Alternatives International

Neo-Fascism: The Beginning of a New Chapter in Europe's History?

Suzanna Khoshabi — 2013-06-02T22:43:41Z

Scattered across seven years, seven cities, and seven professions, nine of the victims of the ‘Doener murders' had one thing in common: a shared status as immigrants in Germany.

It took the German authorities what many consider to be a surprisingly long time to connect these politically motivated murders. The press, on the otherhand, were quick to connect the Turkish ethnicity of 8 of the victims as they named the murders after the popular Turkish Doener dish served at snack stands around Germany. The reasons for the tenth and final murder of a German policewoman are still under investigation.

Beate Zschaepe went on trial this month as the last living member of the neo-Nazi cell known as the National Socialist Underground, allegedly responsible for the murders. The case is bringing up recurrent issues in Germany that have been especially delicate and difficult to confront.

However, these issues of neo-Nazis and xenophobia are not unique to Germany.

Political scientist Francis Fukuyama considered Europe to be the continent closest to crossing the ‘End of History' finish line: liberal democracy, he argued, was the conclusion of man's political evolution. Fascism, then, could have been explained away as a small stumble on the path to utopia—except that extreme right-wing parties are currently seeing a revival again in many European countries.

Focusing primarily on issues of immigration, national identity, Euroscepticism and economic policy, these nationalist parties have recently gained an increase` in voters and support. Although in some cases, parties on the far right still remain on the peripherals, in others they represent a significant fraction of the electorate.

In Hungary, for example, 16.71 percent of the vote went to the far-right Jobbik Party in the April 2010 general elections, making it the third biggest party in the country. While party leader Gabor Vona's ‘Hungarian Guard' paramilitary fringe group was officially banned, it still works in practice as a voluntary civil service whose duties include patrolling against crime in Romani neighbourhoods and villages. Along with a firm antagonism towards Hungary's Roma population, anti-Semitism is also one of the party's defining factors. They have also said that if they held power, banning dual Israeli-Hungarian citizenship is something they would consider. Resisting global domination by Zionists is an openly acknowledged part of the party's agenda.

Greece's neo-Fascist Golden Dawn Party won just under 7 percent of the vote in May 2012. Despite its newcomer status to parliament, its associations with racism, Nazism and violence have created a media stir. The party banner is suspiciously reminiscent of the banner of the Nazi Party, though Golden Dawn claims it is an ancient Greek symbol. The Party denies allegations of violence, yet as the Greek economy continues to flounder, the party's nationalist rhetoric and populist policies are winning it more support. Hearkening back to the glory days of Ancient Greece and linking National Socialism to Ancient Greek values, these strategies are having a soothing effect on voters who feel that Greece has fallen victim to unfair immigration and economic policies.

France is another example of a country having a far-right party gaining significant popularity. The Front National is now the third largest party in the country, and won 11 percent of the vote in the March 2011 local elections. Unsurprisingly, it also opposes immigration—particularly from Muslim countries that the party claims threaten French secular values. The Party's leader, Marie Le Pen, is also opposed to dual citizenship. As for economic policy, the Front National calls for Protectionism and for France to leave the euro.

In Austria, the Freedom Party of Austria wants an end to immigration. With 25.8 percent of the vote in the 2010 Vienna elections and popularity that has only increased since then, this may be something they could one day achieve. The party is notorious for its low tolerance of Muslims: party leader Heinz-Christian Strache advocates a ban on building mosques in the country, and he sees the ethnically Austrian population as victims of ‘inverse racism' from its immigrant Muslim communities. Like many of his fellow far-right counterparts, he also must constantly deny allegations that he is racist or a Nazi supporter.

The Italian Lega Nord Party accepts immigration, though only from Christian countries, so that the socially conservative values it supports can be upheld. The UK was already dealing with the British National Party—which up until recently required its members to be ethnically British—and the English Defence League's anti-Islam demonstrations, when the UK Independence Party joined the far-right ranks with sudden electoral success in 2012 and 2013. The Sweden Democrats party won parliamentary representation in Sweden for the first time in 2010. It can now push to strip the country's indigenous Sami population of their indigenous special rights status.

The list goes on, and the policies are similar. Not all the parties are associated with violence, and in cases such as Beate Zschape and the NSU, the violence came from what many consider to be a terrorist cell rather than a political group.

