Alternatives International

Reflections on a Violent Day in Ottawa

Matthew Behrens — 2014-11-02T12:03:09Z

I often find it hard to feel empathy for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. But when I saw the grim picture of him talking on the phone following the end of his confinement in the locked down House of Commons yesterday, I sensed in him a vulnerability he rarely exhibits. Harper, like his fellow MPs, Parliamentary staff, media, visitors and children in the downstairs daycare, had likely hunkered down behind locked doors, no doubt traumatized by uncertainty when an armed gunman entered the building. Because no one knew who the gunman was after, all were potential targets. For half a day, everyone on lockdown no doubt felt the fear, despair, sadness and fragile sense of mortality that people in Iraq and Syria have experienced daily for decades, an extra punch of which they will soon receive at the hands of Canadian CF-18 bombers.

It's the kind of trauma not to be wished upon anyone, and I hope all affected will get the kind of counselling and therapeutic support necessary to deal with what may emerge as multiple cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), otherwise known as the condition that you get denied proper treatment for when you are a returning Canadian military veteran.

Like those in Afghanistan who suffered 13 years of Canadian bombardment (upwards of a billion Canadian bullets fired), night raids, transfers to torture, and the daily indignities of life under military occupation, those Parliamentarians with the power to declare war — and send somebody else overseas to fight it for them — felt, in a relatively limited fashion, what it's like for millions of the world's war-weary populations. The image of a cowering John Baird or Jason Kenney hiding in a barricaded office must have proven a stark contrast to the swaggering, macho manner in which these men urged Canada to declare war on ISIS, further fuelling the flames of fear and hatred against Muslims.

Out-of-the-blue violence

Thankfully, most of yesterday's hostages to violence in Parliament went home last night to warm houses with showers, uninterrupted electricity supply, food in the fridge, and the knowledge that this horror is unlikely to happen tomorrow and four or five times for the remainder of the month or periodically for the rest of their lives. But had this happened in Iraq, such relative safety would not be guaranteed, in part due to Canada's role in obliterating that nation's economy, electricity and water supply, and health-care system, first though intensive bombing in 1991, military enforcement of a decade's worth of brutal sanctions that killed a million Iraqis, and renewed support and participation in the 2003 invasion that was made possible by Canadian weapons, technical components, navy personnel and equipment, embedded troops, and high-ranking military officials. It was also out of Iraq's torturing prisons during the occupation that numerous ISIS leaders emerged.

The tragic murder of a young Canadian reservist and the Parliamentary shootout was all the more shocking because of its sudden, seemingly out-of-the-blue fashion. In the same way, on a daily basis in tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, children in schools, celebrants at weddings, and other individuals and families are suddenly, shockingly killed by a Hellfire missile fired from a remote control-operated drone, likely with the Canadian-built targeting camera courtesy of L-3 Wescam in Burlington, Ontario.

What is being treated as Canada's 9/11 is a day that recalls the comments made half a century ago by the great Malcolm X, who commented that the assassination of President Kennedy was a case of "chickens coming home to roost," a result of a "climate of hate" fostered by a U.S. political and corporate establishment regularly overthrowing governments and assassinating (or plotting against) a variety of leaders from Patrice Lumumba to Fidel Castro. At the time, Malcolm X was vilified for speaking the truth, one that America was not ready to accept, just as many Canadians may be unwilling to do now.

Indeed, how many Canadians reading that last paragraph would step back and say, "That's them, not us"? The horrible sound of gunfire in Parliament must have sounded a small bit of like some opening moments during the Canadian-supported coup against the democratically elected Chilean government of Salvador Allende in 1973, one of many coups Canada has given support to (including more recently the coups in Honduras, Egypt, Haiti, etc.). One reporter gasped that it was simply incongruous to see SWAT teams escorting her through the Parliament in which she worked, and yet Canadian policy throughout much of the world forces her counterparts to walk that ring of heavily armed men on a daily basis.

Rather than viewing yesterday's tragic events as a wake-up call to seriously examine Canada's negative role on the world stage and the inevitable "climate of hate" to which we are contributing, we can expect nothing less than a ride on the Platitude Express, which embarked within minutes of the first bullets being fired.

The Platitude Express

From endless references to the "loss of innocence" to the pronouncements that "things will never be the same" (especially in the "hallowed halls" of Parliament), we are witnessing the cranking up of our self-loving myth machine into high gear.

In this climate, do not expect our finest hour. Yesterday's events will be used as the springboard to call for greater militarization of the national culture and justification for unending war against ISIL/ISIS or any other convenient enemy-du-jour. This will lead to further increases in war spending, despite the fact that the War Dept. was supposed to come up with $2 billion in cuts. The wars in Ukraine and Iraq — costs for which are being kept secret, without much protest — will easily double that. These events will also be used to attack anyone who questions Canada's role in wars past or present.

New repressive laws

The events of yesterday will likely also have a congealing impact on Parliamentarians who, understandably, shared a trauma together. Wednesday was supposed to be the Harper government's opportunity to unleash a new round of legislative measures designed to give CSIS and the RCMP even more freedom to trade information with torturers, monitor people overseas, take part in extraordinary rendition programs, and be completely immune from prosecution and oversight by the creation of a special class privilege that would assert the right of CSIS agents and informers not to be questioned about their activities in any court of law, public or secret.

But after yesterday, what opposition leader who wants to appear prime ministerial will feel comfortable saying no to such an agenda? The Conservatives will no doubt frame the issue with the familiar refrain, "you're either with the terrorists or against them."

Perhaps the most immediate impact will be felt in certain communities targeted for racial and religious profiling. While Canadian soldiers have been told to stay indoors and not show themselves in public, individuals of South Asian or Middle Eastern heritage, and certainly anyone who may be a Muslim or perceived as one, may have second thoughts about being out in public. These communities will be the subject of demands from the media and some "community leaders" to "out" radicalized young people, to call in "suspicious" behavior (undefined), and to report their neighbours to CSIS or the Mounties. They will find greater difficulty travelling, and they will learn first-hand about something called the Passenger Protect Program (or no-fly list).

This is especially so since, while we do not know much about the shooter, media have been quick to point out that although he was a Canadian, he was of "Algerian" heritage, and a recent convert to Islam. Both are completely irrelevant factors, but so commonly part of the daily anti-terror discourse that no second thought is given to the consequences of bringing it up.

The game is no longer far away

Glenn Greenwald adequately summed things up by asking why Canada, a nation that has been at war for 13 years and counting, would be shocked that someone might actually (however unjustifiably), do what he felt was needed to fight back. But as a country that wages war but has never suffered from war the way Russia or France or Syria or Iraq have, we have always been insulated against the consequences of our actions, buoyed by a mythology that allows us to wear Canadian flags on backpacking trips through Europe.

By day's end, Harper addressed the nation, his discourse unchanged from the bellicose rumblings of last week as he rammed through a Parliamentary vote to bomb Iraq and Syria: "Canada will never be intimidated…redouble our efforts…savagery…no safe haven…"

After a long day focused on these gripping events in the nation's capital, I have to wonder if this direct experience of fear and trauma will force us to examine our own addiction to violence as the solution to conflict. Yesterday provides us with an opportunity to reflect on our insidious contribution to the climate of hate, and the chance to disengage from our increasingly militarized culture.

Matthew Behrens is a freelance writer and social justice advocate who co-ordinates the Homes not Bombs non-violent direct action network. He has worked closely with the targets of Canadian and U.S. 'national security' profiling for many years.

Source: http://rabble.ca/columnists/2014/10/reflections-on-violent-day-ottawa#.VEkHYc-EoB8.twitter

Recognizing Palestine

John Feffer — 2014-11-02T11:59:08Z

As more European governments line up to recognize a Palestinian state, Israel (and the U.S.) look more isolated than ever.

In his recent meeting with President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saidthat he was “committed to the vision of peace for two states for two peoples.” That sounds nice. But if he'd been pressed, Netanyahu might have admitted that the two states he had in mind were Israel and the United States, not Israel and Palestine.

After all, Netanyahu has done everything possible to demonstrate that he's not interested in negotiating a two-state solution with Palestinian representatives. The most recent example is the go-ahead given to new construction in the Givat Hamatos neighborhood of Jerusalem, across the Green Line, which will make it more difficult to share the city with a Palestinian state. Over the summer, the Netanyahu government annexed nearly 1,000 acres of West Bank territory. And then there was the disproportionate use of force against Gaza, which left more than 2,000 people dead and the equivalent of the population of Boston homeless.

Despite all of these recent setbacks, a majority of Israelis continue to believe in a two-state solution, and that goes even for the supporters of the right-wing Likud Party. At the same time, a majority of Israelis no longer believe that their prime minister is committed to such a resolution.

Netanyahu aside, most Israelis are fervent pragmatists. They don't support a two-state solution out of idealistic sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Rather, Israelis understand that the laws of demographics—a higher birth rate among Palestinians than Israeli Jews—will make Jews a minority in their own state by 2025. Allowing Palestinians to form a separate state is, to put it bluntly, an internationally legitimate form of ethnic cleansing. It would achieve what partition did for India and Pakistan: create two more homogenous entities. Israel's survival as a Jewish state depends on the negotiation of a two-state solution.

