Paramiliärischer Angriff und Entführung von Víctor Ayala überschatten
Unabhängigkeitsfeiern
von Philipp Gerber, Oaxaca
(Berlin, 17. September 2010, npl).- Die groß angelegte
Unabhängigkeitsfeier des so genannten „Bicentenario“ diente in den
südlichen Bundesstaaten offensichtlich zum Übertünchen von Angriffen auf
soziale Bewegungen. Während die Scheinwerfer auf die Festlichkeiten zum
200. Jahrestag der Unabhängigkeit gerichtet waren, haben in den
Unruheregionen Oaxaca und Guerrero schwere Übergriffe auf soziale
Bewegungen stattgefunden.
In Oaxaca eskalierte der Konflikt um San Juan Copala, wo sich drei
indigene Organisationen um die Vorherrschaft der symbolträchtigen Gemeinde
der Triqui-Indigenen streiten. Unabhängige Quellen über die Situation
liegen nicht vor, da die Gemeinde seit November 2009 von Bewaffneten der
Nachbardörfer El Rastrojo und La Sabana belagert wird.
Laut Jorge Albino, dem Vertreter des autonomen Bezirks, drangen in der
Nacht zum 13. September rund 500 Bewaffnete der Organisationen Vereinigung
für das Gemeinwohl der Region Triqui UBISORT (Unión de Bienestar Social de
la Región Triqui) und Bewegung zur Vereinigung des Kampfes der Triqui MULT
(Movimiento de Unificación de Lucha Triqui) nach einer zweistündigen
Schießerei bis zum Gemeindesitz vor und konnten ihn einnehmen. Die beiden
Organisationen stehen der Partei der Institutionellen Revolution PRI
(Partido Revolucionario Institucional) nahe. Die wenigen Familien, je nach
Quellen sollen es zwischen 20 und 50 sein, die nach der monatelangen
Belagerung der Gemeinde noch zum Projekt des autonomen Bezirks halten,
wurden aufgefordert, sich innerhalb von 24 Stunden zu ergeben, sonst
würden sie niedergemetzelt. Drei Frauen wurden in den letzten Tagen durch
Schüsse verletzt: María Rosa Francisco (35), María Rosa López (55) und
Macaria Merino Martínez (85). Diese können nicht medizinisch versorgt
werden.
Störfaktor Mahnwache
Erst zu Wochenbeginn hatte die Regierung von Oaxaca den im Exil mit einer
Mahnwache demonstrierenden Triqui-Frauen versprochen, dass ein
Krankenwagen nach San Juan Copala entsandt werde und dort
Polizeipatrouillen stattfinden sollten. Doch diese Versprechen erwiesen
sich, ebenso wie die Zusage, dass die hungernden Familien zehn Tonnen Mais
geliefert bekämen, als Finte. Denn die kleine Gruppe von rund zwei Dutzend
Indigenas hatte sich auf dem Hauptplatz in Oaxaca-Stadt dauerhaft
installiert und war dadurch ein Störfaktor für die Feierlichkeiten zum
Unabhängigkeitstag. Nach einer polizeilichen Räumungsdrohung und mit den
ausgehandelten Versprechen hatten sich die Triqui darauf eingelassen, für
die Dauer der Feiern auf einen alternativen Platz zu gehen.
Nicht viel besser erging es protestierenden Triqui auf dem Hauptplatz in
Mexiko-Stadt: Die Stadtregierung der Partei der Demokratischen Revolution
PRD (Partido de la Revolución Democrática) entsandte Polizisten, die den
dortigen Protest während der Feierlichkeiten hermetisch abriegelten –
stundenlang wurde niemand herein und niemand herausgelassen. Während also
die MestizInnen ihre 200-jährige Unabhängigkeit von Spanien feiern, sind
die Indigenen im Land immer noch in Repression und Armut gefangen.
„Es gibt nichts zu feiern“
„Es gibt nichts zu feiern, wir sind immer noch eine Kolonie“, fasste ein
Demonstrant in Chilpancingo, Guerrero, diese Stimmung zusammen. In
Guerreros Hauptstadt versuchte der Gouverneur Zeferino Torreblanca (PRD),
die nächtliche Unabhängigkeitsfeier anzuführen. Doch kaum auf der Bühne,
wurde er von einem Großteil des Publikums lautstark niedergeschrien. Nach
erstem Zögern verkündete er dann doch die Worte des Priesters Hidalgo, mit
denen der Kampf gegen die Spanier vor 200 Jahren begonnen hatte. Das
anschließende Glockengeläut, Teil des Rituals, wurde dann aber wegen der
allgemeinen Verwirrung über den Volkszorn vergessen.
Bauern-Aktivist Víctor Ayala Tapia entführt
Schon tagsüber hatten am 15. September 17 Organisationen gegen die
Kriminalisierung des sozialen Protests im Bundesstaat Guerrero
protestiert. Jüngstes Beispiel ist das Verhaften und Verschwindenlassen
des Aktivisten Víctor Ayala Tapia am 14. September. Der Anführer der
Bauernorganisation „Frente Libre Hermenegildo Galeana“ wurde nach längerer
polizeilicher Überwachung seines Hauses just nach dem Abzug der
Patrouillen von bewaffneten Männern in einen Wagen ohne Nummernschild
gezerrt und gilt seither als verschwunden. Seine Ehefrau bekam in der
Nacht nach der Tat ein Dutzend Drohanrufe der Entführer und am Morgen
darauf Besuch von der Polizei, die sie zu der Aussage zwingen wollte, dass
die Polizei nichts mit dem Verschwinden ihres Ehemannes zu tun habe.
Weitere Informationen:
* Radio-Interview mit Jorge Albino:
http://www.chiapas.indymedia.org/article_176434
* Eilaktion des Kollektivs gegen Folter wg. des Verschwindenlassens von
Víctor Ayala de Guerrero:
http://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2010/09/16/el-colectivo-contra-la-tortura-llama-a-una-accion-urgente-por-el-companero-victor-ayala-de-guerrero/
URL:
http://www.npla.de/de/poonal/3001-paramiliaerischer-angriff-und-entfuehrung-von-victor-ayala-ueberschatten-unabhaengigkeitsfeiern
Montag, 20. September 2010
Eine politische Abschiedsvorstellung
KABUL/BERLIN
german-foreign-policy vom17.09.2010 – Berliner Regierungsberater diagnostizieren vor den morgigen Parlamentswahlen in Afghanistan einen „Abbau“ formaldemokratischer Restbestände in Kabul. Die westlichen Besatzer legten offenbar keinen Wert mehr auf „glaubwürdige Wahlen“ am Hindukusch, heißt es in einer aktuellen Analyse der Berliner Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP). Präsident Karzai erhalte vielmehr „freie Hand“, mit Hilfe der Wahlen „nun auch das Unterhaus seinem Willen zu unterwerfen“. Afghanistan sei unter westlicher Kontrolle eine „Fassadendemokratie“ geworden, die „auf einem Unterbau aus kriegs- und drogenökonomischen sowie klientelistischen Strukturen“ basiere. Während Karzai sich offenkundig darauf vorbereitet, eine „Präsidentendynastie“ in Kabul zu etablieren, treiben westliche Thinktanks ihre Planungen für eine künftige Afghanistan-Strategie voran. Jüngsten Vorschlägen zufolge sollen die westlichen Besatzungstruppen stark reduziert und nur in wenigen Militärbasen für gelegentliche Überfälle auf antiwestliche Kräfte bereitgehalten werden. Afghanistan selbst, heißt es, sei in relativ eigenständige Provinzen zu zerlegen, die zur „Zentralregierung“ in Kabul in einem „Gleichgewicht der Schwäche“ stünden - optimale Voraussetzungen für die Kontrolle des Landes durch die westlichen Mächte.
Freie Hand
Berliner Regierungsberater rechnen mit „erheblichen Fälschungen“ und ernstem Wahlbetrug bei den morgigen Parlamentswahlen in Afghanistan. Wie aus einer aktuellen Analyse der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) hervorgeht, sind die Vorschläge afghanischer und internationaler Beobachter, wie aus den Wahlfälschungen der Jahre 2004, 2005 und 2009 Konsequenzen gezogen werden könnten, von den westlichen Besatzungsmächten ignoriert worden. Selbst gegen schwerste Mängel werde nicht eingeschritten; zum Beispiel seien inzwischen 17,4 Millionen Wählerausweise in Umlauf, während die Gesamtzahl der Wahlberechtigten nur mit unter 12,6 Millionen angegeben werde. Weite Landstriche stünden nicht unter der Kontrolle des Kabuler Regimes oder der NATO, weshalb ein geregelter Wahlablauf dort recht unwahrscheinlich sei. Wie die SWP feststellt, haben die westlichen Staaten ihre Wahlbeobachtung mittlerweile deutlich reduziert. So entsendet die EU keine „Observation Mission“ mehr, sondern lediglich eine „Assistance Mission“, deren Aufgaben und Kompetenzen deutlich verringert wurden. Wie die SWP resümiert, habe der Westen „das Ziel glaubwürdiger Wahlen in Afghanistan aufgegeben“ und lasse „Präsident Karzai freie Hand“.[1]
Kriegs- und Drogenökonomie
Über die aktuellen Wahlen hinaus diagnostiziert die SWP einen „Abbau“ der formaldemokratischen Bestände in Kabul. Afghanistan sei unter westlicher Kontrolle zur „Fassadendemokratie“ geworden, „mit übermächtiger Exekutive gegenüber einem politisch und legitimatorisch schwachen Parlament und einer nicht unabhängigen Gerichtsbarkeit“. Die morgigen Parlamentswahlen machten es Hamid Karzai möglich, „nun auch das Unterhaus seinem Willen zu unterwerfen“.[2] Die Entwicklung einer „Präsidialdynastie“ sei nicht auszuschließen. Als etwaiger Nachfolger des aktuellen Präsidenten gilt der SWP Hamids Bruder Mahmud Karzai, „der sich bisher vor allem um die Geschäftsinteressen seines Familienclans kümmert, aber politische Ambitionen hegt und dabei auch vom Amtsinhaber gefördert wird“. Über die Grundlagen des Karzai-Regimes, soweit sie über den Unterhalt durch die westlichen Besatzer hinausgehen, lässt die SWP keinerlei Illusionen zu: „Dieses Gebilde basiert auf einem Unterbau aus kriegs- und drogenökonomischen sowie klientelistischen Strukturen.“
Zu ehrgeizig
Während Hamid Karzai mit Billigung der Besatzer sein Regime weiter festzurrt, dauert im Westen die Debatte um die künftige Besatzungspolitik an. Dabei gilt die aktuelle Aufstandsbekämpfung am Hindukusch weithin als gescheitert; sie sei „zu ehrgeizig“ und verschwende diplomatische wie auch militärische Energie, hieß es etwa vor kurzem im diesjährigen „Strategic Survey“ des renommierten International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS, London), einem führenden westlichen Thinktank auf dem Gebiet der internationalen Politik. Die Vorschläge des IISS für eine künftige Afghanistan-Strategie basieren auf Kernelementen, die mittlerweile vor allem in den USA befürwortet werden und in absehbarer Zeit wohl auch die deutsche Öffentlichkeit erreichen; intern werden sie auch in der Bundesrepublik schon diskutiert. Als unverzichtbar gilt dabei nur noch das Ziel, nach Westen ausgreifende terroristische Strukturen („Al Qaida“) aus Afghanistan fernzuhalten. Mit örtlichen islamistischen Kräften („Taliban“), heißt es, könne man jedoch durchaus kooperieren.
Gezielte Militärschläge
Wie das IISS in seinem „Strategic Survey“ konkret vorschlägt, sollen die Besatzungstruppen aus den paschtunischen Gebieten im Süden und Osten Afghanistans - dort haben die „Taliban“ schon seit je den größten Einfluss - abgezogen werden. Zugleich gelte es, sich in Militärstützpunkten in Kabul und in Nordafghanistan auf Dauer festzusetzen. Sobald die erwähnten, nach Westen ausgreifenden Terrorstrukturen sich erneut in Afghanistan anzusiedeln suchten, müssten die NATO-Truppen gezielt zuschlagen; dazu müsse man Schnelle Einsatztruppen aufbauen. Islamistische Kräfte, die auf Aggressionen gegenüber dem Westen verzichteten, seien als Partner zu behandeln und allenfalls zu bekämpfen, wenn sie aus ihrer angestammten Heimat zu expandieren suchten.[3] Der Vorschlag des IISS stimmt mit Konzepten überein, die seit geraumer Zeit in den USA auch öffentlich debattiert werden (german-foreign-policy.com berichtete [4]) und einen Abzug der meisten westlichen Truppen ermöglichen, ohne die militärische Kontrolle über Afghanistan ganz aufzugeben.
Gleichgewicht der Schwäche
Für die Binnenstruktur Afghanistans schlägt das IISS vor, die formelle Kontrolle über das Land sowie die offizielle Außenpolitik wie bisher dem Regime in Kabul zu überlassen. Die „praktische Souveränität“ dagegen solle bei den Provinzen liegen, deren Eigenständigkeit gegenüber Kabul zu stärken sei. Insbesondere plädiert das IISS dafür, die Afghan National Army (ANA) „konföderal“ zu strukturieren: „Örtliche Streitkräfte“ - de facto Warlord-Milizen - sollten mit dem Etikett ANA versehen und offiziell in die nationalen Streitkräfte eingegliedert werden. In der Praxis laufen die Vorschläge des IISS darauf hinaus, Afghanistan in ein Geflecht kleiner Territorien zu zerlegen, in denen jeweils örtliche Warlords mit Hilfe ihrer Milizen die Macht innehaben und nur noch locker mit der Zentrale in Kabul verbunden sind. Ähnliche Konzepte werden ebenfalls schon seit einiger Zeit diskutiert (german-foreign-policy.com berichtete [5]); US-General David Petraeus soll bereits Absprachen darüber mit Hamid Karzai getroffen haben. Das IISS spricht ausdrücklich von einem „Gleichgewicht der Schwäche zwischen der Hauptstadt und den Provinzen“ [6] - eine prekäre Balance, die den Besatzern die Kontrolle über widerspenstige Kräfte erleichtert.
Afghanisierung
Während sich die internationale Debatte über Afghanistan - fernab der deutschen Öffentlichkeit - erkennbar in die Richtung bewegt, die das IISS mit seinen neuen Vorschlägen beschreibt, sucht der Kabuler Machthaber Hamid Karzai mit Hilfe der morgigen Parlamentswahlen seine Herrschaft in der afghanischen Hauptstadt zu festigen - als ein Pfeiler der künftigen Kontrolle des Westens über ein eventuell gänzlich zersplittertes Afghanistan. Die Wahl, urteilt der renommierte Afghanistan-Experte Thomas Ruttig, werde „die politische Abschiedsvorstellung“ des Westens sein - „alles danach nur noch Teil des Rückzugs, durch das beschönigende Wort 'Afghanisierung' verbrämt.“[7] Und zudem erweitert um Maßnahmen wie das vom IISS vorgeschlagene Konzept, das dem Westen auf Dauer die Kontrolle über Afghanistan sichern soll.