The EU is undeniably enduring difficult times, and many of these parties have seized their opportunity to gain power and popularity. The Golden Dawn tries to persuade people that the Greek financial crisis will be resolved once the immigrants are gone. In Hungary, the Jobbik party are seen by some as simply a fresh face in politics, who weren't afraid to break taboos speaking out against the Roma and other delicate issues. But although it may be refreshing for disillusioned voters, bold rhetoric can quickly become dangerous.

According to these parties, they aren't racist. They are Nationalist. They aren't white supremacists, they are just want to preserve the traditional white ethnicity of their country. And their racist and often offensive comments are, according to them, taken out of context by the international media.

This week, the EU Commissioner of Home Affairs Cecilia Malmström gave a speech at the ‘We are the Others Conference' in Berlin. “[Migrants] enrich our societies, and always have done. If we forget that, if we appeal to populism rather than engaging with the real issues when we discuss migration and integration, we risk fading into a very dangerous rhetoric,” she said.

The reality of Europe today is a multicultural society, unfortunately one that is economically struggling. But xenophobia and violence are unacceptable reactions to this reality, and they fail to address the real nature of Europe's problems. The European Union is supposed to support human rights, respect and equality for those that live within it. Hopefully, these values of liberal democracy will continue to be upheld.

Crossing the Line: Will the United States Intervene in Syria?

Kathryn Rockwell — 2013-06-02T22:43:37Z

Despite its best efforts, the Obama administration is sliding down a slippery slope towards intervention in Syria. A humanitarian crisis that has cost between 80, 000 and 120, 000 lives, and produced over 2.5 million refugees requires decisive foreign policy action.

The Obama administration has provided the Syrian opposition over six hundred and fifty million dollars in non-military aid. However there is rising pressure to intervene by either ordering air strikes on government targets, arming the opposition, or establishing a no-fly zone to protect the rebels fighting against President Assad.

Interventionists argue that unless the US acts militarily, it will lose global credibility, the death toll in Syria will rise further, and the region will become destabilized, producing a greater chance of militant Islamists seizing power. Pressure has been mounting on the international and domestic levels. Republicans have been particularly vocal about criticizing the administration's inaction. In a senate meeting concerning Syria, John McCain asked, “How many more have to die before you recommend military action?”

Rumors that the Assad regime has crossed Obama's “red line” by using chemical weapons have greatly increased pressure to act decisively. The administration has been intentionally vague, declaring the systematic use of chemical weapons to be “a game changer,” but stopping short of committing to military force. According to a source from the State Department, “No one wanted to say that Assad had crossed the line, because no one wants to deal with it.”

While the Assad regime is known to possess chemical weaponry, there are conflicting reports of whether or not the weapons have been used. Three major US allies: Britain, France and Israel, have concluded that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on several occasions. The US administration has declined to join the analysis, announcing a lack of conclusive evidence in the findings. The administration undoubtedly wishes to avoid repeating the mistake of intervening in Iraq on the basis of faulty intelligence.

The United States is currently burdened with over a $1 trillion debt from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to a recovering economy. There is no shortage of domestic issues that need addressing, so the risk that public support will sour towards another several year military commitments is likely.

With the waning hope of the rebels forming a cohesive counter regime, Obama is left with three unattractive military options.

The first is to erect a no fly zone. If successful, this would reduce further human rights abuses and civilian deaths, by preventing chemical and non-chemical attacks, in addition to preventing the conflict from spilling over and destabilizing the region. However, assuming the Assad regime would be unwilling to relinquish its air force, this would require a large-scale military investment to sustain the operation. The Syrian air defense has been designed to repel Israeli attacks and is much more complex and dense than proponents believe, and attacking it would result in large numbers of American and Syrian casualties.

The second option is to arm the rebels. Britain, France, and vocal Republicans are proponents of this strategy. However, Obama has made it clear that he has little confidence in the rebels. He believes them to be ideologically fractured, lacking in a coherent structure, uncontrollable, and in conflict with one another. Obama fears that arming the rebels could result in a rapid collapse of state institutions, and that the weapons could fall into the hands of Islamist extremists. The administration's worst nightmare is that hostile Islamists could turn Syria into a platform for attacks on Israel with access to chemical weapons, turning the conflict into a region-wide disaster.

The final and least attractive option for the administration is sending troops to seize chemical weaponry facilities. Putting boots on the ground is something the administration wishes to avoid at all costs. This would be enormously expensive, result in loss of life, and would be very unpopular at a domestic level, and quite frankly, by the looks of their track record, largely unsuccessful. The closest the administration would want to come to sending forces, is deploying military personnel with the purpose of training militants, which they have already done in Jordan.

