Alternatives International

A Contentious Election For Women's Rights

Houda Chergui — 2012-11-02T03:02:59Z

In the upcoming American election, taking place on November 6, results will determine whether the country will be moving forward or reverting back to the 1950s. Polls indicate that, as in most elections, jobs and economic concerns are the most decisive issues taken into account at voting stations, putting social issues on the backburner. However, this coming election will determine the future of women's rights in America as it presents two candidates with dramatically opposing views on a very visceral subject for most women: abortion.

Romney has declared that if he were to be elected, he would overturn Roe v. Wade, a 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion—a monumental achievement in women's rights. He opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and threat to the mother's life. Obama has previously remarked on the feasibility of this actually happening, because “we know that the current Supreme Court has at least four members who would overturn Roe v. Wade. All it takes is one more for that to happen.” Romney would endorse extreme legislation, not unlike Proposition 26. This constitutional amendment also known as ‘the personhood amendment' was considered and rejected by a 58 to 42 margin in Mississippi in November 2011 that declared a fertilized egg to be a legal person, meaning it would brand abortion and some forms of birth control such as the morning-after pill as murder. Ohio and Florida had considered similar initiatives.

The topic of abortion remains a very contentious one as, though it has high social and political implications, it remains very personal and emotional. People may have differing religious beliefs that influence their decisions on these issues, however no one may impose their belief on others, especially when it involves women and their bodies. Obama seems to understand this, as he declared that the issue should be left to women and their doctors.

Making abortion illegal not only imposes one's religious views on others, but puts many women's lives in peril as without the government's aid, many would have to resort to dangerous means in order to get an abortion.

In this direction, the Republican candidate also seeks to remove any federal funding for Planned Parenthood, a non-profit health organization that not only provides reproductive health, maternal and child health services, but also informs and educates communities on sexual health. Planned Parenthood is a widely used major provider of abortion and contraception. Romney also announced support for the Blunt amendment, a bill giving any employer the right to deny health insurance coverage of birth control based on moral conviction.

This election will hopefully serve the purpose of widening women's eyes to the fact that there are still politicians whose definition of women's rights is for a woman to be able to get out of work on time in order to cook food for her family. It is important for all to take note that women should be able to stop worrying about whether their hard-earned rights will be taken away from them. Women should not still be fighting to hold onto what they already have, they should be able to move forward.

World Social Forum-Free Palestine

Anastasia Manannikova — 2012-11-02T03:02:56Z

World Social Forum (WSF) is an annual “opened-space” meeting of civil society organizations that has for purpose to find solutions to multiple global and particular social issues. The goal of the social forum is to take action towards a more democratic and fair world. WSF brings together and links organizations and movements of civil societies from all over the world in order to find, build and develop alternatives to a neo-liberal future, colonialism, and racism through struggles for social, political and economic alternatives to promote justice, equality, and the sovereignty of peoples.

An ordinary WSF conference covers several social issues, but this time civil organizations are coming together in order to develop an action plan towards one main issue - the liberation of Palestine. This event is an actual expression of the human instinct towards justice and freedom in Palestine. WSF Free Palestine is “a process of global mobilizing, networking and strategizing and planning of joint action” . This four day event will take place in Porto Allegro, Brazil from November 28 to December 1 2012, supported by 147 organizations worldwide. The meeting will promote and create an effective action plan to establish peace and justice in Palestine. The event is composed of five core conferences as well as workshops, seminars and other related self-organized events. Five large conferences will cover the main themes of the forum: Self-determination and right of return; Human Rights, International Law and prosecution of war criminals; Strategies of struggle and solidarity; For a world without walls, siege, racist discrimination and patriarchy; Palestinian Popular Resistance and the support of social movements.

Israel violations

The Palestinian-Israeli issue is a conflict over the territory, where religion plays an important role in defining the identities of participating parties. Palestinians and Israeli are not treated equally, and depending on where Palestinians live, they face different challenges. Those who live in Israel seek rights that are equal to Jewish citizens of the state, whereas Palestinians living in the West Bank or Gaza regions are waiting for an end to Israeli military domination of every aspect of their daily lives. Those considered Palestinian refugees seek the right to return to their homes or at least receive compensation and support for resettlement, just like other refugee populations in the rest of the world. Moreover, Israel still applies twenty laws privileging Jews over Arabs . A vivid example is the 1950 Law of Return which grants automatic citizenship rights to Jews from anywhere in the world once requested, while denying that same right to Palestinians.

In Israel the Arab areas are discriminated against in terms of government programs such as development, education and public safety programs. An extensive study of Human Rights Watch found out that "Government-run Arab schools are a world apart from government-run Jewish schools. In virtually every respect, Palestinian Arab children get an education inferior to that of Jewish children, and their relatively poor performance in school reflects this."

Hundreds of Palestinian villages inhabited by more than 70,000 Palestinians in Israel are not recognized by the Israeli government and receive no services such as water, electricity, and sanitation from the government. Meanwhile, hundreds of new Jewish towns have been established on lands, expropriated or otherwise confiscated from Palestinian landlords, and those territories have been filled with Israel infrastructures that isolate the Palestinian communities. Palestinians are surrounded by Israel civil settlements and separation barriers, which destroy local communities, interfere with the rights of Palestinians to work, receive an education, receive medical care, and participate in extended family life. Israel military use regulations allowing them such illegal measures such as imprisonment without trial or charges, deportation, home demolition, additionally they practice torture and collective punishment. Moreover, they interfere in Palestine economy and manipulate it to the benefit of Israel.

How can we make this WSF Free Palestine a success?

WSF Free Palestine mobilization will be aiming to provide an open space for discussion and debate aiming to take effective and sustainable action in solidarity with Palestinian people, strengthen and develop strategies towards peace and justice in the region; determine, implement and promote the rights of Palestinian people and their sovereignty. The main goal of the event is to develop and take effective actions to ensure Palestinian self-determination, fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, to fulfill human rights and International Law, put an end to Israeli occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and ensure the protection of rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties.

The success of the WSF Free Palestine depends on each concerned civil organization, movement, union and group around the world that stands in solidarity with Palestine and struggle for global justice and their efforts put into the process of the WSF Free Palestine.

A successful action plan will be based on the International Law and UN resolutions. It should be started with the creation of a truly independent, sovereign, and democratic State of Palestine and recognition of Palestinian people's rights, and an end to Israel's occupation where all Israeli troops should be withdrawn. Each state should be responsible for maintaining the safety and security of its own citizens along with avoiding any cross-border attacks on civilians in each other's territory. Jerusalem would be an open city, with two separate capitals within it.

The Imminent Dangers of the Shrinking Arctic

Brittany McGillivray — 2012-11-02T03:02:53Z

On September 16, 2012 the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) published the startling news that the Arctic summer sea ice was at its lowest level since researchers began recording it in 1979. The summer sea ice was recorded at only 1.32 million square miles, demonstrating a near 20 percent decrease than the last record minimum of 1.61 million square miles on September 18 2007.