[1], [2] Citha D. Maaß, Thomas Ruttig: Afghanistans Parlamentswahl 2010. Verpasste Wahlrechtsreformen und politische Manöver schwächen neues Parlament, SWP-Aktuell 66, September 2010
[3] Strategic Survey 2010: The Annual Review of World Affairs - Press Statement; www.iiss.org
[4] s. dazu Dauerkrieg
[5] s. dazu Totalschaden und Die Kolonialisten kommen zurück
[6] Strategic Survey 2010: The Annual Review of World Affairs - Press Statement; www.iiss.org
[7] Thomas Ruttig: Afghanistans embryonale Demokratie unterliegt; Neues Deutschland 14.09.2010
german-foreign-policy vom17.09.2010 – Berliner Regierungsberater diagnostizieren vor den morgigen Parlamentswahlen in Afghanistan einen „Abbau“ formaldemokratischer Restbestände in Kabul. Die westlichen Besatzer legten offenbar keinen Wert mehr auf „glaubwürdige Wahlen“ am Hindukusch, heißt es in einer aktuellen Analyse der Berliner Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP). Präsident Karzai erhalte vielmehr „freie Hand“, mit Hilfe der Wahlen „nun auch das Unterhaus seinem Willen zu unterwerfen“. Afghanistan sei unter westlicher Kontrolle eine „Fassadendemokratie“ geworden, die „auf einem Unterbau aus kriegs- und drogenökonomischen sowie klientelistischen Strukturen“ basiere. Während Karzai sich offenkundig darauf vorbereitet, eine „Präsidentendynastie“ in Kabul zu etablieren, treiben westliche Thinktanks ihre Planungen für eine künftige Afghanistan-Strategie voran. Jüngsten Vorschlägen zufolge sollen die westlichen Besatzungstruppen stark reduziert und nur in wenigen Militärbasen für gelegentliche Überfälle auf antiwestliche Kräfte bereitgehalten werden. Afghanistan selbst, heißt es, sei in relativ eigenständige Provinzen zu zerlegen, die zur „Zentralregierung“ in Kabul in einem „Gleichgewicht der Schwäche“ stünden - optimale Voraussetzungen für die Kontrolle des Landes durch die westlichen Mächte.
Freie Hand
Berliner Regierungsberater rechnen mit „erheblichen Fälschungen“ und ernstem Wahlbetrug bei den morgigen Parlamentswahlen in Afghanistan. Wie aus einer aktuellen Analyse der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) hervorgeht, sind die Vorschläge afghanischer und internationaler Beobachter, wie aus den Wahlfälschungen der Jahre 2004, 2005 und 2009 Konsequenzen gezogen werden könnten, von den westlichen Besatzungsmächten ignoriert worden. Selbst gegen schwerste Mängel werde nicht eingeschritten; zum Beispiel seien inzwischen 17,4 Millionen Wählerausweise in Umlauf, während die Gesamtzahl der Wahlberechtigten nur mit unter 12,6 Millionen angegeben werde. Weite Landstriche stünden nicht unter der Kontrolle des Kabuler Regimes oder der NATO, weshalb ein geregelter Wahlablauf dort recht unwahrscheinlich sei. Wie die SWP feststellt, haben die westlichen Staaten ihre Wahlbeobachtung mittlerweile deutlich reduziert. So entsendet die EU keine „Observation Mission“ mehr, sondern lediglich eine „Assistance Mission“, deren Aufgaben und Kompetenzen deutlich verringert wurden. Wie die SWP resümiert, habe der Westen „das Ziel glaubwürdiger Wahlen in Afghanistan aufgegeben“ und lasse „Präsident Karzai freie Hand“.[1]
Kriegs- und Drogenökonomie
Über die aktuellen Wahlen hinaus diagnostiziert die SWP einen „Abbau“ der formaldemokratischen Bestände in Kabul. Afghanistan sei unter westlicher Kontrolle zur „Fassadendemokratie“ geworden, „mit übermächtiger Exekutive gegenüber einem politisch und legitimatorisch schwachen Parlament und einer nicht unabhängigen Gerichtsbarkeit“. Die morgigen Parlamentswahlen machten es Hamid Karzai möglich, „nun auch das Unterhaus seinem Willen zu unterwerfen“.[2] Die Entwicklung einer „Präsidialdynastie“ sei nicht auszuschließen. Als etwaiger Nachfolger des aktuellen Präsidenten gilt der SWP Hamids Bruder Mahmud Karzai, „der sich bisher vor allem um die Geschäftsinteressen seines Familienclans kümmert, aber politische Ambitionen hegt und dabei auch vom Amtsinhaber gefördert wird“. Über die Grundlagen des Karzai-Regimes, soweit sie über den Unterhalt durch die westlichen Besatzer hinausgehen, lässt die SWP keinerlei Illusionen zu: „Dieses Gebilde basiert auf einem Unterbau aus kriegs- und drogenökonomischen sowie klientelistischen Strukturen.“
Zu ehrgeizig
Während Hamid Karzai mit Billigung der Besatzer sein Regime weiter festzurrt, dauert im Westen die Debatte um die künftige Besatzungspolitik an. Dabei gilt die aktuelle Aufstandsbekämpfung am Hindukusch weithin als gescheitert; sie sei „zu ehrgeizig“ und verschwende diplomatische wie auch militärische Energie, hieß es etwa vor kurzem im diesjährigen „Strategic Survey“ des renommierten International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS, London), einem führenden westlichen Thinktank auf dem Gebiet der internationalen Politik. Die Vorschläge des IISS für eine künftige Afghanistan-Strategie basieren auf Kernelementen, die mittlerweile vor allem in den USA befürwortet werden und in absehbarer Zeit wohl auch die deutsche Öffentlichkeit erreichen; intern werden sie auch in der Bundesrepublik schon diskutiert. Als unverzichtbar gilt dabei nur noch das Ziel, nach Westen ausgreifende terroristische Strukturen („Al Qaida“) aus Afghanistan fernzuhalten. Mit örtlichen islamistischen Kräften („Taliban“), heißt es, könne man jedoch durchaus kooperieren.
Gezielte Militärschläge
Wie das IISS in seinem „Strategic Survey“ konkret vorschlägt, sollen die Besatzungstruppen aus den paschtunischen Gebieten im Süden und Osten Afghanistans - dort haben die „Taliban“ schon seit je den größten Einfluss - abgezogen werden. Zugleich gelte es, sich in Militärstützpunkten in Kabul und in Nordafghanistan auf Dauer festzusetzen. Sobald die erwähnten, nach Westen ausgreifenden Terrorstrukturen sich erneut in Afghanistan anzusiedeln suchten, müssten die NATO-Truppen gezielt zuschlagen; dazu müsse man Schnelle Einsatztruppen aufbauen. Islamistische Kräfte, die auf Aggressionen gegenüber dem Westen verzichteten, seien als Partner zu behandeln und allenfalls zu bekämpfen, wenn sie aus ihrer angestammten Heimat zu expandieren suchten.[3] Der Vorschlag des IISS stimmt mit Konzepten überein, die seit geraumer Zeit in den USA auch öffentlich debattiert werden (german-foreign-policy.com berichtete [4]) und einen Abzug der meisten westlichen Truppen ermöglichen, ohne die militärische Kontrolle über Afghanistan ganz aufzugeben.
Gleichgewicht der Schwäche
Für die Binnenstruktur Afghanistans schlägt das IISS vor, die formelle Kontrolle über das Land sowie die offizielle Außenpolitik wie bisher dem Regime in Kabul zu überlassen. Die „praktische Souveränität“ dagegen solle bei den Provinzen liegen, deren Eigenständigkeit gegenüber Kabul zu stärken sei. Insbesondere plädiert das IISS dafür, die Afghan National Army (ANA) „konföderal“ zu strukturieren: „Örtliche Streitkräfte“ - de facto Warlord-Milizen - sollten mit dem Etikett ANA versehen und offiziell in die nationalen Streitkräfte eingegliedert werden. In der Praxis laufen die Vorschläge des IISS darauf hinaus, Afghanistan in ein Geflecht kleiner Territorien zu zerlegen, in denen jeweils örtliche Warlords mit Hilfe ihrer Milizen die Macht innehaben und nur noch locker mit der Zentrale in Kabul verbunden sind. Ähnliche Konzepte werden ebenfalls schon seit einiger Zeit diskutiert (german-foreign-policy.com berichtete [5]); US-General David Petraeus soll bereits Absprachen darüber mit Hamid Karzai getroffen haben. Das IISS spricht ausdrücklich von einem „Gleichgewicht der Schwäche zwischen der Hauptstadt und den Provinzen“ [6] - eine prekäre Balance, die den Besatzern die Kontrolle über widerspenstige Kräfte erleichtert.
Afghanisierung
Während sich die internationale Debatte über Afghanistan - fernab der deutschen Öffentlichkeit - erkennbar in die Richtung bewegt, die das IISS mit seinen neuen Vorschlägen beschreibt, sucht der Kabuler Machthaber Hamid Karzai mit Hilfe der morgigen Parlamentswahlen seine Herrschaft in der afghanischen Hauptstadt zu festigen - als ein Pfeiler der künftigen Kontrolle des Westens über ein eventuell gänzlich zersplittertes Afghanistan. Die Wahl, urteilt der renommierte Afghanistan-Experte Thomas Ruttig, werde „die politische Abschiedsvorstellung“ des Westens sein - „alles danach nur noch Teil des Rückzugs, durch das beschönigende Wort 'Afghanisierung' verbrämt.“[7] Und zudem erweitert um Maßnahmen wie das vom IISS vorgeschlagene Konzept, das dem Westen auf Dauer die Kontrolle über Afghanistan sichern soll.
[1], [2] Citha D. Maaß, Thomas Ruttig: Afghanistans Parlamentswahl 2010. Verpasste Wahlrechtsreformen und politische Manöver schwächen neues Parlament, SWP-Aktuell 66, September 2010
[3] Strategic Survey 2010: The Annual Review of World Affairs - Press Statement; www.iiss.org
[4] s. dazu Dauerkrieg
[5] s. dazu Totalschaden und Die Kolonialisten kommen zurück
[6] Strategic Survey 2010: The Annual Review of World Affairs - Press Statement; www.iiss.org
[7] Thomas Ruttig: Afghanistans embryonale Demokratie unterliegt; Neues Deutschland 14.09.2010
France and the Roma: ethnic cleansing and national identity
13 September 2010. A World to Win News Service. France is moving to forcibly expel its population of immigrant Roma, known pejoratively as Gypsies.
In August and early September, the police carried out raids on more than a hundred squats and improvised camps in vacant lots. They herded family after family – about a thousand people – onto buses, took them to detention centres and marched them onto chartered flights back to Romania, in most cases, or Bulgaria. Roma villages and neighbourhoods in Romania are being flooded by deportees and people who have decided to flee France on their own before the police get hold of them.
Many people consider this a return to the policies of the pro-Nazi French Vichy government during World War II. While this is taking place in peacetime and circumstances are different today, Western Europe has not seen such mass round-ups and punishment of an entire ethnic group since Nazi days.
Romanians and Bulgarians have theoretically been free to travel and live anywhere in the European Union since these countries joined it in 2007. Nevertheless, the conditions under which they were admitted allowed France to impose legal barriers, treating them differently than other EU citizens. They are not allowed to spend more than three months in France without a job, and work permits are almost always denied them.
Furthermore, the authorities are illegally deporting them en masse, with no regard for their rights or case-by-case examination. French government claims that many Roma are departing "voluntarily" in exchange for payments of 300 euros per adult and 100 euros per child are both hypocritical and racist. People are being taken to jail and told that they can accept "voluntary" deportation or end up deported anyway. They did not decide to sell their rights for a handful of euros. They are fleeing persecution in France, just as they came to France fleeing persecution in the first place.
The reaction to these deportations in Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia reveals the awfulness of the situation for Roma in Eastern Europe even more than the bleak statistics about their unemployment (in some villages, nearly everyone), exclusion from school and short life expectancy.
In Romania, for some politicians the real scandal has been that some deportees are not Roma after all. The media has encouraged the sentiment that France's treatment of the Roma proves that they can't be integrated anywhere and that Romania is right to keep them segregated. When a man in Slovakia turned a machine gun on a whole neighbouring Roma family for having too many guests, "the reaction of the society was worse than the killings themselves. Rather than focusing on the killer, the message has been: the shooting was bad but these Roma people were bad too," a researcher of Roma origin told The New York Times (3 September 2010).
Finally some Romanian officials felt obliged to squeak about the treatment of their citizens. France threatened to impose more severe restrictions on all Romanians if they didn't shut up. After Benedict XVI urged France to "welcome legitimate human diversity", a close advisor to President Nicolas Sarkozy said that as a German the pope had no moral right to speak. When the European Parliament called on France to suspend these deportations, Sarkozy defenders pointed out, quite correctly, that other EU governments from Italy to Sweden are currently carrying out anti-Roma campaigns themselves. The overall message is that no one can tell France what to do. Seldom in recent times has French chauvinism so openly infused official discourse in every dimension.
A people never considered human
The word "Rom" has nothing to do with Romania. It is the self-designation of an ethnic and social group, the Romani people, who immigrated out of India a thousand years ago. They may have been people confined to lowly trades seeking a way out of the Hindu caste system. The word "Rom", meaning man or human being, comes from the historical Indian language Sanskrit and designates exactly what they have not been considered anywhere.
Waves of Roma immigrants moved through Persia to Anatolia and the Balkans, where in some places they were made slaves or serfs, and then throughout Western Europe and the Americas (the U.S. outlawed their entry in 1885, as did some Latin American countries). Another group went through North Africa and came to Spain, spreading out from there. Many of the subgroups formed after centuries of residence in one or another country have been reshuffled by repeated forced exile.
Yet the worst times for them were not the medieval dark ages but the last century, not only under the Nazis, who exterminated at least hundreds of thousands of Central and Eastern European Roma during World War II, but for a hundred years throughout Europe.
Although the French government, media and much of public opinion often make no distinctions, the recent immigrant Roma – numbering an estimated 10-15,000 people – are a tiny minority of France's Romani, a name that encompasses different historically and culturally constituted subgroups speaking variants of a common language. France is believed to be home to 400,000 native-born Romani people, who first came to the area 500 years ago and have had the law and much of the population on their backs ever since.
Even today French law classifies people who live in caravans, trailers or any other vehicle as "gens de voyage". Considered to have no legal residence, they are not allowed the identity cards that other citizens must carry and instead are issued special permits that must be stamped by the police every three months. They are also ineligible for unemployment and health insurance.
This is widely considered a form of second-class citizenship, and indeed the current laws are a modified continuation of explicitly anti-"Gypsy" laws of previous centuries. It is telling that the law distinguishes between these people and other frequent travellers, such as those who go around with itinerant fairs and circuses. The "gens de voyage" classification is difficult to change, even if one's way of life changes. French Roma say that as far as the government is concerned "gens de voyage" is a category one is born into.
Why attack the Roma now?
If persecuting "Gypsies" is as French as tarte aux pommes, that underlines the question of why this hysterical campaign is happening now.
France has been forcibly expelling 8,000 or more immigrant Roma a year since they first began arriving in large numbers in 2007. Until this summer this has been carried out somewhat in the shadows. What is different now is that Sarkozy has stepped up these roundups and brought them into the spotlight, vowing to clear out 300 Roma camps within three months and assigning the police weekly quotas.