In the Syrian crisis, there are no easy answers. Obama must find a way to deliver a stern and credible threat to the Assad regime to prevent the use of chemical weaponry, without getting sucked into another war. This means he will probably be pressured into choosing the least worst of the three options, arming the rebels. While this is hardly the most effective solution, it will satiate critics for a short while, until things takes a spectacular turn for the worst. One can only hope that this option will work out better for the United States and Syria, than it did in Afghanistan.

Muslim Minorities in Myanmar and Sri Lanka

Bradley Castelli — 2013-06-02T22:43:33Z

In the past year, tensions between Buddhists and Muslims have been rising in both Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Both states are home to minority Islamic ethnic groups that have forcibly assumed the role of scapegoats in their respective post-conflict contexts, while Buddhist majorities are said to be playing the role of the oppressors. Given the dominant global discourses pertaining to these religious groups, these realities are quite confusing, especially from a Western point of view, which is too often informed by catchwords and phrases such as terrorism, Al-Qaeda, Free Tibet and self-immolation. Looking closer into these conflicts contributes to the confusion, but also raises questions that ultimately challenge discourses to look further than supposed religious intolerance and into the ways in which minorities are treated all around the world.

According to Human Rights Watch, the ethnic Muslim Rohingya of Myanmar are victims of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. These crimes have resulted in the forcible displacement of over 125 000 Rohingya since separate violent attacks in May and October, 2012 have taken place. Along with Myanmar government officials, Buddhist monks are alleged to have taken part in the coordination of the attacks and are now playing a leading role in blocking humanitarian assistance to the displaced Rohingya. More shockingly, it is reported that monks have been urging locals not to associate with the group and calling on the government to send the group “back to their native land”. Commonly referred to as Bengalis by the Buddhist majority in Myanmar, the United Nations has described the Rohingya as one of the world's most persecuted minorities, having been denied citizenship rights since 1982 and presently subject to a two-child policy has been enacted to control their population growth.

Just over a year ago in Dambulla, Sri Lanka, a mob of 2000 Sinhalese (led by Buddhist monks) stormed a mosque during Friday prayer, laying waste to the building and everything inside of it. Since then, mosques have continued to be the target of intimidation while a new Sri Lankan Buddhist group, Bodu Bala Sena, has called for a nation-wide boycott of Muslim businesses, as well as a ban on the Hijab and Halal meat certification. Most recently, a popular Muslim-owned clothing store was broken into and vandalized by a mob, who were filmed cheering on a Buddhist monk as he hurled a stone through one of the store's windows. The police were present during the mob attack and did nothing to stop it, reflecting the ways in which Sri Lankan authorities have been turning a blind eye to similar aggressions aimed at the Muslim minority, who are mostly ethnic Moors.

Reflecting on these tragic situations, the Dalai Lama recently told a University of Maryland audience “Killing people in the name of religion is really very sad, unthinkable.” Adding, “Even Buddhists are now involved, in Burma and Sri Lanka also. Buddhist monks...destroy Muslim mosques or Muslim families. Really very sad.”

Despite the lamentations of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, attributing these conflicts and the suffering of Muslim minorities to religious intolerance seems somewhat inadequate. Of course a line can be drawn by way of differentiating between religious traditions, but the conflicts among Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka also reflect inherent qualities that are characteristic of all societies. Racism as a political tool used to justify different types of violence against minorities is a common global practice. Muang Zarni, a Buddhist and human rights activist from Myanmar, stresses that the conflict is economic in nature and is fueled by racism and the stereotypes it creates. He is certain that “This is not about which god they are worshipping, there is an issue of bread and butter here, a very clear economic dimension." The same can be said of the violence directed at Sri Lankan Muslims, who have been a driving force of Sri Lanka's economic growth over the years.

The persecution that Muslims are facing in these two countries is reminiscent of the way Jews were treated in Europe throughout the inter-war years, but is also not unlike the plight of the Palestinians within the illegally occupied territories of Palestine, or the thousands of marginalized indigenous groups throughout the Americas, or the Roma in present-day Europe. The list can go on and on.

Labeling these conflicts as symptoms of Islamophobia keeps these ‘problems' within their respective borders and relieves the rest of the world of assuming responsibility for acting similarly. One can even argue that the real Islamophobia in the matter is a group using an already internationally suspect religion (albeit, through Western rhetoric) as a means to deny people their dignity and inherent rights. What happened to never again?