A scientist at NSIDC reflects on the data: "By itself it's just a number, and occasionally records are going to get set. But in the context of what's happened in the last several years and throughout the satellite record, it's an indication that the Arctic sea ice cover is fundamentally changing."

The implications of such changes are vast. The accelerated warming of the Arctic increases the chance of weather extremes such as floods, heat waves and cold spells in the Northern Hemisphere.

The melting ice could lead to a rapid increase in sea level in the years to come. As reported by CNN: “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that the global average sea level would rise between seven and twenty three inches by the end of this century.”

Environmentalist groups cite the shrinking ice caps as an indicator of global warming caused by human-made greenhouse gas emissions, a claim which has historically encountered backlash and cynicism.

With the erratic changes of weather pattern and the warming of the atmosphere, such rise in sea levels could have dangerous repercussions as unusual storms produce intense and life-threatening tidal surges. In the case of hybrid superstorms such as Hurricane Sandy, high sea levels can lead to fatal flooding.

The damage inflicted by the super storm—a rising death toll of at least fifty people—is evidence of the possibility for catastrophic outcomes of rising sea levels and temperatures. The scope of the destruction, taking into account its devastating losses, should work to convince public consciousness of the brutal reality of climate change.

Evidence suggests that vulnerable island states may need to evacuate their populations within a decade. Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, warns that the Pacific Islands are faced with the prospect of flooding and salt-water intrusion.

Mann also notes that the models predicting climate change may be too forgiving. “We know that there is methane trapped [in the permafrost] and as it escapes into the atmosphere, it accelerates the warming even further.”

Shayne Wolf, the climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute claims that “the polar meltdown shows we're teetering on the brink of climate-change catastrophe.” He summarizes: “We can't wait any longer to cut carbon pollution.”

Solutions to climate change and alternative energy technologies need to come into play, especially because fossil fuel dependence is aiding causing the instability of the atmosphere. With Hurricane Sandy's damage to the East Coast and the resulting billions of dollars in damage.

Responding to the satellite-records of the ice caps and the NSIC release of figures, Kumi Naidoo, the Greenpeace International Executive Director said:

“Today's announcement represents a defining moment in human history. In just over 30 years we have altered the way our planet looks from space, and soon the North Pole may be completely ice free in summer.”

Naidoo states: “We must work together to protect the Arctic from the effects of climate change and unchecked corporate greed. This is now the defining environmental battle of our era.”

Israeli Poll Finds Majority In Favor Of 'Apartheid' Policies

Harriet Sherwood — 2012-11-02T03:02:24Z

Two-thirds say Palestinians should not be allowed to vote if West Bank was annexed, while three in four favor segregated roads.

More than two-thirds of Israeli Jews say that 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank should be denied the right to vote if the area was annexed by Israel, in effect endorsing an apartheid state, according to an opinion poll reported in Haaretz.

Three out of four are in favor of segregated roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank, and fifty-eight percent believe Israel already practices apartheid against Palestinians, the poll found.

A third want Arab citizens within Israel to be banned from voting in elections to the country's parliament. Almost six out of ten say Jews should be given preference to Arabs in government jobs, forty-nine percent say Jewish citizens should be treated better than Arabs, forty-two percent would not want to live in the same building as Arabs and the same number do not want their children going to school with Arabs.

A commentary by Gideon Levy, which accompanied the results of the poll, described the findings as disturbing. "Israelis themselves … are openly, shamelessly and guiltlessly defining themselves as nationalistic racists," he wrote.

"It's good to live in this country, most Israelis say, not despite its racism, but perhaps because of it. If such a survey were released about the attitude to Jews in a European state, Israel would have raised hell. When it comes to us, the rules don't apply."

The poll was conducted by a public opinion firm, Dialog, and commissioned by the New Israel Fund, an organization accused by right-wing critics of having an anti-Zionist agenda. Dialog interviewed five hundred and three people out of an Israeli Jewish population of just under six million.

Talk of the possible annexation of the West Bank, or the main settlement blocks within it, has increased in recent months as expectations of a negotiated settlement to the conflict have sunk to an all-time low. Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barak, recently argued for the annexation of land between the internationally recognized Green Line and the Israeli-built separation barrier.

The poll results will bolster the claim of Israel's Arab citizens, who make up twenty percent of the population that they suffer from racist discrimination. Almost half the poll's respondents said Israeli Arabs should be transferred to the Palestinian Authority, and a third said that Arab towns in Israel should be moved to the PA's jurisdiction in exchange for Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

According to the Haaretz report, the survey found that ultra-Orthodox Jews held the most extreme views about Arabs, with seventy percent supporting a legal ban on voting rights and ninety-five percent backing discrimination against Arabs in the workplace.

Original source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/23/israeli-poll-majority-apartheid-policies

USA Elections 2012: When War Passes for Foreign Policy

P. Sainath — 2012-11-02T03:02:19Z

In the last Obama-Romney debate, there was absolutely no mention of the financial costs, casualties and lessons from America's military outings.

“Take the profit out of war,” said Kevin Zeese, one of the more important activists of the Occupy Movement in the United States, “and you take out war.” His audience was made up mainly of U.S. war veterans gathered in New York to observe — and protest — the 11th anniversary of the conflict in Afghanistan. That is the longest war the United States has ever waged. The veterans ranged from those who had seen action in Iraq and Afghanistan to many who had fought in Vietnam. There was also one 88-year-old World War II veteran.

That link between profit and war sticks out in a recent Center for Public Integrity (CPI) investigation. The U.S. Congress could be spending $3 billion on tanks the army does not want. That includes repairing many M1 Abrams tanks the army won't use. As Aaron Mehta, one of the authors of the CPI report puts it: the army “has decided it wants to save as much as $3 billion by freezing refurbishment of the M1 from 2014 to 2017, so it can redesign the hulking, clanking vehicle from top to bottom.” Congress disagreed.

Of course, the lawmakers batting for the tanks spoke about jobs. Their concern, in theory, is for the workers involved. If their factories shut down, the workers making the tanks could lose their jobs. But it seems the lawmakers' own jobs were the real cause of their worry. The tank's manufacturer, say the report's authors “has pumped millions of dollars into congressional elections over the last decade.” A sound move, it seems. The CPI studied spending and lobbying records that showed donations targeting “the lawmakers who sit on four key committees that will decide the tank's fate.” It also found that: “Those lawmakers have received $5.3 million since 2001 from employees of the tank's manufacturer, General Dynamics, and its political action committee.”

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost anywhere between $2.5-$4 trillion. In a nation with a $16 trillion debt, that should count for something. In the “third and final” Obama-Romney debate (on foreign policy), it didn't. Those numbers didn't merit the slightest mention by either man. Obama claimed to be holding the line on military spending. Romney promised to raise it. As early as 2008, economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz co-authored a book with Linda J. Bilmes (an expert on U.S. budgeting, at Harvard) titled The Three Trillion Dollar War. That prophecy is pretty much on track. It could even prove an underestimate. As Bilmes pointed out in The Boston Globe, “Half of all U.S. veterans from this (Afghan) war are claiming disability benefits, racking up trillions of dollars in long-term support costs.”

