie you and beat you with no mercy. You have been in this cell, subjected to this torture, for five years, or 10 years, or maybe 30 years, deprived of human contact, never feeling the sun, never seeing the sky or a blade of grass, never hearing a note of music.
This is life – or more accurately, a slow death – for 70,000 men and women who have been put in maximum security units in prisons all over the USA. This kind of solitary confinement stands in violation of international human rights standards, including the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This kind of sensory deprivation and lack of human contact is known to create severe psychological disorders, to literally drive people crazy. Putting an end to all this is what the hunger strikers at Pelican Bay State Prison are willing to die for.
Think about how prisoners in these conditions are on a hunger strike. Many of them have no way of even knowing what is happening outside of their cell. They have no way to communicate with each other and no way – or very limited ways – to talk with friends, family and supporters on the outside. Meanwhile prison officials have tried all kinds of ways to sabotage the strike – including lying to prisoners, telling them the strike is over, and trying to create divisions among the prisoners.
Prison officials say this hunger strike just goes to show that these prisoners should be in the SHU. Terry Thornton, spokesperson for the CDCR, said, "That so many inmates in other prisons throughout the state are involved really demonstrates how these gangs can influence other inmates, which is one of the reasons we have security housing units in the first place."
But even the mainstream press has reported on how this hunger strike has united prisoners across different nationalities and other divisions which prison officials have always used to set prisoners against each other. The New York Times reported, "The hunger strike has transcended the gang and geographic affiliations that traditionally divide prisoners, with prisoners of many backgrounds participating."
The SHU at Pelican Bay is a super max prison within a prison. In fact, a huge percentage of prisoners are in the Pelican Bay SHU simply because prison officials have decided to "validate" them as affiliated with a gang. A prisoner can end up in the SHU because he has a certain tattoo or hangs out with someone who guards say is a gang member. A prisoner in the SHU can target another prisoner as a gang member – whether it is true or not – in order to get out of the SHU. A prisoner can end up in the SHU because they are rebellious, because they dare to think. A letter from a hunger striker at Pelican Bay to the Prisoners Revolutionary Literature Fund (PRLF) said:
"Just being a rebellious or progressive prisoner gets one targeted and labelled a 'gang member' and sent to Shu. The Shu is made out as a big stick to intimidate the prison population into passivity, (think deportation threats to migrants or the whip shown to the slave). It doesn't mean it's going to be used but the thought of it existing is enough to control a large portion of the prison population so it becomes a tool not used for rehabilitation but for social control... It is these conditions where even reading material such as philosophy or history is censored. Pelican Bay SHU is designed to control, nothing more. We have seen even Revolution newspaper being censored and banned from this prison at one time. How would you feel about the system that upholds the actions of these officials?"
Since the end of the strike the transition to eating food again has been brutal and confusing.
After not eating for four weeks, it is very hard to begin eating solid food again right away, so many prisoners are in need of more medical care than the prisons can provide. Medical staff at the prisons were already overwhelmed by general conditions of overcrowding, and have been even further overwhelmed by this massive protest. While the medical staff supposedly need to follow certain protocols assisting hunger strikers' transition to eating solid food, provision of basic medical care is unreliable and ineffective.
Family members and supporters are anxiously waiting confirmation on whether or not prisoners are continuing the strike at other prisons. Prisoners at Calipatria have explained that they joined the hunger strike specifically in protest of the torturous formal and informal policies of group punishment, gang "validation" and debriefing – practices also imposed at Calipatria. Prisoners at Calipatria are now transitioning to eating food again, according to family members of prisoners participating in the hunger strike.
While the initial concessions to the strikers made by CDCR may seem too small to claim a victory, it's important for people outside prison to understand the significance for prisoners who have been held in the SHU for decades to now have warm clothing, and to be able to keep track of time since they have no windows and the fluorescent lights are on 24 hours of every day. The courage of thousands of prisoners risking their lives effectively pressured the CDCR to sit at the same table and bargain, after refusing to negotiate for weeks and insisting prisoners are less than human.
Supporters continue to discuss how to keep pressure on the CDCR to implement the necessary changes brought to the world's attention by the strike. Many supporters are coordinating (inter)national days of action throughout the next few weeks. People from all over the world have been sending statements defending the just demands of the prisoners. For updates or to add your support, go to revcom.us/s/pelicanbay-hungerstrike-en.html
The US: 5 percent of the world’s population – 25 percent of the world's prisoners
The bigger context for the inhumane conditions in maximum security units like the Pelican Bay Prison SHU is that this system, with its police, laws, courts, and prisons is using mass incarceration to enforce oppressive economic and social relations, especially in terms of the systematic subjugation of Black people as a people.