Another factor worth looking into with regard to these and other conflicts revolves around the way in which we preach tolerance. Surely we can aspire to more than just tolerating those who are different. Tolerance may be a step in the right direction, but it can't stop there. If anything, it should be a stepping-stone toward acceptance, which would ultimately contribute to positive peace, not just a lack of violence.

Kenyan Indemnities and Empire History

Anne Guay — 2013-06-02T22:43:30Z

Last October, three Kenyan elders won the right to claim compensation for their torture in British colonial prison camps after bringing their cases to the London High Court. The scale is of an alleged 10,000 Kenyans who share similar stories of having been raped and tortured by British officials during the 1950's Mau Mau uprising. The Mau Mau were members of the Kenyan Kikuyu tribe who had resisted the British colonizers, clashing with anti-Mau Mau Kikuyu members as well as British loyalists. While the Kikuyu resisted colonial rule and a bloody conflict broke out, insurgents were crushed and forced into inhumane prison camps. Prisoners were victims of castration by the use of pliers; rape with objects such as broken glass, knives and scorpions; and mutilation by the cutting off of ears, fingers, breasts and the gouging of eyes. Today, the UK government is undergoing talks to possibly compensate thousands of Kenyans who had also fell victim to Her Majesty's Torturers.

Negotiations are ongoing in the UK following the April 2012 release of secret documents dating from the colonial era, standing as evidence to prove that soldiers were granted official, state-sanctioned permission to torture detainees. The hidden archives' unearthed secrets are showing that high government officials; the colonial governor, colonial secretary and attorney-general; were well aware of the ongoing atrocities in Kenyan camps. Not only were they aware, but they granted British officers acting out the atrocities with immunity from prosecution, ultimately keeping the torture stories far from the public eye. The Kenyan indemnity case has two historical implications: it changes our current understanding of history and the international justice process.

The London High Court's Justice McCombe confirmed that thousands of files were discovered in the secret Foreign Office from dozens of past colonies, proving that the state-sanctioned torture was common within the empire as a whole, and was not reserved to Kenya. "Britain's extended imperial hangover" may cost tens of millions of pounds in indemnities, drastically raising the stakes. Yet, the implications of the case's win are far greater than monetary. It may mark a breakthrough for holding states accountable for their unlawful activities. Accountability is often avoided based on national security and the breeching of military and state intelligence. But, because "from 1950s Kenya to the War on Terror, the criminal law has failed to hold the state to account," public inquiries and compensation are vital.

The relatively recent surfacing of these documents shows that the UK government has been trying to keep their brutal imperialist history buried deep. Author Panjak Mishra calls it "a counterfeit imperial history" because of its neoconservative repackaging in history books, and not without a humanitarian twist. The repackaged framework pushes ideas that the empire brought free trade (upon devastating local industries), free labour (upon abolishing slavery) and free capital (where it flowed freely towards white settler nations) to its colonies. If these ideas excuse empire actions now, imagine what ideas legitimized the actions then.

George Monbiot explores the thoughts of British imperial theorists throughout the colonial period, in order to explain how such actions come to be accepted by the ruling powers, specifically the elites powerful enough to understand and permit those actions.

Influential theorists upheld such flawed logic as the lighter-skinned races were superior to the darker ones, and on that basis, that the darker-skinned races should be annihilated. These ideas then become a dangerous dominant paradigm, 'othering' the non-dominant group, removing their human qualities, and laying the persuasive rhetorical foundation that would allow the domineering group to think in such a way as to permit and support the brutal oppression of an entire people.

Monbiot points out that Hitler borrowed the same logic in Mein Kampf: "the eastward expansion of the German empire would mirror the western and southern extension of British interests". That Hitler had borrowed Britain's imperial paradigm to justify carrying out a genocide on the Jewish people demonstrates the potential destructive extent of domineering paradigms when these are perpetuated.

In fact, they shared like slogans, in like camps. The Kenyan Ngenya prison camp banners read "labour and freedom", echoing the more familiar slogans of Auschwitz's: "work will set you free", or Lenin's Solovetsky gulag: "through labour—freedom!" The major difference here is an historical one. Hitler's and Lenin's prison camps are no secret but have become common knowledge.