The link with the economy, apart from with foreign policy, point out Stiglitz and Bilmes, is huge. “Spending on the wars and on added security at home has accounted for more than one-quarter of the total increase in U.S. government debt since 2001.” And this war was pursued without raising taxes. Indeed, with tax cuts for the rich thrown in at the same time, in both wars, during the Bush years.

HUMAN COSTS

About 6,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's twice the number of victims in the dreadful attacks of 9/11. Besides, suicides among soldiers on active duty now average one every 24 hours. The death count does not include hundreds of others working for private military “contractors.” Elsewhere in the world, they'd be called mercenaries. Many dirty chores were outsourced to such forces as the U.S. tried to wind down its presence.

Obama said in the debate that he had come with a promise to “get us out of Iraq” and “we did that.” He had, therefore kept his promise of 2008. He failed to mention that in that year, he also ran with the line that Afghanistan was a worthy war. As President, his “surge” — adding 30,000 troops there for a while — has failed. The real task is how to get out without disgrace.

The debate had not a word on the numbers of casualties and deaths. Not a word on the financial costs of the wars and their link to the economy. Not a whisper on the lessons to be drawn for U.S. foreign policy. That, in a debate on foreign policy.

The human costs to others have been awful, too. No one knows for sure how many civilians have died as a result of the two wars. The estimates range from one hundred thousand to several times that number. As reported in these columns in 2008, a little over three years after the war in Iraq began in 2003, over 6,50,000 Iraqis were estimated to have lost their lives. A survey by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad had put it bluntly: “As many as 6,54,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions. The deaths from all causes — violent and non-violent — are over and above the estimated 1,43,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion.” The survey has been attacked, but few deny the death count has been massive. Iraq's overall mortality rate more than doubled from 5.5 deaths per 1,000 persons before the war began to 13.3 per 1,000 persons by late 2006. Also, many more civilians have died since the time of that study.

By late 2006, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees had come up with other kinds of numbers. Close to 1.8 million Iraqis had fled their country since the war began. Another 1.6 million made up the internally displaced.

“What an incredible waste of human life these wars inflict,” Paul Appel, a Vietnam war veteran, told us at the October 7 meeting in New York. “Looking back, I was having to face that before I even left for Vietnam. I was given the job of letting parents know their sons had died in the war. I had to go along with the army priest. Once, I was left to do it on my own.” Appel is a farmer from Illinois. With him was Dud Hendricks, a former sports coach from Maine. And many others from modest backgrounds. A few hours after we met, they were all arrested and led away in cuffs. The vets wouldn't leave the Vietnam War Memorial where they had gathered, by 10 p.m. A highly embarrassed police squad took them away.

None of the four candidates for president or vice-president has ever served in the military. At the debate that night, Romney declared his firm support for using Drones in the way they are now employed in Pakistan. Obama smirked. It was a policy he had driven big time. That these have caused very high civilian casualties did not matter. The drones are now over Libya as well. His trump card, of course, was the killing of Osama bin Laden. His huge foreign policy achievement. Yet several groups associated with Bin Laden were not overwrought by his death. Their disconnected leader had become an embarrassment.

The debaters revelled in clichés. Obama: “America is the one indispensable nation in the world.” (So there are many that are dispensable?) “I've got a different vision for America.” Romney: “America must be strong.” “I'm optimistic about the future.”

So where does it go from here? It goes to a zillion more television ads adding even more to this insanely expensive contest. The pundits are already working out in which states the campaigns will cut back on spending in order to push more money into some swing states.

It is not easy to beat an incumbent American President. In the last 112 years, only four elected presidents seeking re-election have been defeated. (Gerald Ford who lost in 1976 does not figure in that list. He was not elected but became President when Richard Nixon quit in disgrace. In 80 years since 1932, only Jimmy Carter (1980) and George H.W. Bush (1992) have been beaten.

Yet, Obama, while having that great edge, does not have it all sewn up. It's easy to forget that in 2008, just before Wall Street hit the fan, John McCain was slightly ahead of Obama in the polls. The meltdown that year transformed the scene. The state of the economy hardly gives Obama a great boost this time around.

Meanwhile, the pundits are back to guessing whose body lingo was better in the final debate. Who looked “more presidential.” A more cutting response to that process, though, comes from Andrew Levine in CounterPunch.org. “What does being a better debater have to do with anything? Presidents don't debate. The candidates might as well compete by jousting or pole-vaulting.”

Original source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/when-war-passes-for-foreign-policy/article4028451.ece?homepage=true

Food for Thought

Rami Almeghari — 2012-11-02T02:59:51Z

Rami Almeghari: Your current visit to the Gaza Strip is said to be within your own attempt to help break the Israeli siege of Gaza. Why has it taken place now?

Noam Chomsky: It has been a matter of arrangements and you know I am here taking part in the linguistic conference for the Islamic University of Gaza and this is a good chance for me to help break the blockade of Gaza.

RA: Do you agree with the international and Palestinian calls to boycott Israel academically and economically?

NC: So, in the case of South Africa, for example, in which I was involved in the boycotts, they were highly selective and they were selected in a way which would lead to help for the victims, not to make us feel good. The same in the case of the Vietnam war, where I was involved, and I was imprisoned many times, I was involved in civil disobedience, organizing resistance and so on.

But we always had to ask ourselves, when we pick a particular tactic, what does it mean for the Vietnamese not what does it mean for us? And sometimes there are things you should do and sometimes there are things you shouldn't do and in fact they were very helpful in that regard.

And the same is true with boycotts. If you call for an academic boycott of say Tel Aviv University you have to ask yourself, what the consequences are of that call for the Palestinians and there's an indirect answer. When you carry out an act in the United States, you are trying to reach the American population and you're trying to bring the American population to be more supportive of Palestinian rights and opposed to Israeli and US policies.

So therefore you ask yourself, will an academic boycott of Tel Aviv University have an effect on the American audience in the United States that you are trying to reach. Now, that depends on the amount of organization and education that has taken place in the United States.

Today, if you look at the people's understandings and beliefs, a call for an academic boycott on Tel Aviv University will strengthen support for Israel and US policy because it's not understood. There is no point in talking to people in Swahili if they don't understand what you are saying. There could be circumstances in which a boycott of Tel Aviv would be helpful, but first you have to do the educational and organizational work.

Same with South Africa. The equivalent of BDS, the boycott and sanctions programs, that began really around 1980, there were a few before, but they mainly grew around then. That was after twenty years of serious organizing and activism which had led to a situation in which there was almost universal opposition to apartheid. Corporations were pulling out following the Sullivan law, the [US] Congress was passing sanctions and the UN had already declared embargo. We're nowhere near that in the case of Palestine. We are not even close.

RA: Do you agree or not agree, do you agree partially?