And yet, despite this obvious self-interest, the Netanyahu government has refused to compromise, in part because there are political actors in his administration even more intransigent than Netanyahu himself. The sticking points include the status of Jerusalem, land swaps that would compensate Palestine for the territory seized by Israeli settlers, and the right of Palestinians to return to land that they owned before the expulsion in 1948. As the more powerful side in the negotiations, Israel has been playing hardball, waiting for the Palestinians to buckle.

It's absurd, of course, to imagine that a state and a non-state can engage in fair negotiations—unless the non-state has some additional leverage that can compensate for all the advantages the state enjoys. Kosovo, for instance, had the support of the United States and, as importantly, a European Union that could use membership as a carrot to push Serbia to the table to make concessions. Kurdistan, the northern part of Iraq, has used its relative stability and its current role in the fight against ISIS to achieve de facto statehood.

Palestine does not enjoy any of those advantages. But its weakness, paradoxically, has been a kind of strength. The Palestinians have been perpetual underdogs, even as they have acquired quasi-control in Gaza and with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Palestinians who live in those areas have at least some semblance of self-determination, even if it is illusory. Palestinians elsewhere don't even have that. Without a real state, no one will stand up for all the Palestinians scattered throughout the region—in Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and elsewhere.

For the last couple decades, the most likely route to statehood for Palestine was through negotiations with Israel, usually brokered by third parties like Norway or the United States. But there is another path to statehood that does not go through Israel. Quite a few countries have already recognized Palestine as a state—134 of them, actually. That's a lot more than Taiwan (21), more even than Kosovo (108). But most of the countries that have recognized Palestine don't have much economic or diplomatic pull.

That's about to change.

A new center-left government recently took over in Sweden and immediately announced its intention to recognize Palestine. If it follows through on this pledge, which is likely, it will be the first European country, as a member of the EU, to recognize Palestine. The Swedish foreign minister was blunt in anticipating objections from Washington: “The USA doesn't decide our policy,” Margot Wallström said. A conservative member of the Swedish parliament has countered that the government must go through the country's advisory council on foreign affairs. But the new government hadn't made a unilateral declaration—it had simply signaled a future action, which would follow the necessary protocol.

Even before the international media had digested the Swedish announcement, the UK parliament voted by a large margin—274 to 12—to recommend recognition as well. The UK government isn't likely to take that step under its current political leadership, but the Labor Party might well be in charge after the May 2015 elections.

Lest you think this was a purely partisan effort, listen to Richard Ottaway, the Conservative chairman of the foreign affairs select committee. He told his parliamentary colleaguesthat Israel's annexation of 950 acres of the West Bank this summer “outraged me more than anything else in my political life. It has made me look a fool and that is something I deeply resent.” Even the British ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gold, took pains to warn the Netanyahu government indirectly “about the direction of public opinion in Britain and beyond Britain in the absence of progress towards peace.”

Meanwhile, the French government is reportedly mulling a recognition move of its own.

Israel might ultimately care as little about the attitudes of “old Europe” as Donald Rumsfeld did around the invasion of Iraq. But Israel can't ignore the increasing impatience of its chief supporter, the United States. Immediately after Netanyahu's meeting last week with Obama, the White House issued a statement declaring that the prime minister's recent moves “call into question Israel's commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.”

European recognition won't magically transform the Palestinian state into a universally recognized entity any time soon. But it does strengthen Palestinian moves to strike off on their own.

One of the first signs of Palestinian unilateralism came two years ago when Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, called on the United Nations to “issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine.” The UN General Assembly voted by a large margin to grant Palestine non-member observer status. Only nine countries voted against the resolution: Canada, the Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Panama, Palau, and the United States.

This win at the UN opened up a wide variety of options for the Palestinians: they could suddenly join 60 UN organizations and agencies. But instead of pushing for these perquisites of UN membership, the Palestinians decided instead not to overly irritate Israel so that they could secure the release of more than 100 long-term prisoners. Last April, however, Abbas changed tactics and announced his intention to join 15 conventions and treaties, including the Geneva Conventions, conventions against torture and genocide, and conventions guaranteeing the rights of women and the disabled.

But even this effort to circumvent Israel and acquire all the trappings of a state is, after the recent Gaza war, not enough to satisfy an increasingly radicalized population. A post-war poll indicates that 72 percent of Palestinians favor an armed intifada against Israel. Meanwhile, a number of analysts have urged the Palestinian Authority to dissolve itself—and stop playing a role in policing Palestinians on behalf of Israel. Frustration with the Netanyahu government is generating a range of different responses.

At the moment, the United States and much of the world is focused on the threat of ISIS. As a result, Secretary of State John Kerry doesn't have time to devote to yet another round of pleading with Israelis and Palestinians. But if anything, ISIS is a reminder of what happens when legitimate grievances—those of Sunnis in Syria and in Iraq—are ignored. Strong, democratic states are an antidote to ISIS-style extremism. As such, a strong Palestinian state is in the interests of Israel, the United States, and the entire Middle East.

At his meeting with Obama, Netanyahu said that it was time to “think outside the box.” The Palestinians, by pursuing statehood by all means necessary, are doing just that, as are several European countries. It's time for Israel to do the same.

John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.

Source: http://fpif.org/recognizing-palestine/

From Israel to ISIS: Harper's ‘Orwellian' Foreign Policy

Murray Dobbin — 2014-11-02T11:56:35Z

It's getting difficult to remember a time when the Canadian Parliament actually tried to make principled decisions regarding foreign policy and our place in the community of nations. But we should try. Perhaps a first step in returning to such a time was the decision of the NDP and Liberal Party to oppose Stephen Harper's most recent ill-considered and cynical march to war with his decision of join the bombing of Iraq.

Harper's amoral political calculations about who and when to bomb people has little to do with any genuine consideration of the geo-political situation or what role Canada might usefully play – or even in what Canada's “interests” are. So long as he is prime minister it will be the same: every calculation will be made with the single-minded goal of staying in power long enough to dismantle the post war activist state. The nurturing of his core constituency includes appeals to a thinly disguised pseudo-crusade against Islamic infidels, a phony appeal to national security (preceded by fear-mongering) and in the case of Ukraine a crude appeal to ethnic votes.

Reinforcing this legacy is a mainstream media that lets him get away with it and in particular refuses to do its homework while the bombing – or posturing – is taking place and then refuses to expose the negative consequences of the reckless adventures. The result is what cultural critic Henry Giroux calls “the fog of historical and social amnesia.” The three most obvious examples are Harper's extremist policy in support of Israel, his joining with France and the US in the catastrophic destruction of the Libyan state and his infantile posturing on the Ukrainian Russian conflict. And now we have Harper's mini-crusade (six fighter-bombers for six months) against ISIS or the Islamic State. With rare exceptions the media has gone along with him at every turn, treating Canadians as children incapable of navigating the nuances of foreign policy.

Regarding Israel, Harper, with widespread support in the media, has gone so far as to try to establish criticism of Israel as a kind of Orwellian “thought crime.” By declaring repeatedly (and even threatening supportive legislation) that criticism of Israel was anti-Semitic Harper hoped to establish what Orwell referred to as “protective stupidity” – a kind of mass denial of the obvious. Freud referred to it as “knowing with not knowing” and when it comes to most of Canada's military adventures it is epidemic.

In Afghanistan the war went for so long that the facts eventually broke through the protective stupidity but only partially. Even with the total failure of the mission to accomplish a single worthwhile goal it is likely that most Canadians still see it as having been a “good war.”

Everyone who reads the news or watches it on television “knows” that Libya is now a failed state, swarming with literally scores of heavily armed and murderous Islamist militias, and facing an almost total collapse of central government authority and public services (formerly the best in Africa). Life in Libya is ten times more insecure and dangerous now than it ever was under the “madman” Gadhafi. Yet we choose not to know what we know.

This was supposed to be a humanitarian mission – the much-touted “duty to protect” principle in action. The catastrophe of the failure soon spread of course to Mali and elsewhere as Gadhafi's carefully constructed balancing of competing tribal interests collapsed. In the ensuing chaos massive supplies of weapons seized by the “democratic forces” were distributed to lunatic militias (including ISIS) across the Middle East. But still there are no mea culpas, no accountability, and no price to pay for the misery created. The cheerleading pundits have gone silent as if they had never written a word in support of the war. Planned amnesia.

As Giroux puts it: “Neoliberal authoritarianism has changed the language of politics and everyday life through a poisonous public pedagogy that turns reason on its head and normalizes a culture of fear, war and exploitation.”

Harper's response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict has been similar: a maximum of infantile, simplistic sabre rattling rhetoric with an absolute minimum of reflection on the historical context or even the immediate facts of the situation. This is foreign policy for the willingly – if not willfully – ignorant. We are encouraged – or perhaps enlisted is a better word – to treat facts and history with a disdain bordering on contempt. Facts, context, history and thoughtful anticipation of the consequences of our actions – all of this is for sissies and Putin apologists. The nay-sayers are all Neville Chamberlain clones.