This system of U.S. capitalism, from its very inception, has, in large part, been built on and developed by carrying out the most brutal oppression of Native Americans, Black people and other people of colour.
This oppression has been woven into the whole fabric of US society, from the days of slavery until today. It has been and is an integral part of the economic and social structure in this country. White supremacy has and continues to maintain Black people in a subjugated position in every aspect of society. And all this has created, and today still maintains a "master class" of white people and a "pariah class" of Black people.
In this way, the systematic oppression of Black and other people of colour has been, and continues to be, part of the very glue that holds U.S. society together, even as it has gone through different changes and been enforced in different ways. The outright ownership of Black people under slavery gave way to Jim Crow segregation and Ku Klux Klan terror. And now we have what has been called "the new Jim Crow" of police brutality and murder and the mass incarceration of hundreds of thousands of Black people.
The subjugation of Black people is a pillar of this system, a part of the economic and social relations in society, and white supremacy is a key element in the dominant ideology. And this is why this system cannot get rid of the oppression of Black people, because to do so would mean tearing up and undermining the whole economic, social and ideological/culture basis of US society. The United States claims it is the "leader of the free world" and protector of democracy and human rights. But the prisoners' hunger strike has objectively exposed the complete illegitimacy and hypocrisy of this system.
This protest was spearheaded by hundreds of inmates at Pelican Bay State prison subjected to inhumane conditions of solitary confinement in the the Security Housing Units [SHU]. Although these prisoners began taking food again in the third week of July, thousands of people in other California prisons also began a hunger strike in support of the demands of the Pelican Bay, which they share, for adequate food and warm clothing, an end to almost total solitary confinement for decades and collective punishment, phone calls and photos and even the right to have calenders to keep track of time in their windowless cells.
In short, their demand is that they be treated as human beings.
While some success has been achieved and core demands acknowledged by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), there is great concern that prison authorities may retaliate against individual or groups of prisoners, families of prisoners and their attorneys and representatives.
The US is a global fortress of injustice. It is infamous for its prison camps, from Bagram in Afghanistan to Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo in Cuba, where thousands of captives have been systematically tortured and subjected to extreme abuse. American ships are still functioning as off-shore torture centres. Further, Washington is the world leader in the outsourcing of repression, not only continuing to "render" its captives to allied governments to be tortured and sometimes killed, but also backing and often commanding regimes that imprison, torture and murder on a mass scale to put down movements that threaten imperialist domination.
The other side of the coin is what the rulers of the US do to people in their "homeland". While the number of political prisoners there is far smaller than in some countries under the American boot, figures like the Native American leader Leonard Peltier and the African-American journalist and activist Mumia Abu Jamal have been kept in dungeons for decades in retaliation for the mass revolts of the 1960s and 70s and as a warning to people today.
The repression against ordinary people in the US who are not political prisoners, however, is no less telling about the fundamental nature of American imperialist rule. With 2.3 million people behind bars, the US has both the world's largest number of prisoners and by far the largest percentage of its population in prison. China is second to the US with 1.6 million prisoners even though it has over four times the population. The majority of US prisoners are Black and Hispanic, far greater than their proportion of the population, reflecting the oppression of minority peoples within the US as well as repression against poor people in general. In Washington D.C. three out of four young Black men are expected to serve some time in prison, while in other major US cities 80 percent of young African-Americans now have criminal records.
Following are edited excerpts from recent articles on this struggle in Revolution, newspaper of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (revcom.us ).
The prisoners at Pelican Bay are heroically taking a stand, in the most isolated, inhumane conditions, to refuse to be treated like animals. Because of this, a light is being shined on the torture and inhumanity going on behind these prison walls.
The hunger strike started 1 July – demanding an end to what amounts to torture and brutally inhumane conditions. The weekend of 2-3 July, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) reported that 6,600 prisoners, in 13 different prisons, refused food in solidarity with the strike.
From the very outset, the hunger strike has inspired and tapped into a deep well of sentiment of people outside the prisons who have come together in growing numbers to initiate actions of solidarity. Press conferences, demonstrations, solidarity hunger strikes and more have occurred in several cities in the US and a number of cities internationally. Family members of prisoners; religious leaders; people from the inner-city communities where mass incarceration is a crime of epidemic proportions; organisations that have been working to assist prisoners and their families during and after incarceration; researchers and investigative reporters who have documented the magnitude and depth of the state-sanctioned torture taking place inside prisons throughout the country; and radical and revolutionary forces have come together and taken action on the prisoners' behalf.