NC: You can't agree or disagree, it's meaningless. In the case of any tactic, you ask yourself, what are its consequences, ultimately for the victims, and indirectly for the audience you are trying to reach. So you ask, do the people I am trying to reach see this as a step towards undercutting US policy and freeing the Palestinians or do they see this tactic as a reason to strengthen their support for US policy and attacking the Palestinians. That's the question you ask when you carry out any tactic, whether it is disobedience, breaking bank windows, demonstrations, whatever it is. Those are the questions you ask if you care about the victims, if you don't care about the victims, you won't bother with these questions and you just do what makes you feel good.

RA: [Palestinian Authority] President Mahmoud Abbas called on the UN to recognize Palestine as a non-member state of the organization. What do you think about this move amidst Israel's ongoing unilateral actions on the ground?

NC: The question is whether this act will improve the situation of the Palestinians and it is independent of what Israel is doing on the ground, which is a separate issue. Abbas can't change what Israel is doing on the ground.

He can, or Palestinians can, take steps which will improve their situation in the international arena, so we ask ourselves whether a move towards recognition of Palestine as a non-observer status would be of benefit to the Palestinians or not.

Well, I think it could be of some benefit. For example, there's a good reason why the United States and Israel are so passionately opposed to it. The reason they are passionately opposed is that it would be of benefit to the Palestinians. For example, it would give them the status in which they might consider bringing criminal charges against Israel to the International Criminal Court.

Now that's almost certainly not going to succeed but it could be an important educational step. And that's what you think about if you care about the victims. As I said, if you don't care about the victims you don't ask these questions.

But if you care about the victims you ask what this action will have to do, how will it affect their fate. How will it affect the people of Gaza and the people of Palestine generally. In this case, I think it can have some mild positive effects. And we should pay attention to the fact that both US and Israel are passionately opposed, and if they are passionately opposed we should ask ourselves why? And they are opposed precisely because it could be of benefit to the Palestinians.

RA: Some call for a two-state solution between Palestine and Israel, while others call for a one democratic state solution. Which is more workable for you?

NC: It is not a choice. I have been in favor of the what's called a one-state-solution or binational state solution for seventy years and, so ok, I'm in favor of it. I am also in favor of peace in the world and ... getting rid of poverty. There's a lot of things I'm in favor of.

But if you are serious, you say, "how do we get from here to there?" That's the question. We can all say it's a wonderful idea. In fact I don't think one state is a good idea, I think there should be a no-state solution that should erode the imperial borders. There's no reason to worship French and British decisions on where to draw borders. A no-state solution would be much better, but again we ask, how do we get there?

Over the past seventy years I have been involved, there have been different ways in which you could move to that direction. Circumstances change, so your tactics change and under current circumstances, in fact since 1975, there is only one way that has ever been proposed, and that is in stages, through a two-state solution as the first stage. If there's another way, nobody's told us. They can say "I like this outcome," but they don't tell us how we get there. Now that's as interesting as someone [who] says I'd like to have peace in the world.

RA: Thank you very much.

Original Source: Electronic Intifada, October 20, 2012

Turning Despair Into Hate

Shaun Harkin — 2012-11-02T02:59:49Z

Greece is in a grueling downward economic spiral with massive political and social ramifications. Aspects of Greek society are literally falling apart at the seams. Across the whole eurozone – the countries that use the euro as a common currency – unemployment is at a record high of 18.2 million people without work in August. Across the 27-nation European Union, the number of jobless has climbed to 25.5 million. In Greece last May, unemployment reached 23 per cent for the total population and a staggering 55.4 per cent for youth.

Greece's gross domestic product – the main measure of economic output – contracted by 6.5 per cent last year and is expected to shrink by a further 3.5 per cent this year. 2013 will be Greece's sixth year of recession. This will further compound the misery, pain and desperation of Greek society. Suicides have increased along with breadlines in Athens.

Adding to this catastrophe, the ruling coalition government in Greece, led by Prime Minister Antonis Samaras of the center-right New Democracy, is planning to ram through additional cuts and a hike in regressive taxes. Officials from the ‘troika' – the European Union, International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank – are seeking agreement on these austerity measures before Greece can receive over $31-billion in loans for the recapitalization of its banks.

These further cuts, coming after years of devastating austerity, will hit the working-class and poor hard, turning up the temperature in the already simmering Greek cauldron. The 2013 draft budget includes $5-billion in pension and public-sector salary cuts.

Growth of Golden Dawn

This is the context that explains the alarming growth in popularity for Golden Dawn, the Greek neo-Nazi party. Golden Dawn won 18 parliamentary seats out of 300 in the June elections to become Greece's fifth-largest political party. Polls now indicate that the percentage of people with “positive views” about Golden Dawn has grown from 12 per cent in May to 22 per cent today. If an election were held now, based on these polls, Golden Dawn could become Greece's third-largest party, replacing the former ruling PASOK party, after New Democracy and SYRIZA, the coalition of the radical left. Though it is also possible the Greece's corporate-controlled media has an interest in exaggerating its influence, there can be no doubt that the reported increase in support for Golden Dawn is all too real.

Since Golden Dawn secured a parliamentary foothold, it has increased its violent attacks on immigrants and the left – a strategy central to its growth and appeal.

Greece has some 1.5 million immigrants, many of them legal, among a total population of around 11 million. Some 80 per cent of Europe's incoming migrants end up in Greece because of European Union border restrictions. Many of these migrants are fleeing crisis and poverty in Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere.

Golden Dawn casts blame on immigrants for bringing crime and economic crisis to Greece. A recent videodocumented a 40-person nighttime patrol organized by Golden Dawn that marched through a market in Rafina, northeast of Athens. Anyone with a stall who looked foreign was asked for a permit. Black-shirted thugs smashed up the stalls of those they claimed didn't have a permit. Small groups of Golden Dawn members, known in the party as “storm troopers,” roam immigrant neighborhoods on bikes, using the pretense that they are preventing crime.

Even more ominously, large sections of the Greek police force are known to be sympathetic to Golden Dawn. When Golden Dawn members have attacked immigrants and left-wingers, the police have looked the other way. The police themselves participate in violent attacks on immigrants and other targets of the Nazis' hate. A group of anti-fascist protesters are charging that the Athens Attica General Police Directorate tortured them after they were arrested during a confrontation with Golden Dawn members. In some sections of Athens, when people come to report crimes, the police encourage them to take their problems to Golden Dawn.

Because of the austerity measures, public services are literally disappearing for sections of society. Golden Dawn is attempting to fill the vacuum through food and clothes distribution, but for “Greeks only” – those who can prove their national identity. Golden Dawn members also organized a blood drive to be used for “Greeks only” – but doctors and health associations condemned the event and said the blood would go to anyone who needed it.

Blaming Immigrants

If Golden Dawn has been able to gain a further hearing in recent months, they have Greece's mainstream parties to thank. In a recent interview, Prime Minister Samaras blamed immigrants for creating “major distress” in Greece. The government organizes “sweeps” of immigrants who are then housed in closed camps before they are deported.