The fact that the boys with their military toys in NATO have been provoking Russia for twenty years, encircling it with hostile regimes aligned with or members of this military alliance, promising to put missiles on its border, breaking promise after promise made in agreements with Russia – it's all irrelevant. So is the fact that the “revolution” in Kiev – don't dare call it a coup, the thought police will knock on your door – was promoted with millions of American “democracy” dollars.

And the fact that the movement was hijacked by neo-Nazis? Just an inconvenient detail to be assigned to the amnesia machine. And the consequences? Just how is driving Russia away from integration with Europe (which it had been seeking throughout Putin's rein) and into the arms of the imperial Chinese in Canada's interests? The $400 billion natural gas deal Putin signed with China – accelerated and made a certainty by NATO's aggression – will likely kill BC's dream of billions in LNG investment (a silver lining in my view but hardly a smart move for an “energy super-power”).

All of this is swept aside when foreign policy is decided in a kindergarten class instead of a graduate class. But there will be no lasting consequences for governments – Harper's or anyone else's. The structure of protective stupidity is in place and without a radical change in consciousness the current political consensus will prevail. All will be forgotten.

Which brings us to the Islamic State. Here, too, the conventional approach to making intelligent foreign policy is cast aside on the basis of reacting to a handful of Westerners being beheaded (as happens on a regular basis already to citizens of Saudi Arabia). Can it be possible that our policy-making has been reduced to this level of drunken barroom reaction? We know that ISIS did this precisely to provoke a Western military response. But “we don't know.” We prefer denial and the simplistic – the notion that we can correct twenty-five years of imperial hubris, ignorance and gross incompetence by Western powers by bombing our own creation.

Ooops, sorry for introducing a fact here – a bad habit. The West created these murderous madmen decades ago when the US funded, armed and advised the nascent Mujahedeen to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. They are now a permanent feature of the Middle East and beyond, an evolving monster the US Defence Department and CIA lost control of a long time ago. Yet politicians like Obama and Harper think we can correct it with bombs. Ironically after decades of treating their citizens like children, our governments are reduced to behaving like them.

Source: https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/from-israel-to-isis-harpers-orwellian-foreign-policy

Have Indian Intellectuals Been Co-opted?

Jawed Naqvi — 2014-11-02T11:54:07Z

Increasingly of late, Prof Romila Thapar is required to assume the nearly impossible role of Emperor Akbar, who, according to the official plaque at his tomb near Agra, had “created a nation out of a mob”. To her credit (and sorrow), the ageless historian stands firm among a handful of public intellectuals left in India who have refused to be pulverised by the rise of right-wing Hindutva mobs.

Indeed, the more the lumpen hordes seek to turn what remains of Nehruvian India into a veritable mob, running amok at academic institutions, in art galleries, bookstores, movie halls, and other assorted areas of public discourse, the more worriedly Prof Thapar's liberal devotees seek her out for help.

The state-backed hordes pose a clear challenge to India's hard-won democratic spaces. What can an erudite historian do to check the slide? On the other hand, with the entire political opposition swamped by its ceaseless failures to thwart Hindutva, does she have a choice but to yield? Prof Thapar's mantra to tame the threat, I noticed at her lecture on Sunday, primarily if not exclusively lies in invoking India's questioning spirit, which she fears may have sadly gone adrift.

“There are more academics in existence than ever before but most prefer not to confront authority even if it debars the path of free thinking,” she lamented to a packed hall of listeners at the third Nikhil Chakravartty memorial lecture. “Is this because they wish to pursue knowledge undisturbed or because they are ready to discard knowledge, should authority require them to do so?” (The previous two lectures in honour of one of India's most respected journalists were addressed by professors Eric Hobsbawm and Amartya Sen.)

The state-backed hordes pose a clear challenge to India's hard-won democratic spaces.

To put it in a nutshell, Prof Thapar's strategy to face the grim challenge derives its force of logic from her large canvas of historical evidence. Around the fifth century before Christ, when Socrates was made to drink poison for harbouring what seemed to be a subversive rejection of deities and tenets of justice of his time, in India, another man, separated by a forbidding physical distance from the Athenian thinker, was questioning the dominant Brahminical axioms. He was Buddha.

A sacrificial contest sponsored by Prajapati, the Lord of Life, formed what Prof Romila Thapar has described in her book on early Indian history as the “charter myth” of Vedic ritualism. Buddha discarded the Brahminical narrative and offered his own notion of early society. It was a pristine utopia in the beginning, which he said was eroded with the rise of the family from within the human cluster and a consequent quest for ownership of land and resources. Buddha had preceded Marx and Engels by more than 2,000 years though his concept of utopia matches their notion of ancient communism.

Centuries before Galileo or Copernicus challenged the Biblical orthodoxy in Europe, with their evidence of our heliocentric universe, to which mortal earthlings were perpetually and inevitably bound, Indian mathematician Aryabhata had upset royal astrologers at home by positing his own startling conclusions on the matter. It was the earth that went around the sun, not the other way, he said.

The tradition of questioning a dominant authority, be it religion or the state, continued with Locke, Hume, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Diderot, Rousseau and others. However, the notion of the public intellectual as opposed to philosophers emerged in the 19th century and was linked to what came to be called the Dreyfus affair.

A Jewish captain in the French army was wrongly imprisoned, charged with leaking secrets to Germans. Those opposing the action argued that the general staff of the army, in league with the politicians, had unjustly punished Dreyfus. This accusation written by Émile Zola carried the support of writers, artists and activists. All of them jointly came to be called intellectuals.

The meaning of the intellectual, according to the professor, crystallised along the notion that such a person need not be a scholar but had to be someone who had a recognised professional stature and who sought explanations from those in authority even if such actions involved critiquing the authority.

Indian Marxists had the questioning spirit in their quiver but apparently failed to put it to use when needed. “Doubt everything,” Karl Marx had exulted when an American journalist asked the communist guru to state his life's motto. In a way, Prof Thapar has followed the dictum scrupulously, by shunning Mar¬xism as a dogma while not altogether discarding the useful tools of scientific analysis it spawned, primarily to study history, chiefly ancient Indian history.

The modern public intellectual was akin to the non-Brahminical thinkers of ancient India, who were branded as Nastikas or non-believers. “I am reminded of the present day where if you don't accept what Hindutva teaches, you're all branded together as Marxists.”

Even as the history lesson was on my mind drifted briefly to Samuel Beckett's play Waiting for Godot, in which the two tramps, for want of something better to do, start abusing each other. You moron, vermin, cretin — the crescendo comes with one of them finally hurling the ultimate abuse at the other: you critic!

If Marxists are today's bad boys, it was the Charvaka ideologues of ancient India who annoyed the Brahminical order. The quasi-philosophical Indian school of materialists rejected the notion of an afterworld, karma, the authority of the sacred scriptures, the Vedas, and the immortality of the self.

That questioning Indian spirit has gone perceptibly limp today. Prof Thapar wonders why academics and experts shy away from questioning the powers of the day. “It is not that we are bereft of people who can think autonomously and ask relevant questions. But frequently where there should be voices, there is silence. Are we all being co-opted too easily by the comforts of conforming?” she wants to know.

The writer is Dawn's correspondent in Delhi.

Published in Dawn, October 28th, 2014

Gunmen in Ottawa : Questioning Canadian militarism

Stefan Christoff — 2014-11-02T11:50:53Z

Only minutes after shots rang outinside Canada's parliament buildings and on the streets of Ottawa today, mainstream media quickly launched into fear-driven reporting, largely failing to look critically at the incident.

Importantly, this shooting occurs as Canada's Conservative government moves to join a violent and cynical US-driven military campaign in Iraq and Syria, moving both military personnel and major equipment, including fighter jets, into the war zone over recent days and weeks.

Distant from directly aiding long standing grassroots struggles against the Assad dictatorship in Damascus, or addressing the political tensions in Iraq, emboldened and deepened by the US invasion over a decade ago, the current bombing campaign hashit many civilians in Syria, despite familiar rhetoric of “targeted strikes,” while the Islamic State continues to make territorial gains in Iraq. Today the US-driven bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria is already a disastrous failure, with long term and tragic consequences for the people on the ground who are living with terrifying and deadly violence on many fronts, including the Islamic State, the Syrian and Iraqi regimes, and now US bombing runs backed by Canada.

Iraqi poet and novelist Sinan Antoon offered this succinct critique on the current US bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria during a recent interview on Democracy Now! “We know from previous experiences that this type of action—military, indiscriminate military bombing—and the approach that the United States and its allies are using, will actually only create more terrorism. It will only create conditions in which groups such as ISIS, that will have different names, will emerge. So, it's not a solution at all.”