A defining feature of Sarkozy's presidency has been his coupling of the words "security" and "immigration", demanding that the French decide which of the two they want. The anti-Roma onslaught is just one of the sharp edges of a much broader and longer term crusade to reconfigure French politics, economic policy and thinking. While the anti-Roma frenzy is in the service of this much broader agenda, the government has gone after this particular people because it can, because it feels that they have few friends and are an easy target.
The broader goals can be glimpsed in the way in which the anti-Roma campaign was launched. Sarkozy chose to announce it with trumpet blasts on 30 July in Grenoble, two weeks after an incident in which youth, mostly from Arab and African families in public housing there, fought the police. They were reacting to a police killing of a suspected robber – yet another instance when the authorities demonstrated that for them ghetto youth have no rights and their lives have no value. Also in July, French Roma in another part of the country attacked a police station after police shot and killed a young passenger in a car that had allegedly tried to run a checkpoint near a Roma encampment.
In the name of emergency measures to regain "security" Sarkozy put forward draft legislation explicitly aimed at narrowing access to the privilege of French citizenship. One of the most important ideologically, although its practical impact remains to be seen, would broaden the circumstances under which naturalized immigrants can be stripped of their French nationality, effectively establishing a legal distinction between native-born French and second-class citizens. (For now, this punishment would apply only to the killing or attempted killing of a police officer, although legislators have proposed extending the range to include all sorts of minor offences.) A related proposal being discussed would make it easier to deny citizenship to the French-born children of immigrants, who now usually acquire it when they turn 18.
Confusion and paralysis
On 4 September there were medium-sized demonstrations in solidarity with the Roma and other immigrants in many cities throughout France, called by an exceptionally broad range of organizations, including the biggest trade union federation (GCT), the opposition political parties, many NGOs and small single-issue groups, and the main organization of French "gens de voyage". But unfortunately short-sightedness and wrong thinking has kept this movement from being an adequate response to the need. This is especially notable in a country with such a strong tradition of protests.
A main problem has been the widespread tendency, especially among the parliamentary left, to consider the roundup of the foreign Roma a trick to distract attention from the "real" issues of the day, political corruption, unemployment, cutbacks in public services and especially the raising of the retirement age that led to a strike by as many as two million workers and employees a few days after the Roma solidarity actions.
This attitude was encapsulated by parliamentary deputy Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a former famous radical, who said that Sarkozy "has taken the French for fools."
The truth is that many French people have been fools and taken in by Sarkozy. After all, they voted for him, although the "left" alternatives were no better. At the same time, many millions hate what is happening and are ashamed of their country, and yet are not raising their voices about it in the streets.
The timing of Sarkozy's speech did make it seem like a frantic bid to change the subject from the cascade of revelations about payoffs to the governing party in return for protecting the rich from taxes. People commonly contrast the criminality Sarkozy attributes to the Roma with that of the president and his inner circle. They say Sarkozy and friends are the country's worst pickpockets.
But the idea that the anti-Roma campaign is a red herring amounts to defending the petty privileges of living in a leading imperialist country, one whose wealth is swollen by the division of the world into oppressed and oppressor nations and which still profits from neo-colonial domination over hundreds of millions of people. It amounts to accepting the division of humanity into "French" and "others".
Exactly because entitlements such as job security, public housing, health insurance and other social measures are eroding (although not collapsing), the question of the ideological bonds that hold together French society, the concept of the "French nation" and a struggle over values are extremely important.
A "stain on the Republic"?
A Socialist Party leader called Sarkozy's frenzied assault of the Roma "a stain on the Republic", a departure from France's republican form of government (essentially parliamentary democracy). This is wrong and covers up the real nature of the French state in all its forms since the 1789 French revolution.
Some people who consider themselves more radical compare Sarkozy's measures to those of the Petain government installed by the invading Germans after France's defeat in the opening days of WWII. Yet while the fascist Petain regime did constitute a break from the Republic, its policies were not completely different from those of the Republic before and after.
Today's repressive laws against France's "gens de voyage" are a new version of the anti-"Gypsy" laws the Republic codified in 1912. As France became a destination for political refugees in the late 1930s, these measures became harsher. The Republic passed a law authorizing officials to strip foreign-born French citizens of their nationality. It was the Republic, and not the Petain regime, that began to herd "nomads" into camps just before the outbreak of the war.
Many people in France know that one of the country's richest families, from which Sarkozy's party is accused of taking illegal campaign contributions, was a pillar of support for the Petain regime. Fewer know that the family also supported the left government led by the Socialist Party's François Mitterrand. Mitterrand symbolized the continuity between disguised capitalist dictatorship in the form of the Republic and the open dictatorship of Petain in that he worked for both sides during the war and when president maintained a close relationship with prominent former Petainists.
In a sense, you could say that the republican form of government could not have existed without the exclusion of some people in France – and of course the world, especially the Third World – from the "Republic" and its benefits (real or imaginary) and the accompanying false idea that all those considered members of the French nation share common interests and values.
As the November 2005 ghetto rebellions in France showed spectacularly, millions of people have always been excluded from this social contract and a growing number are not in a mood to tolerate it. Sarkozy is not wrong to worry about the security of the French state that enforces this consensus. A few angry youth would not represent a danger if there were not reason to fear greater social upheaval. But at the same time, many French, including a section of far from well-off workers and lower middle class, feel threatened by immigration. They even say that "they" are "taking over," not because there are suddenly so many immigrants (immigration today is much less than in the past and the percentage of immigrants much less than in some other Western countries), or because there is so much real "insecurity" (the overall crime rate is low and falling), but because of their own fears in the face of the crumbling social consensus and cohesion.
Some of the official left's criticism of Sarkozy has been driven by a similar reactionary nostalgia (though in a "leftist" and not rightist form) for France as it "used to be" before globalisation. Whether French nationality is defined by residence or by "blood" is not an unimportant matter. Sarkozy is going further in the direction of defining it as being born in France to French-born parents than any government since Petain has dared. But these parties have let themselves become tangled up in trying to define the "French nation" and therefore who does and does not "deserve" the privileges of citizenship.
As French-born Roma point out, in what is an implicit criticism of the left even though religion is far more prevalent among them than radicalism, all Roma are persecuted, and it is wrong to distinguish between those who came before and those still coming.
In practice, in some localities where the Socialist, Communist and Green party leaders govern, they have been guilty of forcibly expelling Roma, denying their children entrance to school and in general sending in the police to enforce social exclusion. This has made it easier for Sarkozy's people to shout down the official opposition.
In contrast, many ordinary parents have waged struggles to keep their children's classmates from being deported when they turn 18 (during their last year of school), and these childrens' parents from being deported (sometimes when they come to pick up their children at the school gates). They raise slogans like "Every child has a right to schooling". Undocumented immigrant workers' rights groups say, "Everyone who lives here and works here has a right to be here."
There is no future in looking backward to a time a few decades ago when social benefits were slightly better and official national chauvinism less undisguised, conditions that can no longer exist in today's cut-throat capitalist world market. It's useless to struggle to rescue a social contract that has always stunted lives and numbed minds, one that represents the opposite of the real long term and fundamental interests of masses of people in France as well as the world. What's needed is for more people to seriously think about how to bring about a world where such simple principles and even more emancipatory ones might really prevail – a world that revolution could bring into being.
In August and early September, the police carried out raids on more than a hundred squats and improvised camps in vacant lots. They herded family after family – about a thousand people – onto buses, took them to detention centres and marched them onto chartered flights back to Romania, in most cases, or Bulgaria. Roma villages and neighbourhoods in Romania are being flooded by deportees and people who have decided to flee France on their own before the police get hold of them.
Many people consider this a return to the policies of the pro-Nazi French Vichy government during World War II. While this is taking place in peacetime and circumstances are different today, Western Europe has not seen such mass round-ups and punishment of an entire ethnic group since Nazi days.
Romanians and Bulgarians have theoretically been free to travel and live anywhere in the European Union since these countries joined it in 2007. Nevertheless, the conditions under which they were admitted allowed France to impose legal barriers, treating them differently than other EU citizens. They are not allowed to spend more than three months in France without a job, and work permits are almost always denied them.
Furthermore, the authorities are illegally deporting them en masse, with no regard for their rights or case-by-case examination. French government claims that many Roma are departing "voluntarily" in exchange for payments of 300 euros per adult and 100 euros per child are both hypocritical and racist. People are being taken to jail and told that they can accept "voluntary" deportation or end up deported anyway. They did not decide to sell their rights for a handful of euros. They are fleeing persecution in France, just as they came to France fleeing persecution in the first place.
The reaction to these deportations in Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia reveals the awfulness of the situation for Roma in Eastern Europe even more than the bleak statistics about their unemployment (in some villages, nearly everyone), exclusion from school and short life expectancy.
In Romania, for some politicians the real scandal has been that some deportees are not Roma after all. The media has encouraged the sentiment that France's treatment of the Roma proves that they can't be integrated anywhere and that Romania is right to keep them segregated. When a man in Slovakia turned a machine gun on a whole neighbouring Roma family for having too many guests, "the reaction of the society was worse than the killings themselves. Rather than focusing on the killer, the message has been: the shooting was bad but these Roma people were bad too," a researcher of Roma origin told The New York Times (3 September 2010).
Finally some Romanian officials felt obliged to squeak about the treatment of their citizens. France threatened to impose more severe restrictions on all Romanians if they didn't shut up. After Benedict XVI urged France to "welcome legitimate human diversity", a close advisor to President Nicolas Sarkozy said that as a German the pope had no moral right to speak. When the European Parliament called on France to suspend these deportations, Sarkozy defenders pointed out, quite correctly, that other EU governments from Italy to Sweden are currently carrying out anti-Roma campaigns themselves. The overall message is that no one can tell France what to do. Seldom in recent times has French chauvinism so openly infused official discourse in every dimension.
A people never considered human
The word "Rom" has nothing to do with Romania. It is the self-designation of an ethnic and social group, the Romani people, who immigrated out of India a thousand years ago. They may have been people confined to lowly trades seeking a way out of the Hindu caste system. The word "Rom", meaning man or human being, comes from the historical Indian language Sanskrit and designates exactly what they have not been considered anywhere.
Waves of Roma immigrants moved through Persia to Anatolia and the Balkans, where in some places they were made slaves or serfs, and then throughout Western Europe and the Americas (the U.S. outlawed their entry in 1885, as did some Latin American countries). Another group went through North Africa and came to Spain, spreading out from there. Many of the subgroups formed after centuries of residence in one or another country have been reshuffled by repeated forced exile.
Yet the worst times for them were not the medieval dark ages but the last century, not only under the Nazis, who exterminated at least hundreds of thousands of Central and Eastern European Roma during World War II, but for a hundred years throughout Europe.
Although the French government, media and much of public opinion often make no distinctions, the recent immigrant Roma – numbering an estimated 10-15,000 people – are a tiny minority of France's Romani, a name that encompasses different historically and culturally constituted subgroups speaking variants of a common language. France is believed to be home to 400,000 native-born Romani people, who first came to the area 500 years ago and have had the law and much of the population on their backs ever since.
Even today French law classifies people who live in caravans, trailers or any other vehicle as "gens de voyage". Considered to have no legal residence, they are not allowed the identity cards that other citizens must carry and instead are issued special permits that must be stamped by the police every three months. They are also ineligible for unemployment and health insurance.
This is widely considered a form of second-class citizenship, and indeed the current laws are a modified continuation of explicitly anti-"Gypsy" laws of previous centuries. It is telling that the law distinguishes between these people and other frequent travellers, such as those who go around with itinerant fairs and circuses. The "gens de voyage" classification is difficult to change, even if one's way of life changes. French Roma say that as far as the government is concerned "gens de voyage" is a category one is born into.
Why attack the Roma now?
If persecuting "Gypsies" is as French as tarte aux pommes, that underlines the question of why this hysterical campaign is happening now.
France has been forcibly expelling 8,000 or more immigrant Roma a year since they first began arriving in large numbers in 2007. Until this summer this has been carried out somewhat in the shadows. What is different now is that Sarkozy has stepped up these roundups and brought them into the spotlight, vowing to clear out 300 Roma camps within three months and assigning the police weekly quotas.
A defining feature of Sarkozy's presidency has been his coupling of the words "security" and "immigration", demanding that the French decide which of the two they want. The anti-Roma onslaught is just one of the sharp edges of a much broader and longer term crusade to reconfigure French politics, economic policy and thinking. While the anti-Roma frenzy is in the service of this much broader agenda, the government has gone after this particular people because it can, because it feels that they have few friends and are an easy target.
The broader goals can be glimpsed in the way in which the anti-Roma campaign was launched. Sarkozy chose to announce it with trumpet blasts on 30 July in Grenoble, two weeks after an incident in which youth, mostly from Arab and African families in public housing there, fought the police. They were reacting to a police killing of a suspected robber – yet another instance when the authorities demonstrated that for them ghetto youth have no rights and their lives have no value. Also in July, French Roma in another part of the country attacked a police station after police shot and killed a young passenger in a car that had allegedly tried to run a checkpoint near a Roma encampment.
In the name of emergency measures to regain "security" Sarkozy put forward draft legislation explicitly aimed at narrowing access to the privilege of French citizenship. One of the most important ideologically, although its practical impact remains to be seen, would broaden the circumstances under which naturalized immigrants can be stripped of their French nationality, effectively establishing a legal distinction between native-born French and second-class citizens. (For now, this punishment would apply only to the killing or attempted killing of a police officer, although legislators have proposed extending the range to include all sorts of minor offences.) A related proposal being discussed would make it easier to deny citizenship to the French-born children of immigrants, who now usually acquire it when they turn 18.
Confusion and paralysis
On 4 September there were medium-sized demonstrations in solidarity with the Roma and other immigrants in many cities throughout France, called by an exceptionally broad range of organizations, including the biggest trade union federation (GCT), the opposition political parties, many NGOs and small single-issue groups, and the main organization of French "gens de voyage". But unfortunately short-sightedness and wrong thinking has kept this movement from being an adequate response to the need. This is especially notable in a country with such a strong tradition of protests.
A main problem has been the widespread tendency, especially among the parliamentary left, to consider the roundup of the foreign Roma a trick to distract attention from the "real" issues of the day, political corruption, unemployment, cutbacks in public services and especially the raising of the retirement age that led to a strike by as many as two million workers and employees a few days after the Roma solidarity actions.
This attitude was encapsulated by parliamentary deputy Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a former famous radical, who said that Sarkozy "has taken the French for fools."
The truth is that many French people have been fools and taken in by Sarkozy. After all, they voted for him, although the "left" alternatives were no better. At the same time, many millions hate what is happening and are ashamed of their country, and yet are not raising their voices about it in the streets.
The timing of Sarkozy's speech did make it seem like a frantic bid to change the subject from the cascade of revelations about payoffs to the governing party in return for protecting the rich from taxes. People commonly contrast the criminality Sarkozy attributes to the Roma with that of the president and his inner circle. They say Sarkozy and friends are the country's worst pickpockets.
But the idea that the anti-Roma campaign is a red herring amounts to defending the petty privileges of living in a leading imperialist country, one whose wealth is swollen by the division of the world into oppressed and oppressor nations and which still profits from neo-colonial domination over hundreds of millions of people. It amounts to accepting the division of humanity into "French" and "others".
Exactly because entitlements such as job security, public housing, health insurance and other social measures are eroding (although not collapsing), the question of the ideological bonds that hold together French society, the concept of the "French nation" and a struggle over values are extremely important.