Moreover, Monbiot argues that the country itself is virtually just as much a victim to empire ideology. Kenyan governments following independence have assisted in burying the dark history and refusing the Kikuyu peoples the slightest bit of justice. Its denial of justice for its survivors is an extension of the imperial logic. It mirrors the UK's denial of justice by denial of the historical fact. Therefore, both nations remain burdened by colonialism inasmuch as the denial is a direct effect of the paradigm's logic. As Mishra put it, the victims of imperial power "know... how the colonialist habits of ideological deceit trickle down and turn into the mendacities of postcolonial regimes."

The mere fact that the Kenyan indemnity case is in court is a symbolic victory over the colonial legacy that trickles down to the present day. It means revising the repackaged empire history to include the 'other' perspective. It means that justice in the international arena is not just an abstract concept, but an ideal that can be put to practice. And because, as Mishra claims, "the revelations of atrocities in Kenya are just the tip of an emerging global history of violence," perhaps many more populations suffering in the buried past of colonial brutality can declare their proper victories.

National Food Security Bill Debated in Indian Parliament

Tariqa Tandon — 2013-06-02T22:43:27Z

India's reports on hunger and malnutrition are abysmal. For a rapidly developing country, showing much promise for the future, it still remains a country with one of the highest rates of malnutrition and hunger. While around 30 percent of people live in poverty, many more suffer from problems of malnutrition. According to World Bank statistics, around half of India's children are underweight and 75 percent are anemic. The problem is also serious in pregnant women, with 75 percent of expectant and new mothers suffering from anemia. Malnourishment can have detrimental effects on the development and growth of a healthy population, hindering productivity and economic growth.

In this context of chronic hunger and malnutrition comes the National Food Security Bill (NFSB), proposed by the Congress Party of India. Under the provisions of the bill, subsidized food grains will become a legal right for two-thirds of the population. Moving food security from welfare-based plans to a rights-based approach, the NFSB has been lauded by many, including Nobel laureate Amartya Sen. However, the bill continues to be debated and has not yet passed in the lower house of the Indian parliament, the Lok Sabha, as the opposition has criticized many provisions of the bill, namely the populist face of it.

The opposition claims that the Congress Party is merely trying to appeal to the masses, in an attempt to regain their trust after allegations of corruption and scandals have rocked the government. General elections are to be held next year, and many believe the NFSB to be a ruse through which the Congress Party attempts to secure its position in the next government.

There have also been concerns on the financial strain such a bill would cause on the budget. Under the current provisions of the bill, the total estimated annual food grains requirement is 61.23 million tons and will cost about Rs.1,247.24 billion ($23.13 billion). Critics are unsure of where such funds will come from, and the bill has not provided any concrete plans for the procurement of said funds.
Other concerns have revolved around the failure of the current, welfare-based food security system, the Public Distribution System (PDS).

The failure of the PDS has largely been a result of leakages, mismanagement, and infrastructural underdevelopment. Leakages in the system provided ample opportunities for corruption to fester, while mismanagement of resources combined with infrastructural underdevelopment led to an urban bias in the system, as food grains were unable to reach the more insecure and undernourished residents in rural areas of the country. Other issues also surfaced, including the low quality of food grain provided through the PDS. Critics point that these have not been addressed by the NFSB, and are concerned that the unchanged conditions will remain a reality even under the new plan.

What is the right set of instruments that can be used to counter hunger and malnourishment? This question arises from the debates surrounding the NFSB. Subsidizing food grains will only subdue a symptom, but will fail in curing the disease itself. Hunger and nutrition are multi-dimensional issues, and the problem is not simply solved by granting access to subsidized foods. While around 30 percent of the Indian population lives in poverty, many more are malnourished – a fact highlighted by the NFSB's proposition to provide subsidized food to 67 percent of the population. It is clear that hunger and malnourishment are not the problems of poverty alone - other aspects of it are not being recognized and addressed. Countering the issue of hunger requires more than just providing access to subsidized grain. To even use grain, one needs fuel, shelter and access to safe drinking water. Improving lives of the citizenry is the bigger problem, and the NFSB fails to address the issue of livelihood development.

The impact of the NFSB can be predicted by comparing the NFSB to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), the job guarantee scheme which passed in 2005 in India. The intention was noble - everyone has a right to work. Those adult rural residents that wanted to work but could not find a job would be, if willing, enrolled in unskilled labour for a maximum of 100 days of the year. While this plan provides temporary relief to the unemployed, there is no permanent job creation happening - there is a fault with the development scheme, which focuses on short-term employment rather than long-term job creation. A recent report by the Planning Commission of India recognizes that the past few years of development in India have been marked by a phenomenon of jobless growth. Throughout the years, funding for the scheme has increased, highlighting that more people are relying on the scheme for employment opportunities, rather than developing skills to provide for long-term livelihood security.