Recent moves to embrace this neo-colonial military mission by the Conservatives in Ottawa are completely unexcusable, while mainstream reporting, broadcasting across Canada right now, implicitly using today's shootings in Ottawa to justify the military mission, is cynical and manipulative. In this context, let's recall the grassroots response across Spain to the 2004 train bombings in Madrid: instead of calling for military revenge, countless thousands took to the streets for anti-war protests, demanding that Spain stop participating in the US military campaign in Iraq, a demand that quickly built momentum and was eventually won, even working toward the political downfall of the conservative government in Spain at the time.

To justify war, Conservative politicians are recalling colonial narratives, claiming that the military campaign is “noble and necessary,” implying that somehow Canadian military forces will save civilians in Iraq and Syria with bombs from the air.

Politicians backing the war in Ottawa also consistently point to the human rights abuses of the Islamic State as reasons for Canada to strike militarily, like Canadian bombs are going to bring justice for victims of Islamic State brutalities. In contrast Canada's deepening economic and political ties with the dictatorial monarchy in Saudi Arabia, where beheadings for relatively minor crimes are common and major financial ties to the Islamic State are well-documented, illuminates the deeply cynical politics involved in the current military deployment.

Today the gunmen in Ottawa that we need to be deeply concerned about, that need to be stopped, are the Conservative politicians who have no political principals and push war as a solution. In Canada, Conservatives have also shown their love for guns and the relating social violence at home, through their consistent and eventually successful moves to destroy the long-gun registry.

Canada's Prime Minister Harper is a dangerous and real gunman, deploying and asserting major military campaigns around the world, inherently deepening the militarization of Canadian foreign policy. Conservative politicians have long pushed for Canada to join militarized neo-colonial missions around the world, including the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, a devastating war that clearly helped to create the context for the Islamic State.

In Libya, the Canadian government launched an operation in 2011, involving fifteen aircraft, one warship, more than five-hundred military personnel, special military forces and a NATO commander. A military mission justified by pointing to the repression of the autocratic and violent Gaddafi regime against popular protests, while in reality Canada's intervention did little to work toward a political solution, simply playing a key part within the larger NATO bombing campaign, which until now has only worked to deepen civilian suffering and political violence in the country.

Beyond cynically pushing war as a solution, an inherently ridiculous political notion, Canada's military companies, many with deep links to the Conservative party, stand to make big financial gains with expanding wars across the world.

WikiWeapons Canada, an important project set-up by the Ottawa-based Coalition Against the Arms Trade Canadian, details the almost 20,000 military-export contracts to the US, contracts that amount to almost $8 billion. Canada's growing military industrial complex, equipped also with important lobby organizations, is also a buzz with massive contracts to serve Canada's greatly expanding military force.

In response to the Ottawa shootings today let us move to challenge the consistent celebration of militarism and violence within the halls of power by the Conservatives. Let us look at the connections between neo colonial military action abroad and deepening racialized exclusion and stigmatization of communities at home, a process only deepened by the racist tones to reporting today from Ottawa. Let us look at this shooting as a moment to come together to reject the inherent violence of neoliberal militarism that Conservative politicians have so fully embraced, a dangerous ideology that has in real terms only deepened death and destruction around the world.

Stefan Christoff is a writer, community organizer and musician living in Montreal@spirodon

Source: http://www.mediacoop.ca/story/gunmen-ottawa-questioning-canadian-militarism/31978

Unilateralism and Chutzpah

Michel Warschawski — 2014-11-02T11:48:09Z

The word 'chutzpah' cannot be translated into English. As an essential part of human behaviour, however, it has entered the daily language of many East Coast Americans or, more precisely, in its Yiddish pronunciation: 'chutzpeh'. Chutzpah is exaggerated self confidence, often with a lack of consideration for the other.

Chutzpah is an essential component of the Israeli psyche, and Israeli chutzpah has no limits. Take, for example, Benjamin Netanyahu. Last week he had the chutzpah to demand an invitation to theinternational conference for the reconstruction of Gaza, held in Cairo. After having launched a murderous attack against the civilian population of Gaza, killing more than 2000 people and destroying thousands of homes, the Israeli prime minister now wants to be part of the international reconstruction team… in order to control its work and to impose Israeli vetos. "Have you killed and also taken possession?" asks the Prophet Elijah in the First Book of Kings…

This is, however, small chutzpah. Much bigger is Netanyahu's accusation of “unilateralism” against Palestinain President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas recently announced that if peace negotiations are not resumed soon, he will announce in 2016 the establishment of the State of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza, and request its international recognition. A unilateral step, without asking Netanyahu's permission!

As everyone knows, in the past four decades all Israeli steps have been taken after consultation with the Palestinians and with their authorisation… Hundreds of settlements, land confiscations, home demolitions, mass arrests and several bloody military aggressions – all these misdeeds were implemented in a bi-lateral mode!

Indeed, there is no limit to the Israeli leader's chutzpah...

Unilateralism was also an Israeli argument in its international diplomacy, requiring that no state would take an initiative without Israeli consent. It seems that the Israeli capacity to blackmail the international community is over: Sweden just recognized the Palestinian state and the British Labor Party voted for its recognition. Without asking Israeli authorization. Unilaterally. What chutzpah!

Michel Warschawski (Mikado) is an Israeli anti-Zionist activist. He led the Marxist Revolutionary Communist League until its demise in the 1990s, and co-founded the Alternative Information Center.

Source: http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/michael-warschawski/81-unilateralism-and-chutzpah

The Movement's Strategic Challenges

Gustave Massiah — 2014-11-02T11:45:32Z

Since the publication of Une stratégie altermondialiste, history has shifted into high gear. We can say that the hypotheses and proposals of the book have been confirmed, together with their uncertainties and contradictions. They now need to be specified in light of recent events. The deepening of the structural crisis is confirmed and the ruling class has intensified its violence to maintain its power and privileges. This goes hand in hand with the exasperation of peoples who are reacting to and changing situations without yet succeeding in radically transforming them. The future is taking shape. Globalisation is changing as the differentiation between each major region is causing the beginning of a political continental shift. These geopolitical changes are signalling an upheaval of the world order. These developments are challenging the Alterglobalist Movement and questioning the World Social Forum process. They are facing new movements that are opening up broad perspectives. The strategic issues still feature the necessary invention of new relationships between power and politics.

The Global Situation

The global situation features a crisis that is worsening. The financial aspect of the crisis is the most obvious and it has caused open food, energy, climate, monetary, etc. crises. The structural crisis involves four aspects:

• economic and social, such as social inequalities and corruption;
• environmental, with a threatened planetary ecosystem;
• geopolitical, with the end of US hegemony, the crisis of Japan and Europe and the rise of new powers; and
• ideological, with the questioning of democracy, as well as xenophobic and racist upsurges.

In fact, there are three interlocked crisis:

• the crisis of neoliberalism, as a phase of capitalist globalisation;
• a crisis of the capitalist system itself, combining the specific contradiction of the production mode, that of capital versus labour, with the contradiction between the productivist mode and the constraints of the planetary ecosystem;
• a crisis of civilisation, which follows from the questioning of the relationship between the human species and nature that defined Western modernity and has marked some of the foundations of contemporary science.

The peoples' resistance movement has intensified the crisis of neoliberalism. It has confirmed the role of social and cultural struggles in the exhaustion of this phase of capitalist globalisation. Social inequalities, unemployment and the deterioration of working conditions have reduced popular consumption levels and opened up a crisis of “overproduction.” Resorting to overindebtedness has reached its limits. Through the extension of the derivative financial markets, it has contaminated every securities market. The “subprime” explosion marked the transition from household debt to banking institution debt. The States' rescuing of banks launched the public debt crisis. The reduction of deficits through austerity plans is supposed to produce an exit to this crisis that doesn't affect profits and maintains shareholder privileges and the control of world capital markets. Popular resistance movements are challenging this exit.

Meanwhile, changes are making their way that will have long-lasting effects. Among these changes, even in the midst of the crisis, there are extraordinary scientific and technological disruptions, particularly in information technologies and biotechnologies. The cultural revolution carried by the ecological movement is exacerbating the confrontation between two broad orientations: that of increasing emancipation and that of domesticating progress in the service of exploitation and alienation.

It is not always easy to take stock of how strongly neoliberalism has been shaken even though it still remains dominant. A long-term view of the movements gives us the required perspective. The development of the labour movement started in the middle of the 19th Century. It experienced a long period of progress from 1905 to 1970. Despite the wars and fascism, it realised revolutions in Russia, China and several other countries. Through its alliance with the national liberation movements, it almost encircled the colonial powers. It imposed social contracts and the Welfare State in the countries of the capitalist centre. A forty-year period of defeats and rollbacks for the social movements started in 1970 in the decolonised countries, countries that underwent revolutions and industrialised countries. The current disruptions and the crisis could very well represent the end of this long period of regression, without being able to predict exactly what the future has in store.