In this way, the government reinforces and legitimizes the notion that immigrants are to blame for the crisis engulfing the lives of millions of Greeks, providing grist for the Golden Dawn violence mill. And through immigrant-bashing, the government also hopes to redirect fury away from its own inability to find a solution to the crisis.

At the same time, as conditions continue to unravel, bitterness is growing toward the coalition government. But for those furious with the government's abject failure to deal with the crisis, immigrants can become an immediate target for anger and despair.

Golden Dawn opposes the austerity demanded by what they call the “foreign” European Union bosses and implemented by the coalition government. But they also attack the government for not doing enough to rid the country of the scapegoats they blame for causing the crisis. In this way, the fascists can then justify taking matters into their own hands.

Golden Dawn has a conscious strategy aimed at polarizing and inflaming opinion. The organization recently proposed a new public holiday to commemorate the victims of Communist resistance fighters at the end of the Second World War – these victims, and Golden Dawn's “heroes,” were mainly collaborators with the Nazis who occupied Greece during the war.

To capture funding and win increased support, Golden Dawn has opened up an office in New York City and is also attempting to organize in Australia [and Canada] among thousands of Greeks who have fled there to escape the economic crisis.

Despite the frightening evidence of the fascists' rising popularity, some voices are downplaying the threat they pose. Niall Ferguson, author of the Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order, makes the absurd claim in an article for Newsweek magazine that, despite the advance of the Greek fascists and other neo-Nazis across Europe, there isn't too much to worry about.

Basing his argument on the aging of the European population, Ferguson thinks fascism is only for those under 30 with the energy to march around and beat people up. Demonstrating an astonishing degree of stupidity, he writes, “Blackshirts were bad and brownshirts were worse. But who's honestly afraid of grayshirts. Fascism still isn't funny. But the more it ages, the less it scares me.” Tell that to the victims of Golden Dawn violence. Stopping Greece's fascists is a crucial and urgent task.

Europe-Wide Phenomenon

The emergence of Golden Dawn is part of the Europe-wide phenomenon of right-wing populist and neo-fascist parties becoming more prominent in response to the economic meltdown. The threat has grown more substantial. After the horrors of the Second World War, fascism was discredited and forced onto the fringes of European society. With the onset of crisis in the late 1970s, this changed in some countries, like Britain, where the fascist National Front made some electoral inroads and attempted to begin to flex its street-fighting muscle. However, the far right's progress was stalled through massive counter-mobilizations that exposed the neo-Nazis ideologically and confronted them physically.

In his 1997 book The Beast Reawakens, Martin A. Lee describes how neo-Nazis rebooted their strategies in the early 1980s:

“The jackals of the extreme right believed they found the crucial pressure point when they seized upon immigration as the main issue to rally around. While a network of ultra-right wing cadres continued to function as the violent vanguard of xenophobia, some shock troops from Europe's neo-fascist underground split off to form mass-based political parties.

“One of the advantages of this dual-pronged effort was that it provided an electoral front for hard-core militants, who underwent an ideological face-lift and watered down their pronouncements to conform to electoral requirements.

“By the mid-1980s, a flock of radical right-wing parties had found a nesting place on the democratic landscape. The initial success of the Front National in France and its emulators elsewhere showed that large segments of Western European society were vulnerable to national populists and the totalitarian temptation they embodied. These forces had already started to gain momentum when the Berlin Wall parted and the Soviet Union disintegrated.”

The collapse of the Berlin War was followed by an upsurge in support for neo-fascist organizations in West Germany. In the former East German Republic, the promises of unification gave way to unemployment, poverty and extreme dislocation, leading to growth in support for far-right organizations.

Dave Renton in Fascism: Theory and Practice argues that the:

“decisive turning point came with the European elections in 1984. The French Front National benefited from favorable media coverage, which followed its successful alliance with the conservative right in the local elections in Dreux. Jean-Marie Le Pen was already a nationally prominent figure, but the FN's unprecedented success came as a shock. The party won 11 per cent of the vote with 10 of its candidates duly elected as Euro MPs. The FN became respectable and moved into the political mainstream...

“By the early 1990s, the French experience had generalized. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism combined with international economic recession to create conditions favorable to the rise of the far right. Accordingly, fascist parties consolidated their successes across Europe.”

When billionaire Silvio Berlusconi was elected Italy's prime minister in 1994, the neo-fascist Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI), led by Gianfranco Fini, joined the governing coalition. The MSI was awarded five ministerial posts and several other important governmental assignments.

The inclusion of neo-fascists disguised as right-wing populists in Italy's government had implications for all Europe in breaking a longstanding taboo against the fascists and moving politics to the right. Lee goes on to point out:

“Ironically, their success hinged to a great extent on their ability to distance themselves from the historical image of fascism. While neo-Nazi nostalgics fixated on the swastika, the more astute theoreticians of the European New Right understood efforts to justify Hitler and the fascist dictatorships of the past were futile and ill-conceived.

“Much of the New Right's revamped ideology was scooped up by camouflaged neo-fascist organizations as they embarked upon their quest for power. By campaigning first and foremost as protectors of Western Europe's cultural identity and economic prosperity, right-wing extremists were able to elbow their way into the mainstream.”

Political stabilization and economic growth from the mid-1990s slowed the growth of the far right in parts of Europe. However, neoliberal globalization continued to degrade working-class living standards, in Europe as elsewhere around the world, producing bitterness and a breakdown in long-established political loyalties – meaning that far-right populists and neo-fascists could continue to make inroads.

As British socialist and anti-Nazi activist Martin Smith wrote:

“We have seen a growth of fascist parties across Europe over the past 30 years. In the 2004 European elections, while the BNP gained 4.9 per cent of the vote, Belgium's Vlaams Belang polled 23.2 per cent, Italy's Alleanza Nazionale 11.5 per cent and Le Pen's Front National 9.81 per cent. At a local council level, the gap is even wider.

“The Front National had close to 2,000 councilors by the end of the 1990s and Vlaams Belang had 809 municipal and 88 provincial councilors elected in 2006, compared to the BNP's 55. The so-called “new fascist” parties have all seen their fortunes grow when the mainstream political parties of the center have collapsed or have been politically damaged by scandal or political crisis. They have also grown while the mainstream parties legitimize racism or attack ethnic minority communities.”

The British National Party (BNP), a split from the more openly fascist National Front, modeled itself very closely on France's Front National. In 2009, the BNP had a major breakthrough, receiving almost one million votes and gaining two seats in the European parliament.

In the 2012 French presidential election, the Front National's party leader Marine Le Pen – the daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen, campaigning on an Islamophobic, anti-immigrant and Eurosceptic platform – won almost 18 per cent of the total vote. This was the Front's best-ever electoral result.

The Greek Golden Dawn is part of the same arc of far-right growth. But they haven't attempted to emulate the strategies of the successful reconstructed fascists.

Though Golden Dawn members will say they are simply ultra-nationalist, the real character of organization is clear from its literature, the Nazi-like salutes, the regular denials of the Nazi Holocaust by party leaders, and Golden Dawn's strategies and tactics. This is in part to do with political traditions within Greece, but Golden Dawn's prominence today is centrally an indication of how deep the social crisis in Greece has become.