A "stain on the Republic"?
A Socialist Party leader called Sarkozy's frenzied assault of the Roma "a stain on the Republic", a departure from France's republican form of government (essentially parliamentary democracy). This is wrong and covers up the real nature of the French state in all its forms since the 1789 French revolution.
Some people who consider themselves more radical compare Sarkozy's measures to those of the Petain government installed by the invading Germans after France's defeat in the opening days of WWII. Yet while the fascist Petain regime did constitute a break from the Republic, its policies were not completely different from those of the Republic before and after.
Today's repressive laws against France's "gens de voyage" are a new version of the anti-"Gypsy" laws the Republic codified in 1912. As France became a destination for political refugees in the late 1930s, these measures became harsher. The Republic passed a law authorizing officials to strip foreign-born French citizens of their nationality. It was the Republic, and not the Petain regime, that began to herd "nomads" into camps just before the outbreak of the war.
Many people in France know that one of the country's richest families, from which Sarkozy's party is accused of taking illegal campaign contributions, was a pillar of support for the Petain regime. Fewer know that the family also supported the left government led by the Socialist Party's François Mitterrand. Mitterrand symbolized the continuity between disguised capitalist dictatorship in the form of the Republic and the open dictatorship of Petain in that he worked for both sides during the war and when president maintained a close relationship with prominent former Petainists.
In a sense, you could say that the republican form of government could not have existed without the exclusion of some people in France – and of course the world, especially the Third World – from the "Republic" and its benefits (real or imaginary) and the accompanying false idea that all those considered members of the French nation share common interests and values.
As the November 2005 ghetto rebellions in France showed spectacularly, millions of people have always been excluded from this social contract and a growing number are not in a mood to tolerate it. Sarkozy is not wrong to worry about the security of the French state that enforces this consensus. A few angry youth would not represent a danger if there were not reason to fear greater social upheaval. But at the same time, many French, including a section of far from well-off workers and lower middle class, feel threatened by immigration. They even say that "they" are "taking over," not because there are suddenly so many immigrants (immigration today is much less than in the past and the percentage of immigrants much less than in some other Western countries), or because there is so much real "insecurity" (the overall crime rate is low and falling), but because of their own fears in the face of the crumbling social consensus and cohesion.
Some of the official left's criticism of Sarkozy has been driven by a similar reactionary nostalgia (though in a "leftist" and not rightist form) for France as it "used to be" before globalisation. Whether French nationality is defined by residence or by "blood" is not an unimportant matter. Sarkozy is going further in the direction of defining it as being born in France to French-born parents than any government since Petain has dared. But these parties have let themselves become tangled up in trying to define the "French nation" and therefore who does and does not "deserve" the privileges of citizenship.
As French-born Roma point out, in what is an implicit criticism of the left even though religion is far more prevalent among them than radicalism, all Roma are persecuted, and it is wrong to distinguish between those who came before and those still coming.
In practice, in some localities where the Socialist, Communist and Green party leaders govern, they have been guilty of forcibly expelling Roma, denying their children entrance to school and in general sending in the police to enforce social exclusion. This has made it easier for Sarkozy's people to shout down the official opposition.
In contrast, many ordinary parents have waged struggles to keep their children's classmates from being deported when they turn 18 (during their last year of school), and these childrens' parents from being deported (sometimes when they come to pick up their children at the school gates). They raise slogans like "Every child has a right to schooling". Undocumented immigrant workers' rights groups say, "Everyone who lives here and works here has a right to be here."
There is no future in looking backward to a time a few decades ago when social benefits were slightly better and official national chauvinism less undisguised, conditions that can no longer exist in today's cut-throat capitalist world market. It's useless to struggle to rescue a social contract that has always stunted lives and numbed minds, one that represents the opposite of the real long term and fundamental interests of masses of people in France as well as the world. What's needed is for more people to seriously think about how to bring about a world where such simple principles and even more emancipatory ones might really prevail – a world that revolution could bring into being.
Kissinger: Statesman or murderer? Ask Chileans
13 September 2010. A World to Win News Service. On 10 September in Geneva Henry Kissinger was greeted by jeers of ″murderer″ from over 100 demonstrators, mainly Chilean, as well as Argentines. The man who made the 11 September 1973 military coup in Chile possible, Kissinger had come to Switzerland to deliver the keynote speech on "Power shifts and security" at a meeting of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
As National Security Adviser and Secretary of State for U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, the list of Kissinger's crimes is long. Although awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the end of the Vietnam war, he had been a main architect of that war and a long-time advocate of using American troops and airpower to force Vietnam to give in to a political settlement acceptable to the U.S. To achieve that goal, he advocated spreading the war throughout Southeast Asia. He was behind the bombing that destroyed much of Cambodia (a campaign kept secret from an increasingly antiwar public in the U.S.) and the U.S. invasion of Cambodia in 1970 that sparked an unprecedented broadening of the antiwar movement.
The other crime with which his name will always be associated is the CIA-backed overthrow of the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. At that time, he told his colleagues, the emergence of possible challenge by the then Soviet Union to U.S. domination of Latin America was "too important" to let Chileans decide. "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people."
Under Kissinger's direction, the U.S. tried to block Allende's assumption of the presidency, and then, when that failed, conducted three years of economic sabotage and political conspiracies until the Chilean army bombed and stormed the presidential palace and overthrew Allende. The military junta led by General Augusto Pinochet rounded up and killed thousands of Allende supporters and others. Pinochet's brutal, U.S.-supported regime lasted for almost two decades.
Kissinger supported a secret project called Operation Condor that coordinated efforts by U.S.-backed military juntas in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay to kill suspected opponents on the national, continental and international levels.
Last April, a leaked U.S. State Department document revealed that Kissinger personally blocked a letter from the U.S. State Department to the Pinochet government warning it that political assassinations would not be tolerated. Five days later the Pinochet regime organized the car-bomb murder of Orlando Letelier, formerly Allende's ambassador to the U.S. and a prominent anti-Pinochet figure, and Letelier’s assistant Ronni Karpen Moffitt, in Washington, D.C.
These crimes are a matter of public record, having been disclosed through leaked documents and even a U.S. Congress investigation (see the documentation listed on the Wikipedia and National Security Archives Web sites). Many of Kissinger's acts were illegal according to the laws of the country whose government he helped lead and also international law. Although legal cases have been filed against him by families of his victims in several countries, one after another American government has put its full weight behind him. Protecting Kissinger from possible indictment as a war criminal is one reason why to this day, under President Barack Obama, the U.S. refuses to sign the convention that established the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Kissinger's appearance at this Geneva conference amounted to an endorsement by many of the world's most powerful political leaders, foreign policy experts and opinion makers. Instead of condemning his crimes and bringing him to justice, they seek his advice on how to further oppress the people of the world. Switzerland welcomed this man who is responsible for thousands of murders and the ruining of millions of lives. Switzerland's Chileans didn't.
As National Security Adviser and Secretary of State for U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, the list of Kissinger's crimes is long. Although awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the end of the Vietnam war, he had been a main architect of that war and a long-time advocate of using American troops and airpower to force Vietnam to give in to a political settlement acceptable to the U.S. To achieve that goal, he advocated spreading the war throughout Southeast Asia. He was behind the bombing that destroyed much of Cambodia (a campaign kept secret from an increasingly antiwar public in the U.S.) and the U.S. invasion of Cambodia in 1970 that sparked an unprecedented broadening of the antiwar movement.
The other crime with which his name will always be associated is the CIA-backed overthrow of the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. At that time, he told his colleagues, the emergence of possible challenge by the then Soviet Union to U.S. domination of Latin America was "too important" to let Chileans decide. "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people."
Under Kissinger's direction, the U.S. tried to block Allende's assumption of the presidency, and then, when that failed, conducted three years of economic sabotage and political conspiracies until the Chilean army bombed and stormed the presidential palace and overthrew Allende. The military junta led by General Augusto Pinochet rounded up and killed thousands of Allende supporters and others. Pinochet's brutal, U.S.-supported regime lasted for almost two decades.
Kissinger supported a secret project called Operation Condor that coordinated efforts by U.S.-backed military juntas in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay to kill suspected opponents on the national, continental and international levels.
Last April, a leaked U.S. State Department document revealed that Kissinger personally blocked a letter from the U.S. State Department to the Pinochet government warning it that political assassinations would not be tolerated. Five days later the Pinochet regime organized the car-bomb murder of Orlando Letelier, formerly Allende's ambassador to the U.S. and a prominent anti-Pinochet figure, and Letelier’s assistant Ronni Karpen Moffitt, in Washington, D.C.
These crimes are a matter of public record, having been disclosed through leaked documents and even a U.S. Congress investigation (see the documentation listed on the Wikipedia and National Security Archives Web sites). Many of Kissinger's acts were illegal according to the laws of the country whose government he helped lead and also international law. Although legal cases have been filed against him by families of his victims in several countries, one after another American government has put its full weight behind him. Protecting Kissinger from possible indictment as a war criminal is one reason why to this day, under President Barack Obama, the U.S. refuses to sign the convention that established the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Kissinger's appearance at this Geneva conference amounted to an endorsement by many of the world's most powerful political leaders, foreign policy experts and opinion makers. Instead of condemning his crimes and bringing him to justice, they seek his advice on how to further oppress the people of the world. Switzerland welcomed this man who is responsible for thousands of murders and the ruining of millions of lives. Switzerland's Chileans didn't.
Julian Assange, Gründer von Wikileaks, prangert an:
FINGIERTE STRAFVERFOLGUNG GEGEN WIKILEAKS-GRÜNDER
übersetzt von Jens-Torsten Bohlke, Brüssel
Havanna, 9. September 2010, Cubadebate. (auf Kommunisten-online am 14. September 2010) – Julian Assange, der australische Gründer von Wikileaks, jenem Netzwerk, welches hunderte US-Geheimdokumente aus dem Krieg in Afghanistan im Internet veröffentlichte, klagt direkt den schwedischen Staat an, Befehle aus den USA auszuführen und ihn weisungsgemäß mit fingierten Anzeigen strafrechtlich zu verfolgen.
In einem Telefon-Interview mit AFP äußerte sich Julian Assange zu den Strafanzeigen gegen ihn wegen Vergewaltigungsdelikten und bezeichnete die gegen ihn diesbezüglich laufenden Strafverfahren als „Verschwörung“ der schwedischen Staatsanwaltschaft. Er erklärte sich einzig als Opfer in einer Strafsache, „die durch persönliche Rache-Bestrebungen und die karrieristische Ideologie der Staatsanwältin Marianne Ny inszeniert wurde“.
Obwohl ihn dieses strafrechtliche Verfahren beunruhigen würde, will er in Schweden ausharren, um seine Unschuld gegenüber den unbegründeten Anschuldigungen zu beweisen. Assange bestätigte, dass die gesamte Ermittlung wegen Vergewaltigung geführt wurde. Die schwedische Polizei konnte ihn bisher nicht verhören, weil sie ihn nicht auffinden konnten. Auch verwehrt die schwedische Polizei jede Aussage darüber, ob ein formeller Haftbefehl gegen Assage existiert oder nicht.
„Ich mache alles öffentlich, was da gerade vor sich geht“, so Assange. Am 20. August hatten zwei Frauen Julian Assange wegen Vergewaltigung und sexueller Nötigung angezeigt. Die Ermittlungen waren von unerwarteten Wendungen bei den beteiligten drei mit diesem Fall befassten Staatsanwälten begleitet. Während die erste Staatsanwältin, Marianne Ny, Assange als mutmaßlichen Vergewaltiger verurteilte, stellte die zweite Staatsanwältin, Eva Finné, das Verfahren ein und sprach ihn von allen zur Last gelegten Straftaten frei. Einige Tage später gab es dann die große Überraschung, als die Staatsanwaltschaft Göteborg Assange erneut für verdächtig erklärte, eine der besagten Frauen vergewaltigt und eine weitere von ihnen genötigt zu haben.
Insofern sagt Assange ohne Umschweife in seinem begonnenen Privatkrieg gegen die schwedischen Behörden, dass alles „eine Inszenierung der darin verwickelten Personen“ ist, der Anzeige-Erstatterinnen (die gekauft sein würden) und von Expressen (der zweitmächtigsten Tageszeitung Skandinaviens). Und wem dies noch zuwenig sei, so Assange unter Berufung auf „vertrauenswürdige“ Quellen, dem sei gesagt, dass im vergangenen Monat die schwedische Polizei von den USA kontaktiert worden war, welche Druck machten, dass Schweden „kein Hort des Friedens für Wikileaks werden darf: jetzt sind die US-Geheimdienste ganz zufrieden“.
Momentan hat Julian Assange, der die Veröffentlichung weiterer 15.000 Geheimdokumente aus dem Afghanistan-Krieg der USA ankündigte, nicht das Datum für die Veröffentlichung offenbart. Aber er sagte, dass er neue Überraschungen über den Banken- und Finanzschwindel sowie die Kriegsverbrechen bereithält.
(Mit Informationen verschiedener Nachrichtenagenturen)
Quelle: http://www.cubadebate.cu/
übersetzt von Jens-Torsten Bohlke, Brüssel
Havanna, 9. September 2010, Cubadebate. (auf Kommunisten-online am 14. September 2010) – Julian Assange, der australische Gründer von Wikileaks, jenem Netzwerk, welches hunderte US-Geheimdokumente aus dem Krieg in Afghanistan im Internet veröffentlichte, klagt direkt den schwedischen Staat an, Befehle aus den USA auszuführen und ihn weisungsgemäß mit fingierten Anzeigen strafrechtlich zu verfolgen.
In einem Telefon-Interview mit AFP äußerte sich Julian Assange zu den Strafanzeigen gegen ihn wegen Vergewaltigungsdelikten und bezeichnete die gegen ihn diesbezüglich laufenden Strafverfahren als „Verschwörung“ der schwedischen Staatsanwaltschaft. Er erklärte sich einzig als Opfer in einer Strafsache, „die durch persönliche Rache-Bestrebungen und die karrieristische Ideologie der Staatsanwältin Marianne Ny inszeniert wurde“.
Obwohl ihn dieses strafrechtliche Verfahren beunruhigen würde, will er in Schweden ausharren, um seine Unschuld gegenüber den unbegründeten Anschuldigungen zu beweisen. Assange bestätigte, dass die gesamte Ermittlung wegen Vergewaltigung geführt wurde. Die schwedische Polizei konnte ihn bisher nicht verhören, weil sie ihn nicht auffinden konnten. Auch verwehrt die schwedische Polizei jede Aussage darüber, ob ein formeller Haftbefehl gegen Assage existiert oder nicht.
„Ich mache alles öffentlich, was da gerade vor sich geht“, so Assange. Am 20. August hatten zwei Frauen Julian Assange wegen Vergewaltigung und sexueller Nötigung angezeigt. Die Ermittlungen waren von unerwarteten Wendungen bei den beteiligten drei mit diesem Fall befassten Staatsanwälten begleitet. Während die erste Staatsanwältin, Marianne Ny, Assange als mutmaßlichen Vergewaltiger verurteilte, stellte die zweite Staatsanwältin, Eva Finné, das Verfahren ein und sprach ihn von allen zur Last gelegten Straftaten frei. Einige Tage später gab es dann die große Überraschung, als die Staatsanwaltschaft Göteborg Assange erneut für verdächtig erklärte, eine der besagten Frauen vergewaltigt und eine weitere von ihnen genötigt zu haben.