Possible Futures

The exhaustion of neoliberalism doesn't necessarily mean an exit beyond capitalism. It will lead to a new phase of capitalist globalisation with a new logic, its contradictions and new anti-systemic forces. In the longer term, a confrontation between several possible future outcomes, several worldviews will resolve the structural crisis. In their strategy, the movements have taken position regarding the different possible outcomes and their underlying concepts. These were specified in the debates of the Peoples Summit organised by social movements as a counterpoint to the June 2012 Rio+20 Heads of State Conference. Three horizons and three concepts came out of the debate:

• the reinforcement of neoliberalism through the financialisation of nature;
• a reorganisation of capitalism based on public regulation and social modernisation; and
• a rupture leading to an ecological, social and democratic transition.

On the ground, these three logics are structured in specific ways.

The first concept it that of the financialisation of Nature. This was exposed in a working document prepared by the United Nations and States for Rio+20. In its vision, the exit to the crisis requires the development of an “unlimited market.” It bases the extension of the world market, called the green market, on the financialisation of Nature, the commoditisation of life and the generalisation of privatisations. This approach recognises that Nature produces essential services (it captures carbon, purifies the water, etc.). But it considers that the degradation of these services is caused by the fact that they are free. To improve them, they need to be commoditised and owned. According to this viewpoint, only private property can ensure the proper management of Nature, which would be handed to major financialised multinational corporations. The idea would then be to restrict references to fundamental rights that could weaken the markets' pre-eminence. International law would be subordinated to business law.

The second concept is that of the Green New Deal, which is promoted by renowned establishment economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and Amartya Sen, who are often said to be neo-Keynesians. It is based on controlling the “green economy” and involves a radical reform of capitalism through public regulation and income distribution. This alternative is still little known because it implies a confrontation with the prevailing logic, that of the world capital market, which rejects Keynesian references and is not willing to accept any inflation that would reduce profit levels. It should be recalled that if the New Deal was adopted in 1933, it was not fully applied before 1945, after the end of the Second World War.

The third concept is one that social and citizens movements made explicit in the World Social Forum process. It promotes a rupture, that of the social, ecological and democratic transition. It puts forward new concepts and new ways of producing and consuming, including:

• common goods and new forms of property,
• the struggle against patriarchy,
• control of finance,
• the end of the debt system,
• well-living and prosperity without growth,
• the reinvention of democracy,
• common and differentiated responsibilities, and
• free public services based on rights.

Societies and the world would be based on access to rights for all and equality of rights.

The movements' strategy defines alliances with respect to these possible futures. The most urgent task is to unite those who refuse the first concept, that of the financialisation of Nature. All the more so since, despite the exhaustion of neoliberalism, the imposition of the prevailing system could very well lead to a form of war neo-conservatism. Such an alliance is possible because the social movements are not indifferent to the improvements in employment and purchasing power that a Green New Deal could produce. But many movements have noted that public regulation of this type is impossible as long as the current balance of power remains. In addition, they consider that capitalist productivist growth, even when regulated, must necessarily take into account the limits of the global ecosystem. Over time, and if the threat of war neo-conservatism can be avoided, a positive confrontation will eventually oppose the promoters of the Green New Deal and those of going beyond capitalism. The actual alliances that will be developed will depend on the situation of each country and major region.

Differentiation of the World's Major Regions

Social movements are confronted with the evolution of the globalisation process. The financial bourgeoisie still remains in power and the prevailing logic, that of financialisation. But globalisation is evolving and its contradictions are increasing. This can be seen in the growing differentiation between the major regions of the world, a continental drift of sorts. Each major region has its own change dynamics and social movements are trying to adapt to these new situations. This is changing the conditions for the convergence of movements.

In Latin America, a broad cultural revolution is sweeping the continent. It is reshaping societies as the Latino, Afro-American and Indian cultures are imposing themselves and even emerging in North America. These movement are influencing development-centric or “developmentalist” regimes that are attempting to establish post-neoliberal policies, policies that are in no way anti-capitalist and combine pledges to the global capital market and national social policies together with wealth redistribution. They result in the trivialisation of Alterglobalism and fragmentation of social movements.

In several large countries of Asia, differentiated alliances are combining State, national and globalised bourgeoisies. The social movement is organising around workers who are struggling to defend their rights and income. Attempts are also made to create specific and contradictory alliances with State bourgeoisies who share control over the productive apparatus with the private bourgeoisie and multinationals.

In the Middle East, the new cycle of struggles and revolutions has opened a period of strong contradictions. The movements are divided in power struggles between military regimes and emerging political forces inspired by Islam. These situations are favourable to an instrumentalisation by major powers who are seeking to compensate for the fall of their dictator allies by exploiting situations and diverting mobilisations into civil wars.

In Africa, the rush for raw materials and land grabbing and the multiplication of the resulting conflicts and wars is disrupting the economy and the liveliness of movements. The second phase of decolonisation will need to help the African peoples to seize opportunities by imposing public powers that are concerned about their sovereignty and democratic freedoms.

In North America, the situation features the hegemony crisis of the United States and its allies. New movements, such as Occupy and the Quebec student movement, are facing the violent reaction of economic powers and witnessing the disturbing rise of conservatism.

In Europe, the movements have three main challenges: lack of job security; rising racist and xenophobic ideologies; and no clearly defined alternative European project that would resolve the impasses of the prevailing European project. The European social movement is having an hard time defining a common position regarding Europe's deteriorating economic and geopolitical status.

Confronted with the new situation and the vigour of the conservative reaction, movements are demonstrating very strong combativeness and a lot of creativity. They have yet to redefine the new forms and priorities they wish for the convergence of international struggles. This is the key issue in the debate in the spaces of the Social Forum process.

The Geopolitical Disruption of the World

In the analyses and mobilisations related to the crisis and transition, the geopolitical dimension is often neglected. It is too strongly subordinated to the economic and social dimensions even though conflicts and wars remind us that geopolitics can determine social situations and their outcome.

The dramatic changes in the world are confirming the crisis of Western and US hegemony. This does not mean the end of their domination. This period started with the implosion of the Soviet empire and the end of a world organised around a relative balance between two superpowers.

New powers are participating in these sweeping changes. But these “emerging” countries do not form an homogeneous group. They are not neutralising the current domination, which remains a relevant characteristic to understand the state of the world and relations between countries. But this domination is evolving and geopolitical relations are changing. The new powers are imposing themselves in major regions and are contributing to their differentiation.

The nature of the emerging economies is contributing to the changing world economy. In the decade of the 2000s, several countries asserted themselves with sustained growth rates, positive trade balances, and large currency reserves. These countries, of which there are about 30 worldwide, resisted the 2008 crisis. After the emergence of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), a new group of countries has asserted itself, the CIVET (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt and Turkey). This group of countries features young populations, diversified economies, sustainable debt levels and a relative political will. They continue to benefit from strong foreign investments and special attention on the part of multinationals. In addition, let's not forget the geopolitical role of some rentier States such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

These countries are initiating changes in the new international division of labour. Even if confrontations related to research and new technologies are intensifying and there can be drops in the growth rate, it is unlikely that the reorganisation of trade and redistribution of wealth will bring us back to the previous situation. The world ruling class is already being reconstructed with financiers from the new economic powers. This will have a major geopolitical impact.

The geopolitical upheaval first has impacts at the economic level. Emerging economies state they are in favour of an open economy but don't let the financial market steer investments and set prices and exchange rates. Economic policies assign a strategic intervention role to the State. They don't break with the world capital market, but try to control its impact in particular through public investment funds. They seek new economic policies that combine compliance with neoliberal constraints and partial wealth redistribution that reduces poverty but doesn't make up for inequalities.

In some countries, emerging economies are leading to sovereignty aspirations that spread to the geopolitical realm. The issue then becomes military as well as economic. The next decade could very well see a conflict between China and the United States. Movements are faced with the very difficult issue of new military strategies, that of an endless war and systematic destabilisation. The military strategy is evolving. It is multiplying conflicts in order to contain the new powers. It is extending destabilisation to countries with raw materials and takes into account the new theatres. The cyber-war has already started and the hunt for whistleblowers is part of it.

In Durban, in March 2013, at the fourth BRICS heads of State summit, for the first time ever, a counter-summit was organised by movements from these very countries. Relations were established with the Tunis WSF. The call for this counter-summit included the question: “BRICS: Anti-imperialist, sub-imperialist or in between?” The social movements of emerging countries have several demands: social negotiation; democratisation; the rejection of domination and external ukases. These movements will play a central role in the redefinition of the Alterglobalist Movement.

The Alterglobalist Movement

The Alterglobalist Movement proposes a movement-based approach to politics. This movement is defined as the anti-systemic movement of the last phase of capitalist globalisation, neoliberalism, and an historic movement that extends and renews the major movements of preceding periods: the civil and political rights movement, the workers movement, the women's rights movement, the decolonisation movement, the democratic freedoms movement, the environmental movement, the First Nations movement, etc. The Alterglobalist Movement is being built through the convergence of movements around a few principles:

• the diversity and legitimacy of all struggles against oppression,
• the strategic demand of access to rights for all and equality of rights, and
• a new political culture bringing together individual and collective commitments.

The Alterglobalist Movement is more than just the World Social Forums. In the World Social Forums, which are strong moments of the WSF process, two concerns are present: defining immediate measures required to address the effects of the crisis on living conditions of the popular strata and the need to define an alternative orientation. These two concerns define strategic thinking and the integration of the urgent issues with that of structural transformation.