The outcomes of the NFSB will be similar if the provisions are merely to provide the poor with handouts. The poor and insecure need to be empowered with access to land, water, education and skills, so that they can develop their own livelihoods, rather than rely on the government for food or job security.

The issue being contested is not whether there is a prevalence of hunger and malnutrition in India, but whether the policies underlying the NFSB are viable ways of countering the food insecurity. What the government has to realize is that the target issue is hunger eradication, which cannot be solved by mere subsidies. Development policies formulating livelihood options that eliminate hunger and malnutrition need to be encouraged.

Rather than plainly rejecting the proposed bill, the opposition should encourage the development of an alternate policy. The development policy should focus on eradicating hunger altogether. Policies that encourage social and economic inclusion, and create long-term sustainable employment should be developed. The government needs to come together to develop a cohesive and effective development policy to address all of these issues.

The New Scramble for Global Farmland

Sta Kuzviwanza — 2013-06-02T22:43:22Z

A recent article in the Guardian UK reporting land evictions in Laos and Cambodia has brought to attention, once again, the recent phenomena of global land grabs by private investors in Asia, South America and Africa.

What is perhaps most alarming about the article, despite the apparent exploitation and displacement of vulnerable families, is its inclusion of a study by watchdog Global Witness claiming that Cambodian and Laotian governments have been supporting these firms' actions. In fact, many reports have linked the role of local governments and international organizations to the rapid spread of land grabs in the past few years.

‘Large-scale land acquisitions' are characterized by the buying or renting of large pieces of land from local governments by multinational corporations, wealth funds and private investors. The Laotian and Cambodian land grab examples highlight a new development, in which the involvement of other players, such as the government, in land deals is now coming to light. This is most apparent in Africa, where a massive ‘scramble for Africa' is underway.

According to the World Bank and Oxfam, millions of hectares of farmland have exchanged hands in the past decade, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. A report can be found here, outlining how investors take advantage of the lax legal enforcement, arbitration and weak governance in many countries. Not since colonial times has land at this large scale been allocated to private firms and investors.

Why are private investors suddenly interested in acquiring large pieces of land in sub-Saharan Africa? While the notion of a new scramble for Africa has evoked arguments of neo-imperialism amongst some, the commonly proposed reasons for sudden large-scale land grabs are food security, fuel prices and the financial meltdown of 2009.

In the past few years, global markets have endured tremendous uncertainty and financial market failures have consequently left investors hungry for more tangible forms of investment. Land in Africa can be bought cheap and with the right technology, made ready for mass production to feed the world's growing population.

On one hand, global land grabs could be evidence of predatory investors attempting to hoard future food security and financial stability, negligent to the millions of vulnerable people that inhabit the area. Alternatively, the acquiring of land could be seen as an opportunity for development and employment for the local communities provided by foreigners. Evidence for the latter is currently scarce, but the possibility of mutual benefits for all parties involved in by land deals can in fact be a reality.

As previously mentioned, the major issue of contention is ultimately the continuous displacement of farmers, pastoralists and grazers resulting from the land grabs and various sources indicating that local governments and international organizations participate in the facilitation of these deals. This has led to general pessimism amongst human rights watchdogs regarding the rise in land grab practices.

Instead of evicting, re-appropriating and commercializing land, investors need to be held under more rigorous evaluations to determine whether or not they can purchase land. Corruptible local officials and weak governance mean that land acquisition that severely harms local inhabitants and the environment is often hard to reverse and results in legally binding contracts. These contracts essentially tie the hands of local governments, and private firms can act at liberty regarding their newly purchased property. To add further complexity to the issue, legal difficulties regarding the arbitration of land and water mean that local people are often robbed not only of their native lands, but their source of water and income.

In war-torn Liberia, more than 30 percent of its land has been sold off in the last few years. High up there in terms of agricultural areas in land deals is the DR Congo, Mozambique, Uganda, Zambia, Ethiopia, and Mali.

Land grabbing, as it currently stands, needs to be viewed as a global concern that negatively affects us all. Acquisitions that result in forced mass evictions and total ownership of land by foreigners with minimal compensation are an attack on environmental sustainability, local livelihoods, biodiversity and human rights. Coupled with the weak governance and lack of legal enforcement, they also undermine the global missions to end poverty, empower vulnerable peoples and support strong governance and democracy in developing countries.