Insofern sagt Assange ohne Umschweife in seinem begonnenen Privatkrieg gegen die schwedischen Behörden, dass alles „eine Inszenierung der darin verwickelten Personen“ ist, der Anzeige-Erstatterinnen (die gekauft sein würden) und von Expressen (der zweitmächtigsten Tageszeitung Skandinaviens). Und wem dies noch zuwenig sei, so Assange unter Berufung auf „vertrauenswürdige“ Quellen, dem sei gesagt, dass im vergangenen Monat die schwedische Polizei von den USA kontaktiert worden war, welche Druck machten, dass Schweden „kein Hort des Friedens für Wikileaks werden darf: jetzt sind die US-Geheimdienste ganz zufrieden“.
Momentan hat Julian Assange, der die Veröffentlichung weiterer 15.000 Geheimdokumente aus dem Afghanistan-Krieg der USA ankündigte, nicht das Datum für die Veröffentlichung offenbart. Aber er sagte, dass er neue Überraschungen über den Banken- und Finanzschwindel sowie die Kriegsverbrechen bereithält.
(Mit Informationen verschiedener Nachrichtenagenturen)
Quelle: http://www.cubadebate.cu/
Freitag, 10. September 2010
September-Rundbrief der Wildcat
COMMONS, COMMON WEALTH, KOMMONISMUS
**Hot Stuff**
Der letzte BUKO* hatte die Commons als Schwerpunkt. Auch analyse&kritik
schreibt seit einem Jahr fast kontinuierlich zum Thema Commons (siehe
besonders Ausgabe 549); Negri/Hardts letztes Buch heißt Common Wealth; die
Ökonux/Common Peer Production-Szene bezieht sich verstärkt auf das Thema;
Eleonore Ostrom bekam für ihre Forschungen zu »Allmendestrukturen« den
Nobelpreis; viele andere bürgerliche Gruppierungen hoffen – ausgehend von der
(finanziellen) Krise der Kommunen und der ökologischen Krise – auf
(günstigere) Lösungen jenseits von Markt und Staat.
Das ist einerseits Ausdruck davon, wie tief die Krise der »kapitalistischen
Hauptinstitutionen« Markt und Staat geht und wie sehr die »Linke des
Kapitals« nach kapitalistischen Auswegen sucht; andererseits gibt es
Suchbewegungen von unten, die ebenfalls in diese Richtung gehen. Unter
anderem sortieren sich die Reste der sogenannten »Antiglobalisierungs-
bewegung« entlang der Commons neu, und zwar grob in drei Richtung-
en: »Exodus«: »solidarische Ökonomie« und Wohnprojekte sind bereits
Vorwegnahme einer anderen Gesellschaft; »Aufstand«: die Commons sind Weg zum
Ziel (Infrastruktur aufbauen, Lebensmittelproduktion...); wieder andere sehen
die »communisation« erst im Aufstand.
Mit dem Ansatz von enclosures/Commons** können Rohstoffengpässe,
Nahrungsmittelkrisen, Klimakatastrophe, die soziale Polarisierung usw. in
einem Zusammenhang erklärt werden; Kämpfe gegen Privatisierung,
Bürgerentscheide um öffentliche Güter wie Wasser und Verkehr, urban
gardening, Tauschläden, Umsonst-Kampagnen, Wohnprojekte usw. werden als ein
zusammenhängender Kampf begriffen, der zudem eine globale Perspektive hat:
urban gardening z.B. steht dann in einer Front mit den weltweiten Kämpfen um
das Land.
**Neue Antworten auf alte Fragen?**
Die Kämpfe der letzten Jahre blieben auf den (Sozial-)Staat und seine
Institutionen bezogen: Arbeitskämpfe gegen Betriebsschließungen blieben im
Tarifrecht und der gewerkschaftlichen Repräsentanz gefangen; Mobilisierungen
gegen HartzIV in der Forderung auf staatliches Mindesteinkommen; die Bewegung
gegen die Globalisierung zwischen event hopping und NGOisierung...
Die »Commons« suchen nach Organisations- und Vergemeinschaftungsformen
jenseits vom Staat und seinen Institutionen; sie wollen das Entweder-Oder
von »Privat« oder (staatlich organisierter) Öffentlichkeit umgehen.
»Funktionierende Commons« sollen bessere Handlungsmöglichkeiten gegen die
Auswirkungen der kapitalistischen Krise ermöglichen, z.B. die
OpelarbeiterInnen »weniger erpressbar« machen (siehe ak 549). Allerdings
scheint dieser Anspruch, mit den Commons gesellschaftliche, soziale
Zusammenhänge aufzubauen, bisher wenig mit der Realität zu tun zu haben. Gibt
es hier Öffnungstendenzen?
Wir haben uns drei Sachen vorgenommen:
- genauer gucken, was diese Bewegung real (aus-)macht
- die historischen Bezüge aufhellen (siehe z.B. in der Wildcat 87 die
Besprechung des Buchs von Zibechi und die Kritik an seinem Bezug auf die
Ayllus)
- die theoretische Auseinandersetzung führen (siehe den angehängten
Aufheben-Artikel).
**Theoretische Kritik, historische Aufarbeitung, soziale Bezüge**
Die Aktivisten und die Schreibenden, die Bewegung und die Parteiprojekte sind
erstmal nicht die selben. Trotzdem finden wir ein Gemisch von Leuten, die
eher »machen« und anderen, die »theoretisieren«, ohne klare Trennungen, aber
auch ohne deutlichen Bezug aufeinander. Eine politische Bestimmung ist zudem
schwierig, weil sowohl soziale Bezüge wie das theoretische Selbstverständnis
der »Machenden« sehr diffus sind. Sie wollen hier und jetzt praktisch
eingreifen können. Deshalb ist die politisch/ideologische Debatte »von unten«
relativ unterentwickelt. Deren Lücken werden dann mit nostalgischen
Rückbezügen auf die Gemeinschaften in der Vergangenheit, mit bürgerlichen
Utopien von der Gleichheit auf dem Markt oder mit frühsozialistischen
Vorstellungen einer gerechteren Verteilung der Gebrauchswerte ohne Umwälzung
der Produktionsbedingungen aufgefüllt. Der Rückbezug auf die
mittelalterlichen Allmende oder die südamerikanischen Ayllus soll
die »Alternative« einer anderen Gesellschaftlichkeit aufzeigen, ohne dass man
sich theoretisch groß einen Kopf machen müsste. Schnell geraten die konkreten
sozialen Verhältnisse und vor allem Menschen aus dem Blick, die eigene Nische
wird als »Systemalternative« aufgepeppt. Aber was können wir heute von den
Allmenden, Ayllus usw. tatsächlich lernen? Sie entwickelten sich unter ganz
anderen Produktionsbedingungen und sozialen Verhältnissen. Und sie waren nur
halb so gemeinschaftlich, wie oft angenommen wird.
Wo Bewegung ist, sind die Aasgeier nicht weit; u.a. wurde im ak 548 darauf
hingewiesen, dass jede Menge Parteiprojekte die Commons über das Kommunale
wieder an den Staat zu binden versuchen. Die theoretischen Schwächen der
Bewegung verkaufen Negri&Hardt in gewohnter Manier in Common Wealth als neue
heiße Theorie: die Multitude habe bereits einen gemeinschaftlichen Reichtum,
ein gemeinschaftliches Tun, das nur noch befreit werden muss. Usw.
Kritik und theoretische Auseinandersetzung ist also nötig, damit die
Ambivalenz der neuen Ansätze nicht über solche Theorien schwuppdiwupp wieder
in Richtung Parteien, Staat und EU (wie im Falle Negris) aufgelöst wird.
Hier liegt für uns selber ein dicker Brocken im Weg, denn aus der
operaistischen Strömung (von deren »Untersuchungsfraktion« wir selber viel
gelernt haben) heraus, ist in den letzten zehn Jahren gerade über die
Thematisierung der Commons (siehe z.B. die online-Zeitschrift »The Commoner«)
eine Abwendung vom Klassenkampf begründet worden. Deshalb haben wir einen
Text der englischen Zeitschrift Aufheben übersetzt, in dem sie die
politischen Schwächen des Commons-Konzepts von Massimo de Angelis (einem der
Gründer von commoner.org und inzwischen auch Mitglied der Midnight Notes, die
sich seit Jahren mit enclosures und commons beschäftigen) auf theoretische
Schwächen des Operaismus zurückführt. Auch wenn wir ihre Operaismuskritik
oberflächlich und langweilig finden, können wir mit ihrer Kritik des
commons-Ansatzes viel anfangen.
Wenn wir »vom Tun« der Leute ausgehen und das mit den nötigen politischen
Debatten in Beziehung setzen wollen, um die Basisbewegungen gegen ihre
ideologische Vereinnahmung und natürlich vor allem gegen ihre staatliche
Rückbindung zu verteidigen, müssen wir genauer rausbekommen, was tatsächlich
passiert. Führt die Thematisierung der Commons dazu, dass die Leute vor dem
Hintergrund der Krise tatsächlich zusammenkommen? Fließen womöglich durch die
Dynamik der Krise bisher nebeneinander laufende Debatten zusammen? Werden
Lösungen gesucht und ausprobiert, die über den eigenen Teller-/Szene-Rand
hinausgehen? Oder läuft es drauf raus, dass die Linke ihre Privilegien zur
Wirkung bringt und sich in Projekten engagiert, die letztlich nur ihr selber
nutzen?
**Wie eingreifen?**
Zeigen die Commons eine neue Dynamik zwischen (Klassen-)Kämpfen
und »eingreifender« Gruppe auf, die z.B. weit über das »Vermitteln von
Bewußtsein« rausgeht?
Sind sie Infrastruktur für den Kampf oder »Freiraum« für den Rückzug?
Können sie neue Formen sozialer Reproduktion vermassen, oder sind sie Ansätze
einer neuen Alternativökonomie?
Was passiert mit den Erfahrungen, die heute gemacht werden? Werden sie
privatisiert, oder können sie mitgeteilt und »vermasst« werden?
**Schreibt uns!!**
Für die übernächste Wildcat planen wir einen Schwerpunkt zum Thema. Unsere
bisherigen Überlegungen muten wir Euch zu, weil wir auf Anregungen hoffen:
was denkt Ihr zu dem Thema? Überlegen wir in die falsche Richtung?
Was haltet Ihr von dem Aufheben-Text? Regt er zu Diskussionen an, oder ist er
zu abgehoben bzw. für ein deutschsprachiges Publikum, das Massimo de Angelis'
Buch nicht kennt, unverständlich?
Was habt Ihr von der Commons-Debatte bisher mitbekommen? Und fast am
wichtigsten: in welchen diesbezüglichen Aktivitäten steckt Ihr selber drin?
ANMERKUNGEN:
* Bundeskoordination Internationalismus; entstanden aus der internationalen
Solidaritätsbewegung der 1970er Jahre. Der jährliche BUKO-Kongress ist seit
Mitte der 1990er Jahre zu einem der wenigen regelmäßigen Treffpunkte der
radikalen Linken geworden, ein Wochenende, an dem um die 500 Leute aktuelle
Themen und Mobilisierungen bearbeiten.
** zum Begriff der »Enclosures«, wie ihn die Midnight Notes benutzen, siehe
http://www.wildcat-www.de/thekla/14/t14enclo.htm. Wir finden ihn einerseits
wichtig, um die fortdauernde »ursprüngliche Akkumulation«, die Kombination
von Industrien mit höchster organischer Zusammensetzung mit der Ausbeutung
in Klitschen, Landwirtschaft bis hin zu Formen von Sklavenarbeit zu
verstehen. Andererseits muss man von heute aus sagen, dass das Begriffspaar
enclosures/Commons die Abkehr der Midnight Notes vom Klassenkampf und die
Suche nach Kämpfen »außerhalb« befördert hat.
* * * * *
Redaktion Wildcat
www.wildcat-www.de
**Hot Stuff**
Der letzte BUKO* hatte die Commons als Schwerpunkt. Auch analyse&kritik
schreibt seit einem Jahr fast kontinuierlich zum Thema Commons (siehe
besonders Ausgabe 549); Negri/Hardts letztes Buch heißt Common Wealth; die
Ökonux/Common Peer Production-Szene bezieht sich verstärkt auf das Thema;
Eleonore Ostrom bekam für ihre Forschungen zu »Allmendestrukturen« den
Nobelpreis; viele andere bürgerliche Gruppierungen hoffen – ausgehend von der
(finanziellen) Krise der Kommunen und der ökologischen Krise – auf
(günstigere) Lösungen jenseits von Markt und Staat.
Das ist einerseits Ausdruck davon, wie tief die Krise der »kapitalistischen
Hauptinstitutionen« Markt und Staat geht und wie sehr die »Linke des
Kapitals« nach kapitalistischen Auswegen sucht; andererseits gibt es
Suchbewegungen von unten, die ebenfalls in diese Richtung gehen. Unter
anderem sortieren sich die Reste der sogenannten »Antiglobalisierungs-
bewegung« entlang der Commons neu, und zwar grob in drei Richtung-
en: »Exodus«: »solidarische Ökonomie« und Wohnprojekte sind bereits
Vorwegnahme einer anderen Gesellschaft; »Aufstand«: die Commons sind Weg zum
Ziel (Infrastruktur aufbauen, Lebensmittelproduktion...); wieder andere sehen
die »communisation« erst im Aufstand.
Mit dem Ansatz von enclosures/Commons** können Rohstoffengpässe,
Nahrungsmittelkrisen, Klimakatastrophe, die soziale Polarisierung usw. in
einem Zusammenhang erklärt werden; Kämpfe gegen Privatisierung,
Bürgerentscheide um öffentliche Güter wie Wasser und Verkehr, urban
gardening, Tauschläden, Umsonst-Kampagnen, Wohnprojekte usw. werden als ein
zusammenhängender Kampf begriffen, der zudem eine globale Perspektive hat:
urban gardening z.B. steht dann in einer Front mit den weltweiten Kämpfen um
das Land.
**Neue Antworten auf alte Fragen?**
Die Kämpfe der letzten Jahre blieben auf den (Sozial-)Staat und seine
Institutionen bezogen: Arbeitskämpfe gegen Betriebsschließungen blieben im
Tarifrecht und der gewerkschaftlichen Repräsentanz gefangen; Mobilisierungen
gegen HartzIV in der Forderung auf staatliches Mindesteinkommen; die Bewegung
gegen die Globalisierung zwischen event hopping und NGOisierung...
Die »Commons« suchen nach Organisations- und Vergemeinschaftungsformen
jenseits vom Staat und seinen Institutionen; sie wollen das Entweder-Oder
von »Privat« oder (staatlich organisierter) Öffentlichkeit umgehen.
»Funktionierende Commons« sollen bessere Handlungsmöglichkeiten gegen die
Auswirkungen der kapitalistischen Krise ermöglichen, z.B. die
OpelarbeiterInnen »weniger erpressbar« machen (siehe ak 549). Allerdings
scheint dieser Anspruch, mit den Commons gesellschaftliche, soziale
Zusammenhänge aufzubauen, bisher wenig mit der Realität zu tun zu haben. Gibt
es hier Öffnungstendenzen?