Many immediate proposals have been put forward at the Forums in the last ten years, including:

• eliminating tax and legal havens;
• taxing financial transactions;
• separating deposit banks from business banks;
• nationalising the financial sector;
• prohibiting derivatives markets;
• redistributing income; and
• providing universal social protections.
•
These proposals are not revolutionary in and of themselves. Establishment economists and even some governments today support these proposals. But they haven't followed up their statements with actions because such measures require a rupture with neoliberal dogma and the dictatorship of financial markets. These forces are still dominant. They will not accept to relinquish their huge privileges without a fight.

The alternative that has come out of the World Social Forums is that of access to rights for all and equality of rights from the local level all the way to the world level. Each society and the entire world can be organised differently from the prevailing logic of subordination to the global capital market. Social movements are in favour of a rupture, that of a social, ecological and democratic transition. They are pushing forward new concepts and ways of producing and consuming. This rupture has today already started in struggles on the ground. Creativity arises from resistance and concrete emancipation practices, which, at all levels, foreshadow the alternatives.

The process must help the movements reinforce their struggles and mobilisations and set them in the global context. In the first years of the WSF, actions directed towards international institutions and international law extended the large mobilisations of the late 1990s. The WSF process should support the global mobilisation against financial power, the global capital market, economic power, multinationals, political power and international institutions. Progress in these fields is clearly a necessity and new proposals are required.

Diverse political debates constantly take place within the WSF process. In the early years of the process, participants were polarised between an “anti-neoliberal” line and an “anti-capitalist” line. This debate lost some of its acuteness as the need to go beyond capitalism became an increasingly popular position. A second discussion arose between those who are satisfied with the forum space and others who want other “International” initiatives. This debate also lost some of its intensity since it has been acknowledged that possible extensions do not call into question the interest of the forum space and the need to transform it. This difference overlaps with that of extensions giving priority to national alliances between certain governments and their national social movements. A third difference tends to make a distinction between social movements and NGOs. This distinction is faced with the problem of determining whether certain citizens movements are social movements or NGOs. In addition, some NGOs are reformist and others, radical, and the same goes for social movements. None of these distinctions lacks interest or relevance, but they have not polarised the process around two clear-cut positions structuring the forums' political debates.

The WSF Process

The World Social Forum process is spreading. The new political culture is permeating initiatives and mobilisations far beyond the process. The diversity of movements and their convergence, self-organised activities, and the search for non-hierarchical forms of authority are all becoming accepted models.

The March 2013 Tunis World Social Forum was an huge success. About 70,000 people participated belonging to 5,045 organisations and associations from 128 countries, including 1,750 Tunisian organisations. This forum featured the strong participation of women, youth and migrants. It also saw the first massive meeting of movements from the Maghreb-Machrek region. The organisation of the forum was very open. The FTDES (Forum Tunisien pour les Droits Économiques et Sociaux, Tunisian forum on economic and social rights) insisted on including in the preparation of the WSF the Maghreb/Machrek Social Forum organising committee as well as any member of the International Council that wished to do so. The Forum was led by Tunisian society, which was still under the spell of a great revolutionary moment. Every Tunisian political and cultural current participated and the Forum was for the most part spared from a confrontation between Islamists and lay persons.

With 1,700 registered activities, groupings made it possible to hold 1,014 activities. Thirty-five convergence meetings were organised. These activities give an idea of what the social movements are discussing at the present time. Even if practically every possible topic was addressed, about forty of them stood out that are structuring the debates of the international civil society movement: migrations, women's rights, youth, debt, financial crisis, labour and social protection, open-source software, extractivism, climate, agriculture, conflicts and wars, religion and emancipation, culture, education, health, etc.

Specific events are held at the World Social Forum (World Forum on Science and Democracy, Forum of Local Authorities, Forum of Parliamentarians, Labour Forum, Free Media Forum, etc.) as well as other activities related to other past or upcoming events (Rio+20, Migrants Forum, Free Palestine Forum, Russell Tribunal on Palestine, Iraq Forum, Peace and Disarmament Forum, Florence+10 on the European social movement, Peoples Social Forum of Canada, Sarajevo Peace Event 2014, etc.). Between each World Social Forum event, the list of thematic, regional and national forums is getting longer; there were about fifty such events in 2012 and early 2013. National and regional forums explore avenues of political transformation and discuss how regimes change and examine the relationship between movements and States. In addition, local Social Forums are being held in numerous countries.

There is a contradiction in the WSF debates tied to the presence of two groups of people: very well informed activists and newcomers. The debates must inform on issues and at the same time examine them in depth. The proliferation of forums related to the overall process has improved the quality of the debates. These forums refine the strategic focus on equality of rights and mobilisation against the logic of capitalism. They bear and anticipate a new generation of rights ( “rights of Nature,” freedom of movement, food sovereignty, etc.). They put forward public policy proposals and allow discussions on concrete emancipation practices. The task consists in creating another world now based on the alternatives and ruptures that are required to reach this other world.

Organisation of the Process and Role of the International Council

The organisation of the process is always under discussion. Questions about the future of the International Council and its role remain unanswered. To define its role, it is necessary to go back to the objectives of the World Social Forum process. This process is that of a world space for the convergence of social and citizen movements that share the principles outlined in the Charter of the WSF. The convergence of movements can take on several forms. The International Council does not coordinate the movements. Rather it facilitates the convergence of their international action. The debate on the International Council, its nature, composition and functions is on the agenda. What organisational form needs to be defined to ensure the process's continuity and development?

A meeting of the International Council (IC) was held in Casablanca from December 16 to 18, 2013, with 140 participants, including 45 women and 47 IC members (38 movements) from 23 countries. This meeting was very productive. The meeting of the organising committee of the Maghreb-Machrek Social Forum that immediately preceded the International Council confirmed the vitality of the region's social and citizen movements participating in the process. The region is a leader of the WSF process and has confirmed its commitment in its deployment. Political developments in the region were the focus of an intense debate that will continue at the 2015 WSF in Tunis.

The process is not weakening. There are now several proposals to organise a World Social Forum in the Maghreb region, in India and North America. The proliferation of national, regional and thematic forums shows that the process is strengthening. There is a rise in local Social Forums (in Brazil, Belgium, France and Quebec). There are also numerous events linked to the process. The IC was pleased to note that 33 events, including regional, national and thematic forums on every continent were planned for 2014. Two weeks after the IC, the number of events had risen to 42. The IC highlighted the special importance of the Social Forum process in the Maghreb in 2014 as well as the Peoples Social Forum (Ottawa, August 21-24, 2014) as important steps towards the March 2015 World Social Forum in Tunis and the August 2016 World Social Forum in Montreal. Regular updates are available on the open-fsm website at http://openfsm.net/projects/wsf2012-support/wsf2014-calendar.

A decision was made regarding the upcoming WSFs. “We are beginning a new collaboration and solidarity process between the South and North, between old and new generations of social players. This process will be developed by having the preparatory processes of the different WSF events work together in an integrated fashion. For 2015, we have decided to hold the next WSF in March in Tunis. As for 2016, we have gladly received and accepted the commitment of the Quebec Collective to work on organising a WSF event in Montreal in August. We are continuing our discussions with Asian movements on their joining the process, depending on their specific situation and interest (including the possibility of a 2016 WSF event with two hosts cities, one in Canada and the other in Asia).”

One of the upcoming IC meetings will be held in Tunis in December 2014 or January 2015. Another will be held some time between March and August 2014 for which four possible hosts have been shortlisted: Brasilia; Sarajevo; Montreal; and Nepal.

At its Casablanca meeting, the IC renewed its work on several topics: decisions on the upcoming WSFs; rebuilding the IC membership; moving of the secretariat to Tunis, the host city of the next WSF; and creation of open working groups.

The IC has decided to create a working group to broaden and extend its membership. This rebuilding requires a more precise definition of the IC. It is an open assembly of social and citizen movements that are ready to actively participate in the organisation and development of the WSF process. To broaden itself, the IC would seek contributions from movements that have participated in the organising committees of the WSF and of any of the forums and events related to the process. The proposal is that there be three member categories to which each member may chose to belong to:

• Active members make a commitment to actively participate in IC operations and activities. They promise to make a contribution in order to ensure the secretariat's self-sufficiency. This can be a financial contribution according to their capacity, or a contribution in kind by taking on tasks.
• Associate members support the process without being active members. A decision needs to be made on whether associate members can participate or not in the consensus decision-making process, in addition to active members.
• Observer status is for movements that want to attend IC meetings but cannot, or do not wish to, be active.

The IC has also created a systematisation and accumulation working group based on a proposal from Brazil to digitalise documents of the WSF since its inception and the proposal of local Social Forums presented by the Ivry local Social Forum.

The reconstruction of the IC depends on the process's evolution. In fact, the debate on the status of the WSF process reflects the debate on the movements' situation and strategy. The World Social Forum remains an extraordinary convergence space for movements. It is a worldwide meeting place. Its main objective is to define a global strategy for movements, an international strategy adapted to the new period. Movements need to define a new global strategy and the WSF can help them in this process.