Rise of Anti-Fascism

Golden Dawn and the rest of the far right in Europe are a real danger. However, they can be stopped.

Across Greece, new anti-fascist organizations are mobilizing to defend immigrant neighborhoods and left-wing organizations, and to confront the fascists on the streets where they attempt to exercise their power through intimidation, violence and harassment. In Athens, anti-fascists are organizing nighttime motorbike patrols through immigrant neighborhoods.

Over the last few weeks, Europe has been engulfed with furious protests against austerity in Spain, Italy, Portugal, France and Greece. Last week, Greek unions held their first general strike since the summer elections. More strikes are planned over the next two weeks to oppose any austerity agreement between the coalition government and the troika.

Austerity will deepen Greece's social crisis, which has already reached 1930s levels. This provides space for the fascist garbage to grow – which is why it's so important to build opposition to further cuts. Mass strikes and demonstrations can refocus anger on the actual cause of the crisis: the government, bankers, the wealthy and the institutions in Greece and Europe responsible for the mess.

SYRIZA, the coalition of radical left organizations, has also experienced a massive growth in popularity as Greek society polarizes. The coalition came within a few percentage points of winning two successive elections last spring, and polls show it continues to be viewed as the chief opposition to the government led by New Democracy.

A united left can lead the opposition to austerity through collective working-class action and solidarity, confront the fascists on the streets in defense of immigrants, and fight for an alternative based on the principle of putting the needs of Greek and European workers before profit.

Marxists have long argued that fascism is a poisonous outgrowth of capitalist economic crisis and failure. Defeating the fascist threat will require challenging a system that causes suffering on such a massive scale – and replacing it with one based on equality, participatory democracy and hope.

Shaun Harkin is a member of International Socialist Review editorial board and regular contributor to Socialist Worker, where this article first appeared.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar: Dueling Monarchies

Giorgio Cafiero — 2012-11-02T02:59:47Z

The demise of secular autocratic regimes in the Middle East and North Africa has heralded a renaissance for Islamist parties in the region, igniting a rivalry for the hearts and minds of the Sunni world between the Gulf powers of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These neighboring petro-monarchies have sought to influence political transformations in the Levant and North Africa on their own respective terms, both to advance geopolitical interests and to ensure that their own populations do not initiate popular uprisings.

Although neither country is a bastion of democracy at home, Qatar has proven much more amenable than Saudi Arabia to bolstering democratic Islamist movements abroad. The resulting Saudi-Qatari rivalry undermines Saudi Arabia's historic role as the “self-proclaimed bulwark of Islamic conservatism” in the Middle East and the powerhouse of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Historical Tensions

Historically, the Saudi-Qatari relationship has been defined by mutual distrust, albeit tempered by a common interest in maintaining stability in the Persian Gulf. Prior to Qatar's independence in 1971, the Saudi royal family's connections with Qatari businessmen, members of Qatar's ruling family, and Qatari Bedouin tribes facilitated strong Saudi influence in the affairs of its tiny Gulf neighbor.

In 1992, two Qatari guards were killed in a clash along the Saudi-Qatari border, precipitating a decade of poor relations. A few years later, members of Qatar's government accused Riyadh of attempting a counter-coup in 1996 after Emir Shaikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani overthrew his father in a bloodless palace coup in 1995. Relations worsened as each country's state-owned media portrayed the other country negatively throughout the 1990s. In July 2006, Saudi officials contacted the financial backers of the Dolphin undersea natural gas project, a $3.5-billion pipeline linking Qatar to the U.A.E., and reported that the pipeline would enter Saudi territorial waters without Riyadh's consent. A proposed pipeline linking Qatar and Kuwait created similar tensions.

Nonetheless, a rapprochement began during September 2007, when Qatar's head of state paid a visit to the Saudi royal family in Riyadh, followed by a visit of Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz to Doha in December. Throughout 2008 and 2009, Saudi and Qatari officials exchanged diplomatic visits and resolved many of the tensions from the previous 15 years, although Qatar's cordial ties with Iran remained a thorn in relations between Riyadh and Doha.

The Arab Awakening

Despite the warming of relations that began half a decade ago, the Arab Awakening has reignited tensions. Saudi Arabia—frequently labeled the “counter-revolutionary state” for its role in suppressing democratic movements throughout the region—fears the wave of popular uprisings that threatens its position as the anchor of a conservative order that has defined the regional balance of power for generations. By contrast, except in neighboring Bahrain, Qatar has sided with revolutionary forces.

Opposing positions on the Muslim Brotherhood have become a source of particular tension.

The Saudi royal family holds a dim view of the democratic victories of the Muslim Brotherhood's various affiliates in the region, viewing the Brotherhood's explicitly Islamist mode of democratic politics as a threat to its own autocratic monarchial system. David Ottaway, a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, explains: “In Saudi Arabia, there are no political parties, no labor unions, and very little civil society,” he writes. “In Egypt, it's almost the exact opposite. You have lots of political parties, labor unions, civil society. The Muslim Brotherhood accepts the realities of Egypt – realities that the Saudis reject for their own society.” In return, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is stridently opposed to the Saudi monarchy, which it views as a decadent and corrupt puppet of Western powers.

By contrast, Qatar has fostered a congenial alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood. Enthusiastic coverage of the Egyptian uprising by Al Jazeera, Qatar's state-owned news network, unquestionably contributed to the fall of dictator Hosni Mubarak. “Once the protest momentum had begun to build, communication and coordination became less essential. Everyone could simply watch Al-Jazeera to find out where and when protests were happening,” writes Marc Lynch, director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University. Al-Jazeera became “the unquestioned home of the revolution on the airwaves,” providing “a focal point for audiences everywhere to share in revolutionary protest.”

Indications of Qatar's influence continued to surface after the fall of the regime. In March 2011, Khairat al-Shater—then the Muslim Brotherhood's nominee for president—visited Qatar for several days to discuss “coordination between the Brotherhood, the Freedom and Justice Party, and Qatar in the upcoming period,” according to the Egyptian Independent, implying that Doha had vested interests in the outcome of Egypt's democratic elections. Additionally, a popular Al Jazeera television host—Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Qatari national of Egyptian origin—is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

But while Al Jazeera was championing the uprising in Tahrir Square, Saudi King Abdullah was offering to bankroll Mubarak. The Saudi king advised the Obama administration to remain loyal to the dictator to the very end, even if Egyptian forces began killing unarmed protestors. When President Obama refused to heed Riyadh's advice, the Saudi regime bitterly accused Washington of discarding Mubarak “like a used kleenex.”

In Tunisia, too—the birthplace of the Arab Awakening—many have attributed the Islamist Ennahda party's success to an infusion of Qatari petro-dollars. The fact that Prime Minister Rashid al-Ghannouchi's first post-election international visit was to Qatar—and that his son-in-law, formerly a researcher for Al Jazeera in Doha, became his Foreign Minister—has further stoked suspicions about ties between the Gulf emirate and the Ennahda party.