Wir haben uns drei Sachen vorgenommen:
- genauer gucken, was diese Bewegung real (aus-)macht
- die historischen Bezüge aufhellen (siehe z.B. in der Wildcat 87 die
Besprechung des Buchs von Zibechi und die Kritik an seinem Bezug auf die
Ayllus)
- die theoretische Auseinandersetzung führen (siehe den angehängten
Aufheben-Artikel).
**Theoretische Kritik, historische Aufarbeitung, soziale Bezüge**
Die Aktivisten und die Schreibenden, die Bewegung und die Parteiprojekte sind
erstmal nicht die selben. Trotzdem finden wir ein Gemisch von Leuten, die
eher »machen« und anderen, die »theoretisieren«, ohne klare Trennungen, aber
auch ohne deutlichen Bezug aufeinander. Eine politische Bestimmung ist zudem
schwierig, weil sowohl soziale Bezüge wie das theoretische Selbstverständnis
der »Machenden« sehr diffus sind. Sie wollen hier und jetzt praktisch
eingreifen können. Deshalb ist die politisch/ideologische Debatte »von unten«
relativ unterentwickelt. Deren Lücken werden dann mit nostalgischen
Rückbezügen auf die Gemeinschaften in der Vergangenheit, mit bürgerlichen
Utopien von der Gleichheit auf dem Markt oder mit frühsozialistischen
Vorstellungen einer gerechteren Verteilung der Gebrauchswerte ohne Umwälzung
der Produktionsbedingungen aufgefüllt. Der Rückbezug auf die
mittelalterlichen Allmende oder die südamerikanischen Ayllus soll
die »Alternative« einer anderen Gesellschaftlichkeit aufzeigen, ohne dass man
sich theoretisch groß einen Kopf machen müsste. Schnell geraten die konkreten
sozialen Verhältnisse und vor allem Menschen aus dem Blick, die eigene Nische
wird als »Systemalternative« aufgepeppt. Aber was können wir heute von den
Allmenden, Ayllus usw. tatsächlich lernen? Sie entwickelten sich unter ganz
anderen Produktionsbedingungen und sozialen Verhältnissen. Und sie waren nur
halb so gemeinschaftlich, wie oft angenommen wird.
Wo Bewegung ist, sind die Aasgeier nicht weit; u.a. wurde im ak 548 darauf
hingewiesen, dass jede Menge Parteiprojekte die Commons über das Kommunale
wieder an den Staat zu binden versuchen. Die theoretischen Schwächen der
Bewegung verkaufen Negri&Hardt in gewohnter Manier in Common Wealth als neue
heiße Theorie: die Multitude habe bereits einen gemeinschaftlichen Reichtum,
ein gemeinschaftliches Tun, das nur noch befreit werden muss. Usw.
Kritik und theoretische Auseinandersetzung ist also nötig, damit die
Ambivalenz der neuen Ansätze nicht über solche Theorien schwuppdiwupp wieder
in Richtung Parteien, Staat und EU (wie im Falle Negris) aufgelöst wird.
Hier liegt für uns selber ein dicker Brocken im Weg, denn aus der
operaistischen Strömung (von deren »Untersuchungsfraktion« wir selber viel
gelernt haben) heraus, ist in den letzten zehn Jahren gerade über die
Thematisierung der Commons (siehe z.B. die online-Zeitschrift »The Commoner«)
eine Abwendung vom Klassenkampf begründet worden. Deshalb haben wir einen
Text der englischen Zeitschrift Aufheben übersetzt, in dem sie die
politischen Schwächen des Commons-Konzepts von Massimo de Angelis (einem der
Gründer von commoner.org und inzwischen auch Mitglied der Midnight Notes, die
sich seit Jahren mit enclosures und commons beschäftigen) auf theoretische
Schwächen des Operaismus zurückführt. Auch wenn wir ihre Operaismuskritik
oberflächlich und langweilig finden, können wir mit ihrer Kritik des
commons-Ansatzes viel anfangen.
Wenn wir »vom Tun« der Leute ausgehen und das mit den nötigen politischen
Debatten in Beziehung setzen wollen, um die Basisbewegungen gegen ihre
ideologische Vereinnahmung und natürlich vor allem gegen ihre staatliche
Rückbindung zu verteidigen, müssen wir genauer rausbekommen, was tatsächlich
passiert. Führt die Thematisierung der Commons dazu, dass die Leute vor dem
Hintergrund der Krise tatsächlich zusammenkommen? Fließen womöglich durch die
Dynamik der Krise bisher nebeneinander laufende Debatten zusammen? Werden
Lösungen gesucht und ausprobiert, die über den eigenen Teller-/Szene-Rand
hinausgehen? Oder läuft es drauf raus, dass die Linke ihre Privilegien zur
Wirkung bringt und sich in Projekten engagiert, die letztlich nur ihr selber
nutzen?
**Wie eingreifen?**
Zeigen die Commons eine neue Dynamik zwischen (Klassen-)Kämpfen
und »eingreifender« Gruppe auf, die z.B. weit über das »Vermitteln von
Bewußtsein« rausgeht?
Sind sie Infrastruktur für den Kampf oder »Freiraum« für den Rückzug?
Können sie neue Formen sozialer Reproduktion vermassen, oder sind sie Ansätze
einer neuen Alternativökonomie?
Was passiert mit den Erfahrungen, die heute gemacht werden? Werden sie
privatisiert, oder können sie mitgeteilt und »vermasst« werden?
**Schreibt uns!!**
Für die übernächste Wildcat planen wir einen Schwerpunkt zum Thema. Unsere
bisherigen Überlegungen muten wir Euch zu, weil wir auf Anregungen hoffen:
was denkt Ihr zu dem Thema? Überlegen wir in die falsche Richtung?
Was haltet Ihr von dem Aufheben-Text? Regt er zu Diskussionen an, oder ist er
zu abgehoben bzw. für ein deutschsprachiges Publikum, das Massimo de Angelis'
Buch nicht kennt, unverständlich?
Was habt Ihr von der Commons-Debatte bisher mitbekommen? Und fast am
wichtigsten: in welchen diesbezüglichen Aktivitäten steckt Ihr selber drin?
ANMERKUNGEN:
* Bundeskoordination Internationalismus; entstanden aus der internationalen
Solidaritätsbewegung der 1970er Jahre. Der jährliche BUKO-Kongress ist seit
Mitte der 1990er Jahre zu einem der wenigen regelmäßigen Treffpunkte der
radikalen Linken geworden, ein Wochenende, an dem um die 500 Leute aktuelle
Themen und Mobilisierungen bearbeiten.
** zum Begriff der »Enclosures«, wie ihn die Midnight Notes benutzen, siehe
http://www.wildcat-www.de/thekla/14/t14enclo.htm. Wir finden ihn einerseits
wichtig, um die fortdauernde »ursprüngliche Akkumulation«, die Kombination
von Industrien mit höchster organischer Zusammensetzung mit der Ausbeutung
in Klitschen, Landwirtschaft bis hin zu Formen von Sklavenarbeit zu
verstehen. Andererseits muss man von heute aus sagen, dass das Begriffspaar
enclosures/Commons die Abkehr der Midnight Notes vom Klassenkampf und die
Suche nach Kämpfen »außerhalb« befördert hat.
* * * * *
Redaktion Wildcat
www.wildcat-www.de
Mittwoch, 8. September 2010
The Pakistan flood, economic damage and the truth about foreign aid
6 September 2010. World to Win News Service.
The immediate loss of life due to the continuing flooding in Pakistan is tragedy enough, but the long-term impact may cause even greater disaster.
The devastated fields long the Indus and other rivers, some still under water and others waterlogged and filled with mud and stones, constitute Pakistan's agricultural heartland and the foundation of its economy. This season's maize, cotton, rice and wheat, the main crops, as well as mango, banana and citrus fruits, have been lost. Worse, tens of millions of people have lost their future livelihoods, some for at least one or two seasons and others forever.
The Indus Valley stretches along approximately 650 kilometres in Sindh province, where it represents about 85 percent of the land under cultivation. People like Nizam Nathio, who had 10 acres of land and now lives in a refugee camp in Sukkur, lost all their cultivated land in the flood. "All my resources are gone and the next crop will be harvested in six months," he says. "Will my family eat mud till then to survive?" Hakeem Kalhoro, a resident of the Naushero Feroz district, had a farm with 50 buffaloes. Now he has only one left. The floodwater has taken the rest. ''I used to sell 500 litres of milk a day, now I'm living on handouts." (BBC Website, 19 August 2010)
Now Sindh is being hit by fresh flooding. It is raining again, and previously contained flood lakes have broken through.
Pakistani officials say that about 3.6 million hectares of crops have been washed away, much of that in Sindh and Punjab provinces, and 1.2 million livestock killed, including ploughing animals. The World Bank estimates that crops worth $1 billion have been ruined. The UN World Food Programme says that almost ten million people are already short of food. Little clean water is available.
There is fear the number of people facing what these agencies call "food insecurity" will mount and the whole country will face a massive food shortage and inflated prices in the coming years. Shortages of agricultural raw materials may also undermine textile and apparel manufacture, the country's two main export sectors, and the food processing industry. In terms of this broader impact, no region in Pakistan remains untouched by the flood.
Millions of people no longer have a home to live in or land to till. As thousands more take up residence in the already overcrowded camps, hundreds of thousands of displaced people have moved to urban centres in Punjab and Sindh. Many are already making their way towards Karachi and Hyderabad. The people taking refuge in the camps were mostly tenant farmers. Many of them may become wage workers, at best, because they have little or nothing to go back to in their native villages, and some will not be allowed to go back.
At least one in ten of the country's 166 million people have been directly affected, or even one in eight according to other estimates. Further, if there is much reconstruction, with the kind of projects and programme the capitalists of the world's dominant imperialist countries have in mind, rural life and the whole national economy may become more dependent on the needs of world capitalism.
Apart from the devastating damage to crops and the impact of that on the whole economy, there has been extensive damage to the country's infrastructure. It is estimated that nearly one million houses have been washed away or seriously damaged. Hundreds of kilometres of roads and jeep tracks and dozens of bridges have been destroyed in northern parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province. The province has also lost a major irrigation dam, and another dam has been damaged.
The authorities immediately worked out the damages in the provinces in terms of money. The KP provincial authorities say that $2 billion is needed for immediate relief and the restoration of essential infrastructure. Meanwhile the government of Punjab province says it will need $1.3 billion for immediate relief and short-term rehabilitation of roads, dykes, the electricity network and the irrigation system. Analysts have said it will take many billions of dollars for Pakistan to recover from the damage caused by the flooding.
Where is all this money going to come from? Pakistan already receives a large amount of aid and loans from the U.S. and other Western imperialist countries. In 2009, the United States spent some $7.5 billion on strategic, military and development projects in Pakistan. Pakistani government officials are used to collecting cash and getting credit from their imperialist sponsors.
When the floods overwhelmed Pakistan, its president Asif Ali Zardari was on a trip to Europe. He saw no point to go back home to lead emergency efforts. Instead, he preferred to continue his tour with the aim of getting foreign aid. Pakistan's foreign minister, finance minister and other officials lost no time in launching similar efforts. The U.S. became the biggest donor, contributing more than $150 million. The UK contributed almost $100 million, Germany $32 million and the EU overall more than $180 million. In total, the United Nations managed to get emergency relief funds from various countries totalling about $525 million.
There have also been various endeavours to provide long term aid for the reconstruction of Pakistan's economy and infrastructure. For example on 2 September, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), announced that "the Fund will provide around U.S. $450 million in immediate emergency financing to Pakistan to help the country manage the aftermath of the massive and devastating floods that have hit the country." (IMF press release)
It was also reported that the World Bank, another international financial institution that coordinates the imperialists' financial policies, raised its contribution to the flood-ravaged country to $1 billion from the originally pledged $900 million.
Some reality about foreign aid
There is a common belief that the donations raised or given by foreign states do not get through to the people who are in desperate need, and will not be spent on reconstruction either, because of a corrupt government. This is true to a large extent. In another words, there is a lot of dishonesty about the so-called aid to the victims of natural disasters.
In Birmingham, UK, a group of people of Pakistani origin decided to form their own charity and directly transfer the donations they raise to those in need, and give a transparent accounting on the Internet. They explained that they had decided on this course of action when they learned that only 25 percent of the donation they collected after the 2005 earthquake disaster in Pakistan actually found its way to that country. The other 75 percent was spent on the international aid bureaucracy and transport. There is no doubt that Mr 10 Percent (as people call President Zardari) and other corrupt elements are waiting to rake off what they consider their share.
But this is only one aspect of what's wrong with the aid donated to this and other ravaged countries. The donor countries, usually the richer imperialist countries, pretend that despite their economic problems – and now the financial crisis – they are ready to generously sacrifice to help out victims of natural disasters. But the lion's share is given with the condition that it be spent on contracts with firms from the donor countries. A significant portion of what remains goes to people on the payrolls of donor country institutions.
This has become such common knowledge that even some mainstream media acknowledge it. "The donors also rarely point out that quite a lot of what they 'give' goes straight into their own citizens' bank accounts in the form of salaries for aid consultants or contract payments to manufacturers of 4x4 vehicles." (BBC Website, 18 August 2010)
However this is not the only or main problem. What is worse is that even if all the money were to go for aid, there are big doubts that these donations would do even a little to help the people get out of hell. In most if not all cases, this aid harms the national interests of the target country and its people.
Nowadays natural disasters have become a kind of new business for the rich countries. They like to put on a show about their good will, while behind the scenes they consider such aid an investment to buy deeper dependency of the dominated countries and increase the exploitation of their resources and people. Those who give a larger amount hope to buy more influence. Unlike what the imperialists claim in public, such aid is not a burden on the dominant countries. On the contrary it is an opportunity to invest under what they consider favourable conditions, to reconstruct that country in the way they want. That is why the U.S., the head of the imperialists, has the power and the right to invest more. After that comes the UK, which has historically had a big influence in Pakistan and South Asia.
There are also international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank that coordinate the competition and cooperation among the main imperialists powers.
There is a long and ugly history behind such aid from the rich countries that became particularly important after the Second World War. And there have been countless articles and research papers on the harmful effects of such aid to the people, although these exposures have been done from different perspectives and even with different goals in mind.
In fact the financial and food aid provided by the rich countries between the 1960s and '80s helped many African countries to fall deeper into poverty. In many African, Asian and Latin American countries, there arose a big bureaucracy, along with other associated strata, that created a social base for this form of dependency, and consequently for imperialist domination in those countries. Pakistan was formed in 1949 and from the beginning was a strategic asset in the Cold War. The formation of a powerful bureaucracy in that country was a clear goal of Western policies during this period.
This imperialist approach towards Pakistan continues today because of the country's strategic role in the region and particularly in the Afghanistan war. However, changes in the world situation since the collapse of the Soviet bloc, certain limitations in the structural form of third world states and the rise of discontent within the poor countries have led the imperialists to modify their form of aid disbursement.
The imperialists still act through direct contract with the governments but they have also given the IMF and World Bank a bigger role, and have created new channels –
NGOs and charity organisations – in order to achieve their interests. The destruction of a part of a country due to natural disaster provides the opportunity for the imperialists to readjust the country's economic and political structure in a way that is consistent with the needs of world capitalism.