Recent changes feature a differentiation between the various major regions of the world. This differentiation is reinforced by the hegemony crisis of the United States and Europe. Emerging powers are seeking to increase their influence as leaders of their region. Social movements are confronted with this change and the differentiated strategies used by the various dominant forces they are facing. This situation is helping fragment the movements and represents a challenge for the Alterglobalist Movement. The IC must show a balanced approach towards all regions by being geopolitically open towards movements from emerging power as well as towards new movements. One possible response is to better organise the WSF process by major region, giving more visibility and space to the major regional Social Forums. One of the proposals is to organise at least one forum by major region every three years.

The New Movements

Since 2011, massive, almost insurrectional, movements have shown popular exasperation. Popular revolts share a common understanding of the nature of the structural crisis that has been officially recognised since 2008. But movements are not born on the basis of such an analysis. Popular explosions are triggered by unexpected issues and then extend themselves in time.

These movements are tied to the new cycle of struggles and revolutions that started in 2011, three years ago in Tunis, and then spread to Egypt and the Middle-East, crossed the Mediterranean Sea, reaching Southern Europe, Spain, Portugal and Greece. It found new life by crossing the Atlantic with Occupy Wall Street, London and Montreal. It took on broader forms in many countries of the World, in Chile, Canada, Senegal, Croatia, around the bankruptcy of education systems and the generalisation of indebtedness among the young. It re-emerged in mobilisations in Turkey, Brazil and Egypt.

A new generation is rising that is asserting itself in the public space, occupying city squares. It is less youth movement defined as an age group than a cultural generation that is taking stock of the current situation and acting to transform it. It is revealing deep social transformations related to the mass education of societies that has produced a brain drain, on the one hand, and massive unemployment among graduates, on the other. Migrations are linking this generation to the world and its contradictions in terms of consumption, cultures and values. They are reducing the isolation and confinement of youth. Unemployed graduates are building a new class alliance between the children of the lower classes and those of the middle classes. The new student movements are signalling the bankruptcy of education systems throughout the world. Neoliberalism has broken the promise of education leading to full employment and the relationship between living well and consumption. Moreover, excessive debt, particularly that of students, has violently thrown the new generations into job insecurity and precariousness.

Through its demands and creativity, this generation is building a new political culture. It is enriching the ways in which determinants of social structuring can be linked together: social classes and strata, religions, national and culture references, gender and age identities, migrations and diasporas, territories. It is testing new forms of organisation by mastering digital and social networks, and asserting self-organisation and horizontality. It is trying to redefine, in different contexts, forms of autonomy between movements and political authorities. It is searching for ways of linking the individual and the collective. This is probably where various social networks are bearing new cultures, such as open software collectives that can collectively lead struggles and at the same time watchfully protect their individual independence. The taking back of public spaces is the expression of a demand for popular sovereignty. The occupied squares are renewed agoras. We occupy and we exchange, not for the right to vote, which always remains important but is seldom sufficient. This process is not changing the relation to politics, but rather it is redefining politics itself.

Economic power and political power, and their collusion, have been pointed out for causing the crisis. What was unmasked is the dictatorship of financial power and the “low-intensity democracy” it has created. Defiance towards established political parties and traditional forms of doing politics has already been expressed by the Spanish “Indignados” (“You do not represent us”) and the Occupy movement (“You are the 1%, we are the 99%”). It has now spread to Brazil. This defiance is expressed in the systematic condemnation of systemic corruption. The fusion of politics and finance has structurally corrupted the entire political class. The rejection of corruption goes beyond the world of finance to reach politics. How can trust in the system be maintained when the same people, sometimes with different faces, apply the same policies, those of financial capitalism. The subordination of politics to finance calls into question the independence of the political class.

These movements are spontaneous, radical and heterogeneous. Some observers claim that these movements have failed because they don't have a perspective or strategy and haven't created an organisation. This criticism needs to be discussed more in depth. It is lacking because the most ancient of these movements is only three years old. These movements do not reject all forms of organisation. They are testing new ones. They showed their interest in organising the mobilisations, reacted quickly the situations and expressed new demands. They achieved all of this even if the discussion on the relationship between organizational forms and power has not yet started and still has a long way to go before being completed.

The new social movements have their own dynamics. Ties exist with the older movements of Alterglobalism, but they are diffuse. All the more so since neither of these two groups is homogenous nor do they have any forms of representation allowing formal discussions. Many participants in these new movements (Indignados, Occupy, Red Squares) came to Tunis. They decided to mark their differentiation by either participating fully in the WSF, or creating the Global Occupy Forum and Occupy WSF initiatives.

The first linkages have to do with the slogans that were made explicit in Tunis and Cairo and that other movements later completed. These slogans refer first of all to the refusal of social misery and inequalities, respect of freedoms, dignity, the rejection of forms of domination, and linking the environmental emergency with the social emergency. Numerous movements refined the condemnation of corruption; demands for “real democracy,” environmental constraints, and the control over raw materials; and opposition to land grabbing. Linkages were also present in the always difficult attempts to build a new political culture.

These movements have not organised themselves within the Alterglobalist Movement, even if many ties were established right away. Our hypothesis is that this cycle of struggles represents a new phase of the Alterglobalist Movement. An this means that we need to consider that the Alterglobalist Movement, an historic and anti-systemic movement, has already been through several phases since the triumph of neoliberalism:

• in 1980, in countries of the South opposing the debt, structural adjustments, the IMF and World Bank;
• in 1995, with the struggles against job insecurity, unemployment and the dismantling of social protections; and
• in 2000, with the World Social Forum process.

Today, the new movements are marking a new phase that does not cancel out preceding phases, but rather extends and renews them. This new phase is forcing the movement to transform itself.

The new movements represent the transition between the protest movements of the last phase of the cycle opened by neoliberalism, on the one hand, and the anti-systemic movements of the upcoming phase, on the other. It is assumed that both sets of movements will participate in the changes leading to the creation of the new period's movements. This new period will follow the crisis of neoliberalism whose outcome is still unknown. The older movements of Alterglobalism will need to learn the lessons of their successes and limits.

A need to Reinvent Politics

In a certain way, the WSF process has helped delegitimize neoliberalism. But this success has not been reflected in the political realm. Ideological confrontations and the struggle against the prevailing cultural hegemony are necessary but they aren't sufficient. The movements cannot change society without taking politics into consideration, without raising the issue of power and reinventing forms of power. This central issue of the strategy debate was extensively examined in the book. Recent events show the importance of approaches on political parties and the State; revolutionary times and transitions; the democratic issue and elections.

In questioning political power, the role of political parties is important. Alterglobalism has defended the movements' need to be at arm's length from parties. This isn't sufficient to fully define the relationship between movements and parties. The relationship is defined on the ground in situations that feature opportunities and constraints. Movements acknowledge that parties often pave the way to local, national and international political decisions. They work with parties without becoming their cog. The independence of the movements is not a tactical issue. Movements participate in the separation of powers that is required to respect the individual and collective rights that define democracy.

It is through the concept of the political party that several historic issues took shape:

• that of the collective and organic intellectual;
• the relation between the State and institutions;
• the conquest and control of power; and
• elections and democracy.

The discussion on political parties is undergoing a much needed deconstruction phase, in order to sort out their different functions. The challenge for movements is to renew organisational forms by taking into account their resistance to the ruling classes, their control over confrontations when ruptures occur and ways of renewing power and politics.

In this renewal, two trends need to be taken into account.

The first is the historic repudiation of parties and the party form with respect to the objective of going beyond capitalism, the historic defeat of the Soviet Empire, and the relationship to State power and its transformation.

The second has to do with the defiance of politics and the massive popular repudiation of the political class that the new movements made explicit.

The issue of politics, that of power, is not exclusively limited to the taking of State power. But this issue cannot be ignored. The associations that are specialised in politics, that is, political parties, have focused their efforts on the State and its institutions. The primary issue is that of the dialectic contradiction of the State, which is an instrument of bourgeois domination and reproduction, but at the same time an instrument of general interest and public and citizen regulation.

Although State intervention remains essential, the task of changing society cannot simply be handed to the State, even if the revolutionisation of the State is assumed. This is related to the debate on the nature of transitions. Transitions are long and contradictory periods. Revolutionary processes are specific moments in time. They are not linear. Ruptures don't occur in a brief “great upheaval.” Transitions involve a confrontation between the old social relations, that have long been dominant and continue to be present even when they are no longer dominant, and the new emerging social relations. These new relations are carried by movements through their resistance, debates on ideas, and new concrete practices. The new social relations being developed feature a refusal of inequalities and discrimination, a demand for equality and freedoms, and struggles for public policies based on equality.

There are two statements in the expression “You do not represent us.” The first one calls into question the oligarchy together with the subordination of politics to finance. The second questions representative democracy, and sometimes, more broadly, representation itself. The reinvention of democracy involves several issues including those of elections, majority rule and world democracy.