Currently, African agriculture is undergoing a new wave of corporatization by the foreign private farmland investors. This includes shifts to less labour-intensive, more capital-intensive methods to increase production. In the case of Liberian rice and timber projects for example, this has resulted in less employment of locals, restricted community access to forest products and decreased local access to farmland.

One of the greatest ironies regarding this issue is perhaps how Africa, with its own chronic food insecurity, could potentially become the world's breadbasket. Investors are starting a threatening trend- there is money to be made in African agriculture. Not all foreign investment is a definite evil; it truly can be a game-changing opportunity for governments, investors, local entrepreneurs and communities.

Meanwhile, the world's growing population, along with food and fuel shortages, guarantee continued developments in this pressing issue.

Avoiding Tragedy: A New Role of Corporate Involvement in the Aftermath of the Bangladesh Factory Collapse

Olivia Zeydler — 2013-06-02T22:43:19Z

The April 24 collapse of Bangladesh's Rana Plaza factory took the lives of 1,127 individuals, and left more than 1000 injured. The tragedy gained significant international attention, shedding light on the global trade of clothing and the inequalities that exist within.

Unfortunately, occurrences such as this are not uncommon. In 2012, 260 people were killed in a factory fire in Pakistan, and later that year a factory fire in Bangladesh killed 112 people. Likewise, just weeks after the massive Rana Plaza collapse, Bangladesh witnessed another factory fire that killed at least 8 people.

The intricacies of the garment industry are entangled within a complex global system. Consumers in Western countries shop for the best price available, and as a result head to Wal-Mart to buy a pair of their $8 Faded Glory Jeans. One thing the consumer may not realize though, is that these $8 jeans are likely made by a factory worker, often in Bangladesh. The workers are required to produce this item every 6 minutes, for up to 12 hours straight. They are paid roughly 24 cents/hour, receive minimal social and health benefits, and work in hazardous working conditions.

A frequent response made by consumers is to boycott the clothes made in these countries. The garment industry in Bangladesh, however, is booming, as the country is the second largest clothing exporter in the world. The industry accounts for 80 percent of the yearly exports and brings in approximately $19 billion per year. Boycotting the industry will take the jobs away from the 4 million employees that work there, and leave the factory workers in even harsher conditions.

Wal-Mart and other large-scale multi national corporations that operate in foreign countries have a duty to ensure the safety of their employees. But when their single-minded goal is to increase profits and provide the most products at the cheapest cost, they conduct skeptical business practices. In order to maximize profits, they outsource their jobs for the cheaper costs of labor overseas and evade domestic taxes, which according to the Organization for Economic Development (OECD), has amounted to a total of $21 trillion lost to home countries.

The 2011 UN Guiding Principles of Business and Human Rights states that it is the duty of the state and the corporations to respect, protect and remedy the human rights of all stakeholders. When the Rana Plaza factory collapsed, Wal-Mart said that the building managers violated building codes and safety regulations. It is true that the Rana Plaza was built on unstable swampland and had multiple stories illegally added to the five-story building. It is the duty of states to ensure the safety of their buildings, but it is also essential that the corporations step up to their responsibility and prioritize the labor rights of all their employees.
Recognition to this issue is underway, and on May 17, a five-year plan was introduced to improve the construction and safety of the buildings, provide independent inspections, and increase the financial role of corporations in these projects. In addition, the program prohibits companies to work in a factory that does not meet these obligations.

Thus far 10 European companies have signed on to the agreement, including big- name retailers such as H&M. However U.S. retailers such as Walmart and Gap refrain, indicating that they will create their own inspections. This is a major drawback to the success of the initiative. Large-scale U.S. companies could set an example for other companies and show solidarity in providing safe working environments for the overseas business operations.

While it is critical that these large-scale corporations step up and take accountability for the lives of their workers, some countries have mobilized and issued their own labor protection organizations. Sri Lanka, for example, created Garments Without Guilt that ensures the provision of the workers and mandates a higher income for the employees. Yes, it is slightly more expensive to produce in Sri Lanka but when the CEO of Walmart is making approximately $20.7 million/year, perhaps some of that money could be reallocated to the approximately $400 yearly wage that the Bangladesh workers receive.

It is unfortunate that a tragedy like the Rana Plaza collapse is what is needed to bring attention to the injustices existing in the garment industry. Hopefully future disasters can be avoided by holding corporations accountable to their duty to protect the human rights of all employees, at home and abroad, even if it means compromising their profits.