The speculation has even led to protests in Tunisia against Qatari interference in Tunisia's affairs. By contrast, Ghannouchi is not even allowed in Saudi Arabia, where the deposed dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali immediately received political asylum after his regime collapsed under the weight of popular protests.

The Muslim Brotherhood-Salafi Divide

To counter the rise of moderate Islamists affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia has tended to support Salafis, rivals of the Muslim Brotherhood typically considered more extreme in their Islamism. “The Salafis view the Brotherhood as insufficiently Islamist and too compromising,” explains Khalil al-Anani, a scholar of Middle East politics at Durhan University. “The Brothers, in turn, view Salafi positions as naïve, overly rigid, insufficiently centrist, and inappropriate in a modern Egyptian context. The Brothers have shown during sporadic participation in past parliaments that their primary focus is on politics and not on religious or cultural issues.”

Following the 2011-2012 elections, a Muslim Brotherhood leader stated that his party's priorities were “economic reform and reducing poverty … not [fighting] bikinis and booze.” The Salafis, by contrast—according to Davidson professor Christopher Alexander—have rallied around “a return to the veil in universities and public offices,” “gender segregation and public prayer on university campuses,” and “an elimination of political parties and elections as infringements on God's sovereignty.”

According to Mara Revkin, a scholar at the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, the Salafi Al Nour party—which came in second place behind the Freedom and Justice Party with 24.3 percent of the vote in Egypt—received a “steady stream of funding, much of it originating in the Gulf States, [which] gave Salafi candidates a significant financial edge over their rivals.”

Revkin adds that Saudi support for Egyptian Salafis is “spiritual as well as material.” A Salafi cleric from Saudi Arabia, Adnan Alkhtiry, visited Egypt shortly before the parliamentary elections and delivered a sermon encouraging Egypt's conservative Muslims to take advantage of “a great opportunity” to “establish an Islamic state” and not to “emerge from the election empty-handed” or “leave it to those who don't live the religious life.”

The View from Riyadh

The “Arab Awakening” is not the first Middle Eastern movement that has unnerved the Saudi regime. The rise of Arab nationalism during the 1950s and 1960s and the Iranian revolution of 1979 both challenged Riyadh's position as the anchor of a regional order.

Just as Saudi foreign policy proactively countered the rise of Nasser by supporting his enemies in Yemen and struck against Khomeini's revolutionary regime by financing Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, Riyadh's support for Salafi factions in countries undergoing political openings is the latest attempt to counter the rise of regional movements that conflict with the kingdom's interests. Yet with its own resource wealth and competing regional agenda, Qatar is unusually well placed to rival Saudi largesse in the greater Middle East.

By placing bets on different horses in Egypt and Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have become rivals in a transitioning Arab world. The rise of a conservative yet democratic form of Islamism may be a wave that Qatar can ride, to Saudi Arabia's dismay. However, Qatar's influence could be crowded out by a rising Egypt or even Iraq in the future. Furthermore, if the Arab Awakening spreads from Bahrain into other Gulf emirates, Doha may need to reign in its international ambitions and address its democratic deficit at home.

Indeed, when it comes to democracy in the Gulf, the two kingdoms are rivals no more.

Original Source: http://www.fpif.org/articles/saudi_arabia_and_qatar_dueling_monarchies

The Fourth Conference of The Iraqi Civil Society Solidarity Initiative (ICSSI)

ICSSI — 2012-11-02T02:59:44Z

In the southern Iraqi city of Basra, from October 20 to 22 2012, more than 200 Iraqi activists, trade unionists and human rights defenders met to discuss a democratic future for their country within the Second Iraqi Nonviolence Forum. About twenty international members of NGOs and journalists attended the event to express solidarity and build campaigns that will be carried forward by the Iraqi Civil Society Solidarity Initiative (ICSSI).

The ICSSI has gathered its members for four consecutive years, and since 2009 changed gradually from a space to understand challenges and priorities of the Iraqi civil society, to a platform for collective action in defense of human rights and social justice in Iraq. After two annual meetings in Europe, ICSSI conferences have been organized last year in Erbil and this year in Basra, empowering local civil society through the management of international events and attracting interest and respect by local authorities towards independent civil society.

Workshops dedicated to specific campaigns produced very interesting results. The Campaign to Save the Tigris, an initiative to halt the building of the Ilisu Dam in Turkey that dramatically limits the amount of water that Iraq receives raised awareness to the Iraqi people as well as to the international community. Its main purpose was to advocate at the national and international level to stop the construction of the dam, arguing that this is a political – not an economical – project of the Turkish government. The Austrian company involved in the construction of the dam, Andritz, will also be targeted.

In the workshop on labor rights, after discussion, all Iraqi union representatives who were present agreed that the lack of a just labour law, consistent with internationally recognized workers' rights, was the most important obstacle that their movement faces. Those present agreed to issue a joint statement, pledging to work together to pressure the Iraqi parliament to pass a new labour law with the modifications to the draft law that have been previously agreed upon by labour leaders. ICSSI members from the United States, France, Italy and Spain agreed to work with labour and worker solidarity organizations in their countries to increase international support for the Iraqi workers' campaign.

Another workshop discussed the need to stop human rights violations by Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs), that make business out of war. Such companies accompanied the US and UK armies in Iraq during the 2003 war, they consolidated the occupation and are still widely used in Iraq today. Nowadays even United Nations agencies and the Iraqi government are contracting such companies; states are outsourcing the use of force and no international law regulates this field. Killings of civilians in Iraq, torture and abuses in prisons, prove that PMSCs act in total impunity, with no accountability and no mechanism to compensate victims. International members present at the workshop have been the ones leading the campaign; since the issue is highly sensitive and Iraqi researchers who contributed until now are anonymous. Iraqi NGOs present at the workshop agreed to organize a public information campaign and joint advocacy actions to promote the regulation of PMSCs through national and international law. Their slogan will be: Never Again!

A workshop was also dedicated to practicing Sports for Peace. Running and walking, in particular, are practices that require no expenses for equipment and can be practiced by almost anybody who is physically capable. This is a very effective way even for NGOs to re-claim the streets and involve high numbers of common people in their initiatives. The first international marathon in Iraq was organized last year by civil society organizations in Erbil, associated to the ICSSI Conference, and it was repeated this year with about five thousand participants. A run for peace took place in Basra on October 19, the day before this Nonviolence Forum started, with about two hundred runners and many young enthusiastic participants. Another run is taking place today within Baghdad University campus, organized by ICSSI member organizations and student groups. Participants in the workshop decided to organize a marathon in Baghdad in 2013, associated to the Iraqi Social Forum. NGOs will also work to promote the involvement of women in such events, and to bring sports education for all in primary schools.