The debate on representative democracy versus direct democracy cannot be limited to the issue of participatory democracy. The elections issue is more than simply a question of situations. It also involves election theory. It is hard to imagine democracy without elections and many activists get killed because they are seeking to have elections when dictatorships are prohibiting or manipulating them. But elections aren't sufficient to ensure democracy nor are they the sole feature of democracy. This is a current issue. Isn't organising elections one of the ways to bring back order when faced by an insurrectional movement? In order for a movement-led upheaval to be legitimised in elections, long-term ideological battles first need to be waged in order to advance its ideas and values.

The discussion on revolutions and ruptures is back in the public space, amplified by the new cycle of struggles and revolutions. The ruptures are not definitive. Some situations have been diverted in order to convert popular insurrections into civil wars. Popular revolts against dictatorial regimes are faced with bloody repression and all kinds of manoeuvres by the prevailing and nearby powers.

Part of what is new is making its way at the regional level and is visible only at a generational scale. It is at this scale that the new social and citizen movements are changing situations and creating conditions for possible new changes.

Beyond the required democratisation, there is the issue of an alternative orientation to capitalist globalisation. It involves the major challenge of a new decolonisation phase, which means, beyond State independence, peoples' sovereignty. This orientation places at the forefront issues of natural resource depletion, in particular water, climate, biodiversity, control over raw materials, land grabbing as well as cultural and civilisational renewal.

Progress is being made on essential issues regarding democracy and organisational forms thanks to struggles and mobilisations, research on new practices and sustained development efforts. The stakes of the new revolution are becoming clearer: the definition of new social and cultural relations, new relationships between the human species and Nature, a new phase of decolonisation and the reinvention of democracy.

October, 2014

Israel: First Gaza, Now Jerusalem

Sergio Yahni — 2014-11-02T11:40:18Z

Just like against the Gaza Strip, Israel has launched an offensive against Jerusalem. And just like in the 1980's under General Ariel Sharon, Israel is attempting to re-engineer Middle East politics and erase the Palestians as a political actor.

The Palestinian leadership, Arab governments and international community condemned the new Israeli settlement plans in Jerusalem. Washington warned these actions are “incompatible with the pursuit of peace”, the Kingdom of Jordan said they violate the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Palestinian leadership warned they further inflame tensions in Jerusalem and will “lead to an explosion”.

However, the Israeli leadership is deaf to Palestinian and international warnings regarding the consequences of settlement activities. Less than three months after implementing with impunity a policy of scorched earth in the Gaza Strip, Israel directs its offensive against Jerusalem, and with similar objectives.

The Israeli regime aims to destroy every expression of Palestinian resistance while it pushes President Mahmoud Abbas to become the head of a demilitarized Palestinian autonomy. As seen from Israeli high windows Abbas has no alternative; he either becomes a collaborator with Israel or he will be marked as an international terrorist.

In this offensive the Israeli police, which have become a militarised force acting in the Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, uses surveillance balloons equipped with cameras and other technological gadgets to repress any form of social unrest in the city.

The police plan to deploy more uniformed and undercover forces at trouble spots and at sensitive times, and to utilise technologies for patrolling, detecting, and preventing unrest.

As part of its offensive, the police have embarked on a major recruiting campaign, hoping to sign up young Israelis for a career in law enforcement. Television, radio, newspaper, and website campaigns have kicked off, emphasising the important responsibility police have in keeping peace in the country, as well as the benefits for which police are eligible.

Vowing a vigilante attitude Nir Barkat, the Israeli mayor of Jerusalem, claims credit for the ongoing offensive.

“At my request, the prime minister has instructed to reinforce the police to be able to operate and carry out operations against rioting, including the addition of personnel and special units, using new technology and increasing intelligence”, said Barkat.

Israeli Housing Minister, MK Uri Ariel (Jewish Home), called upon the internal security minister and police commissioner to allow the State “to broaden the control given to police forces in the field”.

MK Ariel is planning to move into a settlement in Silwan, one of the flash points of tensions in the city.MK Ariel is planning to move into a settlement in Silwan, one of the flash points of tensions in the city.

Despite the peaks of violence reached by Israel during the past year, the Israeli government is not presenting a new political perspective. On the contrary, we are witnessing a return to the 1980's attempts by General Ariel Sharon to re-engineer Middle East politics and delete the Palestinians as a political actor.

Sharon plans enjoyed at least partial support by Washington, at least at the early 1980s, but they faced major Israeli opposition, especially after the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

Netanyahu does not have the support of the American administration, but he believes there is a window of opportunity as the US administration is too weak ahead of mid-term elections. Netanyahu is also counting on European difficulties in implementing a continental policy and he totally disregards the Arab political stances on the conflict.

Israeli attempts to abuse its perceived window of opportunity render Jerusalem's Palestinian population as alone as the Palestinian resistance was in Gaza a few months ago. The Palestinian popular committees confront a high-tech and ruthless police force that for the moment won't stop at anything to impose order in the city.

However, it is also clear that the Israeli police are marching to defeat: their actions will only inflate Palestinian resistance without suffocating the indomitable wish for freedom.

Source: http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/special-reports/jerusalem/116-israel-first-gaza-now-jerusalem

Glenn Greenwald in Montreal

Idil isse — 2014-11-02T11:38:25Z

This past month, Glenn Greenwald stopped by Montreal on his Canadian speaking tour. The Concordia University event was a fundraiser for the Freedom of the Press Foundation and began with a trailer of CITIZENFOUR, a film portrait of Edward Snowden, which is being screened on the November 13 by Rencontres Internationales du Documentaire de Montreal (RIDM). Greenwald stood in front of an audience of close to 700 people on the Friday of a week that will become a part of contemporary Canadian history. He was travelling with several bodyguards, more than one would initially think is necessary , however given his role in the publication of top secret documents in recent years, the need for security is not an imaginary one. Greenwald's visit to Canada coincided with the death of a Canadian soldier in Saint Jean sur Richelieu and the shootings in Ottawa which led to the death of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo.

These incidents were quickly linked to terrorist ideology, validating the fears many hold that Canada is a target for extremists. The talk was supposed to be solely on the state of surveillance and the assault on civil liberties, however given the relevance of the events to issues of security/civil liberties, Greenwald began his talk by discussing how events such as these are used to manipulate the emotions of the public to justify the expansion of government powers. The language used and how events are framed are important to recognize; Greenwald noted how often the word terrorism is used and how its use serves a particular purpose. By branding the events in Saint Jean sur Richelieu and Ottawa as acts of terrorism, it invokes certain emotional responses from the public that can then be manipulated to justify the expansion of government powers.

It also serves to legitimize the endless state of war Canada has now found itself in. The decision to join the airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria earlier in the month was not a unanimous one; the branding of the shooting in Ottawa as terrorism can function to generate more support among those who are skeptical. Greenwald also remarks how the word terrorism is used to put an end to debate and how despite it being a word that is used quite often, there exists very little discussion about what it means exactly.

Following the events in Saint Jean sur Richelieu, Greenwald wrote an article that sparked outrage among many Canadians. He responded to the shock many felt of such an act occurring on Canadian soil by pointing out the devastation that Canadian policies have caused in other parts of the world and that an act of “retaliation” should therefore not have come as such a surprise. The response he got to that article was that it was too soon to make such comments and that it was not only inappropriate but insensitive. Greenwald addresses what he refers to as the “too soon fallacy”; he argues that it is not right to claim that “it is not time for politics” because that essentially allows the government response to be the only response. The Conservative government had no qualms about instantly politicizing the events, so Greenwald argues all that he and others like himself are doing when they are critical of the government response is providing a counter narrative. He insists on the importance of asking the right questions such as ‘what are our policies that may be perpetuating this ongoing violence?'

After having covered the week's events, he moved on to discuss issues of surveillance and privacy. He spoke of his surprise at the media attention his story on CSEC spying on Brazil's Ministry of Mining and Energy. He noted that usually his publication of spying stories attract more attention in the countries being spied on and not particularly in the ones carrying out the spying. Greenwald suspects Canada's spying on Brazil garnered a lot of attention in the Canadian media primarily because many were not even aware of CSEC's existence and also due to cognitive dissonance. Canadians seem to associate mass surveillance and the privacy violations that occur as a result as American issues, so to learn that their country was engaged in similar problematic behavior came as a surprise.

Greenwald went on to stress the importance of privacy and how we should all be concerned at the extensiveness of state surveillance. He argues against the notion that one should not be concerned if they do not have anything to hide. Threats to our privacy are threats to our freedom; people who think they're in a state of surveillance change their behavior and act not out of their own agency but in ways adhering to social convention. A state of surveillance creates a prison of the mind as well as compliant societies. The talk came to a close with Greenwald describing the first time he met Edward Snowden and the impact that Edward Snowden has had on his life. To Greenwald, Snowden's story highlighted the power of the individual and an ‘antidote' to the tempting defeatist attitude one can adopt in the face of such an overwhelming injustice. A fruitful Q&A session brought to an end an event filled with timely commentary.