The 13th day of the strike, alarming, urgent reports started coming out that the medical condition of some of the prisoners was at a severe crisis. Mediators in contact with prisoners reported that some of the strikers had lost 25-35 pounds [11-15 kilos]. According to a 13 July press release from Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity, a source with access to the medical condition of the prisoners said the health of the hunger strikers was quickly and severely deteriorating – that some were in renal failure and had been unable to make urine for three days; and some had blood sugars measuring in the 30 range, which can be fatal if not treated. Legal representatives who visited prisoners in the Pelican Bay SHU on 12 July reported that many prisoners were experiencing irregular heartbeats and palpitations, dizziness, shortness of breath and other respiratory problems; some were suffering from diagnosed cardiac arrhythmia. There were reports that prisoners at Calipatria State Prison and Corcoran, on a hunger strike in solidarity with the prisoners at Pelican Bay, were also in a dangerous medical condition.
From the beginning, the CDCR refused to even consider any of the demands of the prisoners.
The prisoners want an end to long-term solitary confinement where they are kept in windowless cells with no human contact for 23 hours a day, in some cases for decades. They want an end to collective punishment, and the practice of "debriefing", which amounts to forced interrogation on alleged gang affiliation. They are asking for decent food, rehabilitation and education programs, one phone call per week, one photo per year, two packages a year, more visiting time, permission to have wall calendars, and warm clothing.
The CDCR argues that these prisoners are the "worst of the worst" and deserve what they are getting. But as human beings, we need to be clear: nobody – no matter what they have done –deserves to be tortured. Nobody deserves to be put in such extreme conditions of isolation where prison guards try to extinguish everything that makes you human, that keeps you physically and mentally alive, that connects you with the world and other people, that gives you a reason to live, to love, to learn and think.
What would it mean if people on the outside don't stand up and do everything they can to make sure these prisoners don't die, to really fight for these prisoners to be treated like human beings? What would this say about our humanity? But also, what will it mean if hundreds and thousands of people do stand up together, wage a determined struggle for the just demands of these prisoners, and in this way, assert our own humanity?
As a statement from prisoners in Corcoran Prison put it: "It is important for all to know Pelican Bay is not alone in this struggle and the broader the participation and support for this hunger strike and other such efforts, the greater the potential that our sacrifice now will mean a more humane world for us in the future."
Close your eyes and imagine you're in a cell that's 8 x 10 feet [7.5 square metres] with no windows, no air, just concrete walls all around you. This tomb includes a slab of cement to sleep on, a toilet and sink. That's it. You’re deprived of human contact. Your food is shoved through a slot in the door. You can’t take a photo of yourself to send to your family. Maybe once a day, but maybe not, you are let out of this cell for one hour, into a space a little bigger, with a little bit more air. You are denied medical care. And if the guards decide you're not cooperating – for something as minor as not returning a food tray or banging on the door – a team of them, in full riot gear, with batons, handcuffs, will "extract" you from your cell, hogtie you and beat you with no mercy. You have been in this cell, subjected to this torture, for five years, or 10 years, or maybe 30 years, deprived of human contact, never feeling the sun, never seeing the sky or a blade of grass, never hearing a note of music.
This is life – or more accurately, a slow death – for 70,000 men and women who have been put in maximum security units in prisons all over the USA. This kind of solitary confinement stands in violation of international human rights standards, including the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This kind of sensory deprivation and lack of human contact is known to create severe psychological disorders, to literally drive people crazy. Putting an end to all this is what the hunger strikers at Pelican Bay State Prison are willing to die for.
Think about how prisoners in these conditions are on a hunger strike. Many of them have no way of even knowing what is happening outside of their cell. They have no way to communicate with each other and no way – or very limited ways – to talk with friends, family and supporters on the outside. Meanwhile prison officials have tried all kinds of ways to sabotage the strike – including lying to prisoners, telling them the strike is over, and trying to create divisions among the prisoners.
Prison officials say this hunger strike just goes to show that these prisoners should be in the SHU. Terry Thornton, spokesperson for the CDCR, said, "That so many inmates in other prisons throughout the state are involved really demonstrates how these gangs can influence other inmates, which is one of the reasons we have security housing units in the first place."
But even the mainstream press has reported on how this hunger strike has united prisoners across different nationalities and other divisions which prison officials have always used to set prisoners against each other. The New York Times reported, "The hunger strike has transcended the gang and geographic affiliations that traditionally divide prisoners, with prisoners of many backgrounds participating."