The IMF and World Bank, which are brokers for the Western imperialists, always tie their aid and loans to a string of conditions in the interests of the imperialist system. Since they believe that the earth could not exist without world capitalism, they don't always hide this fact. Speaking of recent IMF emergency aid to Pakistan, IMF head Strauss-Kahn said, "Our dialogue with Pakistan on the current Stand-By Arrangement is progressing and the authorities have expressed their intention to implement measures for the completion of the fifth review of the program later this year. We will stay in close contact as these efforts proceed. Completion of the fifth review will allow the Fund to disburse an additional $1.7 billion, bringing total IMF disbursements (including emergency assistance) to $2.2 billion in the second half of 2010." This was confirmed by Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, Pakistan′s Finance Minister, who said, "Pakistan remains committed to the reform efforts that will put public finances on a sustainable basis and lay the foundations for growth." (IMF press release, 2 September 2010)
We will not discuss the details of these measures and conditions, but for the IMF "reform" is often a code word for austerity measures that reduce government spending, including subsides for people's most basic needs such as bread and fuel, as well as other measures that facilitate more profitable imperialist investments and intervention in the economy of the country. As for "growth", Pakistan's economy grew at a comparatively high rate for much of the decade, and look where that has brought the country. Some elements of that growth (the forestry industry's stripping of the forests around the upper reaches of the Indus, for example) actually contributed to the catastrophic damage caused by the flooding
For its part, the Pakistani government has no choice but to accept these conditions, because for all of its existence it has been dependent on foreign aid. Its army, the most powerful institution in the county, has been pumped up by billions of dollars in U.S. military aid. The IMF emergency assistance to Pakistan comes "on top of the $7.3 billion provided under the current Stand-By Arrangement, in place since November 2008". (RTT News, 3 September 2010) And such a government has no choice but to increasingly rely on foreign funds in order to be able to function at all.
The result is more dependency, more selling out the country and, for many people, more poverty. So not only did the Pakistani government fail to take measures to protect the people or at least reduce the harm to their lives, but also, after that, more than ever it is feeding the country and the people to the wolves.
- end item-
Correction
An extra zero crept into the figure for the length of Pakistan's Indus River stated in the ATWTNS packet for 30 August 2010. It is almost 3,200 kilometres long.
Flood control and social transformation in revolutionary China – "Teaching water to climb mountains"
6 September 2010. A World to Win News Service. Following are excerpts from an article that appeared in issue 13 (1989) of A World to Win magazine. It was originally published in the Revolutionary Worker (now called Revolution), voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, 10 June 1985.
For hundreds of years, floods and droughts had been the "twin scourges" of China. A major flood or drought hit large parts of the land at a pace of almost once a year, destroying crops or making it impossible to plant and thus leading to terrible famines that took the lives of hundreds of thousands at a time.
With the defeat of the U.S.-backed Koumintang (KMT) reactionaries in October 1949, the revolutionary regime led by Mao and the Communist Party of China faced an immensely difficult situation. U.S. imperialism and its reactionary allies surrounded and blockaded New China in an attempt to smother it to death. The land and the people had been ravaged by the decades of Japanese imperialist invasion and occupation and the rampages of the KMT army, which compounded the devastation from flood, drought and famine.
As a 1974 Peking Review article titled "Harnessing China's Rivers" recalled, "What did the Koumintang reactionaries leave behind 25 years ago when New China was born? With all the waterways, dykes and embankments long out of repair, the peasants were completely at the mercy of nature. Flood and drought were common occurrences, wreaking havoc alternately or concurrently and taking a heavy toll on millions of people, with tens of millions more rendered homeless. Such being the plight of old China, certain imperialist prophets gleefully awaited the collapse of New China in the grip of these twin disasters which all past governments had failed to cope with."
For the infant revolutionary regime, the task of taming the great rivers – the Yangtze, the Yellow, the Huai (flowing in the central coastal plains between the Yangtze and the Yellow), and others – was a crucial aspect of transforming China from a dependent neocolony into an independent socialist country. Without protection from floods and new irrigation systems to fight droughts and open up new farmland, the peasantry – making up the overwhelming majority of the population – would continue to suffer. The worker-peasant alliance would be adversely affected and the ability of China to withstand the attacks of the imperialists and contribute to world revolution would be weakened.
In 1951 and '52, Mao declared that the Huai River and the Yellow River "must be harnessed". These calls were made amidst, and were very much a part of, the fierce two-line struggles within the Communist Party itself over China's direction after liberation.
Under the rubric of "harmony" between capitalism and socialism and "consolidating" new democracy, revisionists like Liu Shao-chi fought to lead China down the road of capitalist development (which in China's context inevitably would have meant neocolonial development). In agriculture, these bourgeois-democrats-turned-capitalist-roaders tried to stifle and sabotage the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production and all the relations of production. They argued that mechanisation and development of heavy industry (which in turn depended on foreign technology and "aid") had to precede collectivisation, and that in the meantime the old social relations should remain intact in the countryside. Exploitation is a "merit", Liu even declared.
The two lines were sharply posed in the question of taking on the job of controlling China's rivers.
According to those like Liu, such large-scale and technically difficult projects were impossible to undertake since China had neither the funds nor the technology, Liu condescendingly preached that people in areas affected by flood or drought should rely on "relief". As one observer noted in the mid-70s when the Huai River projects had been completed and the Yellow River brought largely under control, "had the masses waited for machines to do it, there would still be famines in North China."
Mao sharply criticised and fought against the revisionist and capitulationist line of Liu and others, and declared that, "We must now realise that there will soon be a nationwide high tide of socialist transformation in the countryside."
Indeed a tremendous upsurge swept through the countryside. The millions of peasants, mobilised in unprecedented forms of cooperation in big water projects, were an integral part of this – leading to the basic establishment of socialist ownership in agriculture (as well as industry) by 1956. The struggle further erupted into the momentous upheaval of the Great leap Forward in 1958; it was out of this furnace that the people's communes were born. Water conservation projects played a key role once more in this new and major step in socialist transformation.
People's communes started spontaneously in Honan province out of a project to bring water across the Taihang mountain ranges to irrigate a dry plain area that suffered from drought eight or nine years out of ten. The peasant cooperatives took initiative in merging their labour power on a scale unheard of previously to build the Red Canal, which stretched 1,500 kilometres across the Taihang. When Mao came to visit this merger of peasant associations, the name "people's commune" was chosen. "This is a new creation of the masses", Mao wrote. Others around the country followed the example: by the end of 1958, 26,000 communes had formed (increasing to 72,000 with new formations and subdivisions by 1961).
One of the slogans raised by the peasants during the Great Leap Forward was: "Teach water to climb mountains up to heaven!" The slogan of course referred directly to the carving of waterways across mountain ranges to bring water and life to arid lands. But it also spoke more broadly to the grand struggles of the masses consciously transforming society and nature, and in the process transforming themselves. Under the oppressive order of the old society, who but the most brave and farsighted would have dared dream of teaching "water to climb the mountains up to heaven"?
The scourge of the rivers
Several examples illustrate the remarkable advances made by the Chinese people after liberation to control the forces of nature, in particular the "scourge" of the rivers. In 1952, the Chinese people completed a large-scale flood-diversion programme on Chingkiang River, a harmful tributary on the middle reaches of the Yangtze. The project involved repairing and reinforcing existing dykes, building new dykes of over 200 kilometres in length, putting up numerous sluice gates, and setting up a safety area to accommodate 170,000 people in case of evacuation during an especially big flood. Three hundred thousand soldiers and civilians were mobilised, and the whole project was completed in seventy-five days.
This contrast starkly with the "achievements" during the years of reactionary KMT rule. In order to build a small drainage gate on the Yangtze near the city of Wuhan, the KMT begged for funds from five different countries and then took three years to complete the work.
The Huai River basin used to be one of those areas hit by almost yearly flood and/or drought. The diversion of the Yellow River in 1938 by the KMT caused devastation of even greater dimensions. The change in the course of the Yellow River brought down silt that filled the estuary of the Huai River, buried farmland and heightened the beds of many lakes. All this affected the entire Huai River system, making it even more susceptible to floods and droughts.
Mao's 1951 call – "the Huai River must be harnessed″ – sparked millions of peasants to begin tackling various water-control projects along the Huai. This vast mobilisation shattered the revisionist whining about how it was impossible for the "backward" peasants without machines to take on such immense projects. In fact, except for key state-financed projects, modern machinery – such as bulldozers, excavators, earth removers and heavy-duty trucks – was rarely available, especially in the earlier years.
The rise of revisionists to power in the Soviet Union in 1956, and the subsequent Sino-Soviet split and pull-out of Soviet technicians, funds and equipment from China, posed further difficulties. The "river-tamers" had to rely on simple tools and equipment – hammers chisels, picks, wheel-barrows, home-made machines and explosives. And, most important of all, there was the powerful initiative of the masses, unleashed by the revolutionary line of Mao.
By the early 1970s, one report noted "conspicuous changes" in the worksites of the Huai River projects compared to the initial stages: "China-made dredgers are working alongside other machines. The degree of mechanisation has increased and the contingents of technicians have grown enormously. What merits particular attention is that large numbers of peasant-technicians with rich practical experience have come to the fore."
The passage gives a glimpse of the actual development of productive forces during the years of Mao's leadership (contrary to the lies and distortions of imperialists and revisionists alike), and, most importantly, the big changes in relations of production, especially through the Cultural Revolution –the differences between mental and manual labour, between town and countryside and between industry and agriculture were beginning to be broken down.
The changes in one county in the Huai River basin epitomised the night-and-day difference in conditions between the neocolonial past and socialist China. In one township of 11,000 households, floods in 1931 brought death from hunger to 2,600 peasants and forced 6,700 families to flee to other areas. The same area experienced torrential rains in the summer of 1974 – over twelve inches of rain fell in two days and the water level of the Huai rose over six feet; Yet the dykes and the drainage pumps kept damage to a minimum – peasant homes were not washed away, and paddy fields remained green.
Since the revisionists took power in 1976 and restored capitalism, many of the advances made during socialist China – especially during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution – have been overturned. The people's communes, for example, have been mostly broken up, with land divided again among individual households, and exploitative relations and class polarisation making their return. While there may be some increases in production in certain areas and for a certain period, the larger picture raises the ominous spectre of possibly disastrous consequences of capitalist restoration in the countryside.
Some observers have noted, for example, that there has been an increase in the frequency of floods and severity of damages caused by them and have linked these developments at least in part to the breaking up of socialised agriculture. Because the peasants are increasingly driven to raise productivity on their private plots and contract businesses, there is mounting reluctance to participate in public works projects – water conservancy works, soil conservation, forestation programs – since they require pooling of labour and resources, and sacrifices on the part of individual units for the bigger whole.
Images of pre-1949 floods, droughts and famines are beginning to cast their shadow.
As the article "Harnessing China’s Rivers" in Peking Review pointed out: "In the dark old days class oppression went hand in hand with drought and flood; the reactionary political rule and the ideological fetters imposed on the people not only deprived them of the necessary objective conditions for combating floods but also made it impossible for them to see their own subjective strength in overcoming them. After each natural disaster, the reactionary rulers, while using the pretext of building water-control projects to fleece the people, spread the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius and forced the people to build temples and offer sacrifices to appease the gods. The storm of socialist revolution since liberation has shattered the political and economic fetters binding the labouring people and swept away the ideological trammels that hampered their initiative and creativity."
To deal with cyclones and other disasters, "natural" and "unnatural", requires making revolution.
The immediate loss of life due to the continuing flooding in Pakistan is tragedy enough, but the long-term impact may cause even greater disaster.
The devastated fields long the Indus and other rivers, some still under water and others waterlogged and filled with mud and stones, constitute Pakistan's agricultural heartland and the foundation of its economy. This season's maize, cotton, rice and wheat, the main crops, as well as mango, banana and citrus fruits, have been lost. Worse, tens of millions of people have lost their future livelihoods, some for at least one or two seasons and others forever.
The Indus Valley stretches along approximately 650 kilometres in Sindh province, where it represents about 85 percent of the land under cultivation. People like Nizam Nathio, who had 10 acres of land and now lives in a refugee camp in Sukkur, lost all their cultivated land in the flood. "All my resources are gone and the next crop will be harvested in six months," he says. "Will my family eat mud till then to survive?" Hakeem Kalhoro, a resident of the Naushero Feroz district, had a farm with 50 buffaloes. Now he has only one left. The floodwater has taken the rest. ''I used to sell 500 litres of milk a day, now I'm living on handouts." (BBC Website, 19 August 2010)
Now Sindh is being hit by fresh flooding. It is raining again, and previously contained flood lakes have broken through.
Pakistani officials say that about 3.6 million hectares of crops have been washed away, much of that in Sindh and Punjab provinces, and 1.2 million livestock killed, including ploughing animals. The World Bank estimates that crops worth $1 billion have been ruined. The UN World Food Programme says that almost ten million people are already short of food. Little clean water is available.
There is fear the number of people facing what these agencies call "food insecurity" will mount and the whole country will face a massive food shortage and inflated prices in the coming years. Shortages of agricultural raw materials may also undermine textile and apparel manufacture, the country's two main export sectors, and the food processing industry. In terms of this broader impact, no region in Pakistan remains untouched by the flood.
Millions of people no longer have a home to live in or land to till. As thousands more take up residence in the already overcrowded camps, hundreds of thousands of displaced people have moved to urban centres in Punjab and Sindh. Many are already making their way towards Karachi and Hyderabad. The people taking refuge in the camps were mostly tenant farmers. Many of them may become wage workers, at best, because they have little or nothing to go back to in their native villages, and some will not be allowed to go back.
At least one in ten of the country's 166 million people have been directly affected, or even one in eight according to other estimates. Further, if there is much reconstruction, with the kind of projects and programme the capitalists of the world's dominant imperialist countries have in mind, rural life and the whole national economy may become more dependent on the needs of world capitalism.
Apart from the devastating damage to crops and the impact of that on the whole economy, there has been extensive damage to the country's infrastructure. It is estimated that nearly one million houses have been washed away or seriously damaged. Hundreds of kilometres of roads and jeep tracks and dozens of bridges have been destroyed in northern parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province. The province has also lost a major irrigation dam, and another dam has been damaged.
The authorities immediately worked out the damages in the provinces in terms of money. The KP provincial authorities say that $2 billion is needed for immediate relief and the restoration of essential infrastructure. Meanwhile the government of Punjab province says it will need $1.3 billion for immediate relief and short-term rehabilitation of roads, dykes, the electricity network and the irrigation system. Analysts have said it will take many billions of dollars for Pakistan to recover from the damage caused by the flooding.
Where is all this money going to come from? Pakistan already receives a large amount of aid and loans from the U.S. and other Western imperialist countries. In 2009, the United States spent some $7.5 billion on strategic, military and development projects in Pakistan. Pakistani government officials are used to collecting cash and getting credit from their imperialist sponsors.
When the floods overwhelmed Pakistan, its president Asif Ali Zardari was on a trip to Europe. He saw no point to go back home to lead emergency efforts. Instead, he preferred to continue his tour with the aim of getting foreign aid. Pakistan's foreign minister, finance minister and other officials lost no time in launching similar efforts. The U.S. became the biggest donor, contributing more than $150 million. The UK contributed almost $100 million, Germany $32 million and the EU overall more than $180 million. In total, the United Nations managed to get emergency relief funds from various countries totalling about $525 million.