A plenary session and a specific meeting have been used to discuss about the Iraqi Social Forum, a political and social space for coordination and exchange of information among Iraqi civil society organizations who share a progressive agenda. Such initiative follows the principles of the World Social Forum charter, uniting people who struggle for human rights, peace and social justice, against neoliberal policies and militarism. Several Iraqi NGOs and unions are already working under the slogan “Another Iraq is possible”, they will participate in the next World Social Forum in Tunis in March 2013 and they are determined to organize the first Iraqi Social Forum event in Baghdad at the end of 2013.

At the conclusion of the Nonviolence Forum, the Iraqi nonviolence group, La'Onf, which has been working to promote nonviolence throughout Iraq for more than seven years from its headquarters in Erbil, met to discuss future activities and strategies. Forty-two members of La'Onf, from the various governorates of Iraq attended the meeting. Participants discussed a course of action for the group and new ideas for action, which will be published later in a special report. Members also agreed to expand the Board of Directors to a group of seven people. Their final task was to hold elections to choose a new president and members of the board of directors. Mr. Abbas Kadhim Rabat received thirty-seven votes to become the next president. Two women, Mrs. Salama Sakban of Diwaniyah, and Ms. Abrar Abid Ali of Basra, won seats on the board and Khaled al-Jubouri, Hossam Abdallah and Hussein Sudanese were also elected to serve on the board. The seventh member is to be elected by the Kurdish NGOs in the coming days.

After the end of the forum, local organizers and the international delegation have been received by Chairman of Basrah Governorate Coucil, Mr. Sabah Hasan Al-Bazoni, who congratulated everybody for the successful initiative. Local authorities will support, among others, the implementation of a proposal advanced by Save the Tigris campaign: an international Water Forum to be organized in Basra for the promotion of “Blue Peace” among people in Middle East. This will be probably the next occasion for ICSSI to visit our friends in Basra again, and enjoy their fabulous hospitality.

The Long March Towards Free Media In Tunisia

Messaoud Romdhani — 2012-11-02T02:59:35Z

Before January 14, 2011 Tunisian media was one of the three fundamental pillars of Ben Ali's dictatorship, along with the police and the judiciary. All types of expression were censored including art, books, and news. A powerful police apparatus, with honed technological skills, monitored the Internet. Disobedient journalists, or those critical of the regime, were harassed and at times beaten and arrested. The regime used both public and private media as instruments of propaganda and those who supervised the media were meticulously chosen to ensure that nothing was left uncensored. However, this rigorous censorship machine couldn't control everything: social networks could often circumvent blocked sites using proxies and of course, everyone watched Al Jazeera to find out what was happening across the country. Some opposition journalists resisted censorship and frequent seizures to varying degrees of success.

Everything changed after Ben Ali's regime. The media landscape was transformed into a much more liberal, pluralist and bold domain. Soon enough, huge numbers of headlines and radio stations sprung up. Everyone began taking advantage of this new free space which gave Tunisia room to move, liberated from the shackles of the regime. The onslaught of media usage quelled demands for freedom of expression and instead provoked demands for regulation of the laws and reforms of the sector. In collaboration with the government, the High Council for the Realization of the Goals of the Revolution, Political Reforms, and Democratic Transition undertook a number of important measures to reform the sector, including developing a legal framework which could assure freedom of expression and access to information and guarantee an ethical underpinning for the profession.

The composition of the government elected on October 23, 2011 demonstrated that the people were hungry to experience real freedom of expression, and all waited to see what this new government would bring. During the first month of this new, majority Islamist, government, the first signs of deception came to light. The legal decrees guaranteeing the protection of journalists and the establishment of an independent media are still yet to be passed.

Further, and against all expectation, the government is engaged in controversial appointments of people known for their close relationship with the old regime.
Is this a return to old methods or just evidence of a wish to rein in a media which “has gone too far”? According to the National Union of Tunisian Journalists (SNJT), it is both. The Union organized a rally in collaboration with other civil society organizations on January 9, 2012 to denounce “the new power's political control over public media, practices which are not unlike those of the fallen regime”.

Equally, just like under Ben Ali, criticizing the government can land you in prison. Towards the end of August, the producer of satirical television show “Political Logic” came under pressure from the Prime Minister's adviser to stop the show. Following this, an arrest warrant was put out for the producer as part of an ‘embezzlement' investigation, despite the fact that the principal suspect remains free! This affair is typical of life under Ben Ali.

Another worrying sign: frequent attacks against journalists. Journalists have been the victims of a hundred and thirty assaults since January 1 2012, according to the Tunis office of Reporters Without Borders. The most alarming aspect of these attacks is that “these assaults have not been investigated and punished” insists Olivia Gré, manager of the Tunis office.

The appointment of Kamel Labidi, exiled journalist under Ben Ali, known for his competency, reliability and integrity, to the head of the National Committee of Information and Communication Reform (INRIC) just a few weeks after the Revolution was highly welcomed. However, on 1 July 2012, during a press conference, he decided to resign his position. Three reasons were put forward:

The government's recourse to “censorship and disinformation, just like under Ben Ali”;
The government's refusal to apply Decrees 115 and 116 to protect journalists and establish a regulatory framework for audiovisual media, as well as Decree 41 addressing freedom of information for administrative documents; and
Controversial appointments to top media positions and appointments imposed without consultation with relevant parties.

In fact, it is these same appointments that caused the power struggle between the government and journalists. Journalists from the newspaper Dar Assabah have been holding sit-ins and hunger strikes for weeks. They are protesting the appointment of the new Director General, an old police commissioner, who was arrested and tried for corruption under the Ben Ali regime.

However, the real culmination of this power struggle was on 17 October 2012, when the National Union of Tunisian Journalists organized a coordinated strike for the first time in the history of Tunisia and the Arab world. The success of the strike, with estimated 90% participation, as well as the solidarity movement within and outside of Tunisia are tangible proof of a strong, united belief throughout civil society in Tunisia. This belief is that the country cannot return to the climate of fear which began to subside from 17 December 2010 and which reached its climax on 14 January 2011. No government can call itself democratic while at the same time taking measures to rein in the press. One of the slogans used during the journalists' protest on 17 October 2012 was “No democracy without independent media”.

The demands, in reality, are just representative of the requirements for founding a new democracy: the inclusion of freedom of expression and of the press in the constitution; renouncing partisan appointments; and putting in place Decrees 115 and 116 on freedom of press, publishing and printing, as well as on the independence of the audiovisual sector.

Following the protest movement, from journalists' sit-ins to the strike of 17 October 2012, the government has begun to yield. It has announced that it will apply Decrees 115 and 116 guaranteeing freedom of the press. This is a good sign, but there is still long way to go. The media, like all aspects of Tunisian civil society, has only won a few battles in this difficult war for freedom – a war against a power which is making use of all available avenues to put freedom of expression under its thumb, from partisan appointments to top media positions to harassing journalists and enlarging the scope of the ‘Sacred', used like the sword of Damocles against the flourishing of art, creativity, and critique.

Messaoud Romdhani is member of the Tunisian Forum for the Economic and Social Rights (FTDES). He is in the organizing committee of the World Social Forum-2013 to be held in Tunis from 26 to 30 March 2013.

Translated by Holly Woodcroft.