The SHU at Pelican Bay is a super max prison within a prison. In fact, a huge percentage of prisoners are in the Pelican Bay SHU simply because prison officials have decided to "validate" them as affiliated with a gang. A prisoner can end up in the SHU because he has a certain tattoo or hangs out with someone who guards say is a gang member. A prisoner in the SHU can target another prisoner as a gang member – whether it is true or not – in order to get out of the SHU. A prisoner can end up in the SHU because they are rebellious, because they dare to think. A letter from a hunger striker at Pelican Bay to the Prisoners Revolutionary Literature Fund (PRLF) said:
"Just being a rebellious or progressive prisoner gets one targeted and labelled a 'gang member' and sent to Shu. The Shu is made out as a big stick to intimidate the prison population into passivity, (think deportation threats to migrants or the whip shown to the slave). It doesn't mean it's going to be used but the thought of it existing is enough to control a large portion of the prison population so it becomes a tool not used for rehabilitation but for social control... It is these conditions where even reading material such as philosophy or history is censored. Pelican Bay SHU is designed to control, nothing more. We have seen even Revolution newspaper being censored and banned from this prison at one time. How would you feel about the system that upholds the actions of these officials?"
Since the end of the strike the transition to eating food again has been brutal and confusing.
After not eating for four weeks, it is very hard to begin eating solid food again right away, so many prisoners are in need of more medical care than the prisons can provide. Medical staff at the prisons were already overwhelmed by general conditions of overcrowding, and have been even further overwhelmed by this massive protest. While the medical staff supposedly need to follow certain protocols assisting hunger strikers' transition to eating solid food, provision of basic medical care is unreliable and ineffective.
Family members and supporters are anxiously waiting confirmation on whether or not prisoners are continuing the strike at other prisons. Prisoners at Calipatria have explained that they joined the hunger strike specifically in protest of the torturous formal and informal policies of group punishment, gang "validation" and debriefing – practices also imposed at Calipatria. Prisoners at Calipatria are now transitioning to eating food again, according to family members of prisoners participating in the hunger strike.
While the initial concessions to the strikers made by CDCR may seem too small to claim a victory, it's important for people outside prison to understand the significance for prisoners who have been held in the SHU for decades to now have warm clothing, and to be able to keep track of time since they have no windows and the fluorescent lights are on 24 hours of every day. The courage of thousands of prisoners risking their lives effectively pressured the CDCR to sit at the same table and bargain, after refusing to negotiate for weeks and insisting prisoners are less than human.
Supporters continue to discuss how to keep pressure on the CDCR to implement the necessary changes brought to the world's attention by the strike. Many supporters are coordinating (inter)national days of action throughout the next few weeks. People from all over the world have been sending statements defending the just demands of the prisoners. For updates or to add your support, go to revcom.us/s/pelicanbay-hungerstrike-en.html
The US: 5 percent of the world’s population – 25 percent of the world's prisoners
The bigger context for the inhumane conditions in maximum security units like the Pelican Bay Prison SHU is that this system, with its police, laws, courts, and prisons is using mass incarceration to enforce oppressive economic and social relations, especially in terms of the systematic subjugation of Black people as a people.
This system of U.S. capitalism, from its very inception, has, in large part, been built on and developed by carrying out the most brutal oppression of Native Americans, Black people and other people of colour.
This oppression has been woven into the whole fabric of US society, from the days of slavery until today. It has been and is an integral part of the economic and social structure in this country. White supremacy has and continues to maintain Black people in a subjugated position in every aspect of society. And all this has created, and today still maintains a "master class" of white people and a "pariah class" of Black people.
In this way, the systematic oppression of Black and other people of colour has been, and continues to be, part of the very glue that holds U.S. society together, even as it has gone through different changes and been enforced in different ways. The outright ownership of Black people under slavery gave way to Jim Crow segregation and Ku Klux Klan terror. And now we have what has been called "the new Jim Crow" of police brutality and murder and the mass incarceration of hundreds of thousands of Black people.
The subjugation of Black people is a pillar of this system, a part of the economic and social relations in society, and white supremacy is a key element in the dominant ideology. And this is why this system cannot get rid of the oppression of Black people, because to do so would mean tearing up and undermining the whole economic, social and ideological/culture basis of US society. The United States claims it is the "leader of the free world" and protector of democracy and human rights. But the prisoners' hunger strike has objectively exposed the complete illegitimacy and hypocrisy of this system.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)