There have also been various endeavours to provide long term aid for the reconstruction of Pakistan's economy and infrastructure. For example on 2 September, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), announced that "the Fund will provide around U.S. $450 million in immediate emergency financing to Pakistan to help the country manage the aftermath of the massive and devastating floods that have hit the country." (IMF press release)
It was also reported that the World Bank, another international financial institution that coordinates the imperialists' financial policies, raised its contribution to the flood-ravaged country to $1 billion from the originally pledged $900 million.
Some reality about foreign aid
There is a common belief that the donations raised or given by foreign states do not get through to the people who are in desperate need, and will not be spent on reconstruction either, because of a corrupt government. This is true to a large extent. In another words, there is a lot of dishonesty about the so-called aid to the victims of natural disasters.
In Birmingham, UK, a group of people of Pakistani origin decided to form their own charity and directly transfer the donations they raise to those in need, and give a transparent accounting on the Internet. They explained that they had decided on this course of action when they learned that only 25 percent of the donation they collected after the 2005 earthquake disaster in Pakistan actually found its way to that country. The other 75 percent was spent on the international aid bureaucracy and transport. There is no doubt that Mr 10 Percent (as people call President Zardari) and other corrupt elements are waiting to rake off what they consider their share.
But this is only one aspect of what's wrong with the aid donated to this and other ravaged countries. The donor countries, usually the richer imperialist countries, pretend that despite their economic problems – and now the financial crisis – they are ready to generously sacrifice to help out victims of natural disasters. But the lion's share is given with the condition that it be spent on contracts with firms from the donor countries. A significant portion of what remains goes to people on the payrolls of donor country institutions.
This has become such common knowledge that even some mainstream media acknowledge it. "The donors also rarely point out that quite a lot of what they 'give' goes straight into their own citizens' bank accounts in the form of salaries for aid consultants or contract payments to manufacturers of 4x4 vehicles." (BBC Website, 18 August 2010)
However this is not the only or main problem. What is worse is that even if all the money were to go for aid, there are big doubts that these donations would do even a little to help the people get out of hell. In most if not all cases, this aid harms the national interests of the target country and its people.
Nowadays natural disasters have become a kind of new business for the rich countries. They like to put on a show about their good will, while behind the scenes they consider such aid an investment to buy deeper dependency of the dominated countries and increase the exploitation of their resources and people. Those who give a larger amount hope to buy more influence. Unlike what the imperialists claim in public, such aid is not a burden on the dominant countries. On the contrary it is an opportunity to invest under what they consider favourable conditions, to reconstruct that country in the way they want. That is why the U.S., the head of the imperialists, has the power and the right to invest more. After that comes the UK, which has historically had a big influence in Pakistan and South Asia.
There are also international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank that coordinate the competition and cooperation among the main imperialists powers.
There is a long and ugly history behind such aid from the rich countries that became particularly important after the Second World War. And there have been countless articles and research papers on the harmful effects of such aid to the people, although these exposures have been done from different perspectives and even with different goals in mind.
In fact the financial and food aid provided by the rich countries between the 1960s and '80s helped many African countries to fall deeper into poverty. In many African, Asian and Latin American countries, there arose a big bureaucracy, along with other associated strata, that created a social base for this form of dependency, and consequently for imperialist domination in those countries. Pakistan was formed in 1949 and from the beginning was a strategic asset in the Cold War. The formation of a powerful bureaucracy in that country was a clear goal of Western policies during this period.
This imperialist approach towards Pakistan continues today because of the country's strategic role in the region and particularly in the Afghanistan war. However, changes in the world situation since the collapse of the Soviet bloc, certain limitations in the structural form of third world states and the rise of discontent within the poor countries have led the imperialists to modify their form of aid disbursement.
The imperialists still act through direct contract with the governments but they have also given the IMF and World Bank a bigger role, and have created new channels –
NGOs and charity organisations – in order to achieve their interests. The destruction of a part of a country due to natural disaster provides the opportunity for the imperialists to readjust the country's economic and political structure in a way that is consistent with the needs of world capitalism.
The IMF and World Bank, which are brokers for the Western imperialists, always tie their aid and loans to a string of conditions in the interests of the imperialist system. Since they believe that the earth could not exist without world capitalism, they don't always hide this fact. Speaking of recent IMF emergency aid to Pakistan, IMF head Strauss-Kahn said, "Our dialogue with Pakistan on the current Stand-By Arrangement is progressing and the authorities have expressed their intention to implement measures for the completion of the fifth review of the program later this year. We will stay in close contact as these efforts proceed. Completion of the fifth review will allow the Fund to disburse an additional $1.7 billion, bringing total IMF disbursements (including emergency assistance) to $2.2 billion in the second half of 2010." This was confirmed by Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, Pakistan′s Finance Minister, who said, "Pakistan remains committed to the reform efforts that will put public finances on a sustainable basis and lay the foundations for growth." (IMF press release, 2 September 2010)
We will not discuss the details of these measures and conditions, but for the IMF "reform" is often a code word for austerity measures that reduce government spending, including subsides for people's most basic needs such as bread and fuel, as well as other measures that facilitate more profitable imperialist investments and intervention in the economy of the country. As for "growth", Pakistan's economy grew at a comparatively high rate for much of the decade, and look where that has brought the country. Some elements of that growth (the forestry industry's stripping of the forests around the upper reaches of the Indus, for example) actually contributed to the catastrophic damage caused by the flooding
For its part, the Pakistani government has no choice but to accept these conditions, because for all of its existence it has been dependent on foreign aid. Its army, the most powerful institution in the county, has been pumped up by billions of dollars in U.S. military aid. The IMF emergency assistance to Pakistan comes "on top of the $7.3 billion provided under the current Stand-By Arrangement, in place since November 2008". (RTT News, 3 September 2010) And such a government has no choice but to increasingly rely on foreign funds in order to be able to function at all.
The result is more dependency, more selling out the country and, for many people, more poverty. So not only did the Pakistani government fail to take measures to protect the people or at least reduce the harm to their lives, but also, after that, more than ever it is feeding the country and the people to the wolves.
- end item-
Correction
An extra zero crept into the figure for the length of Pakistan's Indus River stated in the ATWTNS packet for 30 August 2010. It is almost 3,200 kilometres long.
Flood control and social transformation in revolutionary China – "Teaching water to climb mountains"
6 September 2010. A World to Win News Service. Following are excerpts from an article that appeared in issue 13 (1989) of A World to Win magazine. It was originally published in the Revolutionary Worker (now called Revolution), voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, 10 June 1985.
For hundreds of years, floods and droughts had been the "twin scourges" of China. A major flood or drought hit large parts of the land at a pace of almost once a year, destroying crops or making it impossible to plant and thus leading to terrible famines that took the lives of hundreds of thousands at a time.
With the defeat of the U.S.-backed Koumintang (KMT) reactionaries in October 1949, the revolutionary regime led by Mao and the Communist Party of China faced an immensely difficult situation. U.S. imperialism and its reactionary allies surrounded and blockaded New China in an attempt to smother it to death. The land and the people had been ravaged by the decades of Japanese imperialist invasion and occupation and the rampages of the KMT army, which compounded the devastation from flood, drought and famine.
As a 1974 Peking Review article titled "Harnessing China's Rivers" recalled, "What did the Koumintang reactionaries leave behind 25 years ago when New China was born? With all the waterways, dykes and embankments long out of repair, the peasants were completely at the mercy of nature. Flood and drought were common occurrences, wreaking havoc alternately or concurrently and taking a heavy toll on millions of people, with tens of millions more rendered homeless. Such being the plight of old China, certain imperialist prophets gleefully awaited the collapse of New China in the grip of these twin disasters which all past governments had failed to cope with."
For the infant revolutionary regime, the task of taming the great rivers – the Yangtze, the Yellow, the Huai (flowing in the central coastal plains between the Yangtze and the Yellow), and others – was a crucial aspect of transforming China from a dependent neocolony into an independent socialist country. Without protection from floods and new irrigation systems to fight droughts and open up new farmland, the peasantry – making up the overwhelming majority of the population – would continue to suffer. The worker-peasant alliance would be adversely affected and the ability of China to withstand the attacks of the imperialists and contribute to world revolution would be weakened.
In 1951 and '52, Mao declared that the Huai River and the Yellow River "must be harnessed". These calls were made amidst, and were very much a part of, the fierce two-line struggles within the Communist Party itself over China's direction after liberation.
Under the rubric of "harmony" between capitalism and socialism and "consolidating" new democracy, revisionists like Liu Shao-chi fought to lead China down the road of capitalist development (which in China's context inevitably would have meant neocolonial development). In agriculture, these bourgeois-democrats-turned-capitalist-roaders tried to stifle and sabotage the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production and all the relations of production. They argued that mechanisation and development of heavy industry (which in turn depended on foreign technology and "aid") had to precede collectivisation, and that in the meantime the old social relations should remain intact in the countryside. Exploitation is a "merit", Liu even declared.
The two lines were sharply posed in the question of taking on the job of controlling China's rivers.
According to those like Liu, such large-scale and technically difficult projects were impossible to undertake since China had neither the funds nor the technology, Liu condescendingly preached that people in areas affected by flood or drought should rely on "relief". As one observer noted in the mid-70s when the Huai River projects had been completed and the Yellow River brought largely under control, "had the masses waited for machines to do it, there would still be famines in North China."
Mao sharply criticised and fought against the revisionist and capitulationist line of Liu and others, and declared that, "We must now realise that there will soon be a nationwide high tide of socialist transformation in the countryside."
Indeed a tremendous upsurge swept through the countryside. The millions of peasants, mobilised in unprecedented forms of cooperation in big water projects, were an integral part of this – leading to the basic establishment of socialist ownership in agriculture (as well as industry) by 1956. The struggle further erupted into the momentous upheaval of the Great leap Forward in 1958; it was out of this furnace that the people's communes were born. Water conservation projects played a key role once more in this new and major step in socialist transformation.
People's communes started spontaneously in Honan province out of a project to bring water across the Taihang mountain ranges to irrigate a dry plain area that suffered from drought eight or nine years out of ten. The peasant cooperatives took initiative in merging their labour power on a scale unheard of previously to build the Red Canal, which stretched 1,500 kilometres across the Taihang. When Mao came to visit this merger of peasant associations, the name "people's commune" was chosen. "This is a new creation of the masses", Mao wrote. Others around the country followed the example: by the end of 1958, 26,000 communes had formed (increasing to 72,000 with new formations and subdivisions by 1961).
One of the slogans raised by the peasants during the Great Leap Forward was: "Teach water to climb mountains up to heaven!" The slogan of course referred directly to the carving of waterways across mountain ranges to bring water and life to arid lands. But it also spoke more broadly to the grand struggles of the masses consciously transforming society and nature, and in the process transforming themselves. Under the oppressive order of the old society, who but the most brave and farsighted would have dared dream of teaching "water to climb the mountains up to heaven"?
The scourge of the rivers
Several examples illustrate the remarkable advances made by the Chinese people after liberation to control the forces of nature, in particular the "scourge" of the rivers. In 1952, the Chinese people completed a large-scale flood-diversion programme on Chingkiang River, a harmful tributary on the middle reaches of the Yangtze. The project involved repairing and reinforcing existing dykes, building new dykes of over 200 kilometres in length, putting up numerous sluice gates, and setting up a safety area to accommodate 170,000 people in case of evacuation during an especially big flood. Three hundred thousand soldiers and civilians were mobilised, and the whole project was completed in seventy-five days.
This contrast starkly with the "achievements" during the years of reactionary KMT rule. In order to build a small drainage gate on the Yangtze near the city of Wuhan, the KMT begged for funds from five different countries and then took three years to complete the work.
The Huai River basin used to be one of those areas hit by almost yearly flood and/or drought. The diversion of the Yellow River in 1938 by the KMT caused devastation of even greater dimensions. The change in the course of the Yellow River brought down silt that filled the estuary of the Huai River, buried farmland and heightened the beds of many lakes. All this affected the entire Huai River system, making it even more susceptible to floods and droughts.
Mao's 1951 call – "the Huai River must be harnessed″ – sparked millions of peasants to begin tackling various water-control projects along the Huai. This vast mobilisation shattered the revisionist whining about how it was impossible for the "backward" peasants without machines to take on such immense projects. In fact, except for key state-financed projects, modern machinery – such as bulldozers, excavators, earth removers and heavy-duty trucks – was rarely available, especially in the earlier years.
The rise of revisionists to power in the Soviet Union in 1956, and the subsequent Sino-Soviet split and pull-out of Soviet technicians, funds and equipment from China, posed further difficulties. The "river-tamers" had to rely on simple tools and equipment – hammers chisels, picks, wheel-barrows, home-made machines and explosives. And, most important of all, there was the powerful initiative of the masses, unleashed by the revolutionary line of Mao.
By the early 1970s, one report noted "conspicuous changes" in the worksites of the Huai River projects compared to the initial stages: "China-made dredgers are working alongside other machines. The degree of mechanisation has increased and the contingents of technicians have grown enormously. What merits particular attention is that large numbers of peasant-technicians with rich practical experience have come to the fore."
The passage gives a glimpse of the actual development of productive forces during the years of Mao's leadership (contrary to the lies and distortions of imperialists and revisionists alike), and, most importantly, the big changes in relations of production, especially through the Cultural Revolution –the differences between mental and manual labour, between town and countryside and between industry and agriculture were beginning to be broken down.
The changes in one county in the Huai River basin epitomised the night-and-day difference in conditions between the neocolonial past and socialist China. In one township of 11,000 households, floods in 1931 brought death from hunger to 2,600 peasants and forced 6,700 families to flee to other areas. The same area experienced torrential rains in the summer of 1974 – over twelve inches of rain fell in two days and the water level of the Huai rose over six feet; Yet the dykes and the drainage pumps kept damage to a minimum – peasant homes were not washed away, and paddy fields remained green.
Since the revisionists took power in 1976 and restored capitalism, many of the advances made during socialist China – especially during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution – have been overturned. The people's communes, for example, have been mostly broken up, with land divided again among individual households, and exploitative relations and class polarisation making their return. While there may be some increases in production in certain areas and for a certain period, the larger picture raises the ominous spectre of possibly disastrous consequences of capitalist restoration in the countryside.
Some observers have noted, for example, that there has been an increase in the frequency of floods and severity of damages caused by them and have linked these developments at least in part to the breaking up of socialised agriculture. Because the peasants are increasingly driven to raise productivity on their private plots and contract businesses, there is mounting reluctance to participate in public works projects – water conservancy works, soil conservation, forestation programs – since they require pooling of labour and resources, and sacrifices on the part of individual units for the bigger whole.
Images of pre-1949 floods, droughts and famines are beginning to cast their shadow.
As the article "Harnessing China’s Rivers" in Peking Review pointed out: "In the dark old days class oppression went hand in hand with drought and flood; the reactionary political rule and the ideological fetters imposed on the people not only deprived them of the necessary objective conditions for combating floods but also made it impossible for them to see their own subjective strength in overcoming them. After each natural disaster, the reactionary rulers, while using the pretext of building water-control projects to fleece the people, spread the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius and forced the people to build temples and offer sacrifices to appease the gods. The storm of socialist revolution since liberation has shattered the political and economic fetters binding the labouring people and swept away the ideological trammels that hampered their initiative and creativity."
To deal with cyclones and other disasters, "natural" and "unnatural", requires making revolution.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)