The Endemic of Rape in India: Will the Newly Amended Rape Laws Address the Root of the Problem?

Bipasha Sultana — 2013-06-02T22:43:16Z

Nation-wide protests have provoked a re-consideration of existing rape laws in India. These were triggered by the fatal rape incident in New Delhi this past December, in which a 23 year old student was gang-raped in a public bus. Under the Indian Penal Code, a convicted rapist can suffer a prison sentence of 7 to 10 years. Sparked by the anti-rape protests, however, this sentence has been reviewed and amended by the Indian Parliament on March 21st to extend the minimum sentence to 20 years. Further changes have been made to include the criminalization of voyeurism and stalking, as well as the death penalty for convicted serial rapists.

While the heinous gang rape in December brought India's endemic of sexual assault to the spotlight, a surge of additionally reported sexual assault incidents against girls and women in the following months have intensified the push for stricter punishment. Among these reported incidents include the highly publicized cases involving two female tourists, one Swiss and the other British.

In March 2013, the Swiss victim and her husband were camping in a remote part of central India when a dozen or so men gang-raped the woman and beat and robbed them. That same month, a British woman staying at a hotel in Agra was compelled to jump out of her second floor window, after being harassed by the owner to open her door.

Two more cases were reported only weeks later, this time involving two five-year old girls, one of whom succumbed to her injuries and died May 27th, while the other is in stable condition but must undergo reconstructive surgery. Both girls were lured by men familiar to them and were violated within walking distance of their homes. These reports demonstrate the near ubiquity of sexual violence across India where, be it in the busy streets of a cosmopolitan city or the communal space of a farmland, every female body is a walking potential victim. This especially rings true seeing as the staggering statistic of reported assaults only goes to underscore the likely higher number of unreported cases.

Aside from their relative brutality and recency since the December incident, the above cases received considerable media attention due to the victims' demographics, namely, in their being foreigners and very young children. These factors stress that the presence of sexual violence has become an urgent epidemic that no member of the female sex is immune to including those who are supposedly the most protected - children and tourists.

While long-awaited government attempts have finally been implemented to toughen the century-old penal code for rape, these efforts seem to merely scratch at the surface of a human rights issue that continues to plague women and children across the nation. With the statistics of reported rape cases increasing incrementally by the year, one wonders at the rampant incidence of unreported rapes in a society where the topic of sexual assault remains relatively taboo, making rape not only a human rights issue, but a social one as well.

Following the nation-wide protests of the past few months that have garnered international attention, Rashida Manjoo, an independent UN expert on violence against women, travelled to India to investigate and report on sexual assault laws. Her conclusions were founded on a number of disappointing observations: “My mandate has consistently voiced the view that the failure in response and prevention measures stems from a Government's inability to and/or unwillingness to acknowledge and address the core structural causes of violence against women”. Manjoo's report sheds light on the deep-seated stigma that not only discourages victims from reporting incidents of assault, but encourages perpetrators to commit the crimes in the first place, as they are enabled by a socially-sanctioned attitude that places just as much blame, if not more, on victims than their rapists.

Several women's rights organizations that are at the forefront of the protests stress the pivotal role that society's patriarchal belief-system plays in fueling the endemic of sexual violence. As Ruchira Gupta, the founder of ApneAp a women's rights group observes, India's “women are in danger even before they're born”. This inherent danger is founded in gender-divided attitudes, whereby women live in the fear of being victimized while men shift the blame of sexual assault on the victim. Results from a survey conducted by UN Women reveal that up to 95% of women in New Delhi feel unsafe in public, while three-quarters of the surveyed men agree with the statement that “women provoke men by the way they dress”. More disturbingly, 51% of these men have confessed to having committed an act of sexual assault in a public space.

In condoning sexual violence, these pervasive views perpetuate a patriarchal cycle in which women have been, and continue yet, to be treated as second-class citizens. In a society in which sex-selective abortions, female infanticides and dowries continue to prevail in spite of being illegal, rape becomes an additional factor to add to the supposed burden of the female sex. As these misogynistic crimes are founded on the view that women are financial liabilities to their families, being a victim of rape usually implies bearing a mark of shame and dishonor that only adds to their statuses as liabilities. This stigma primarily accounts for the prevalence of unreported incidents.

Ultimately, the stigma of rape surrounds the archaic, primitive belief that once violated, a woman's value to her family, community and society is greatly diminished – she becomes, in essence, unmarriageable. This myth, however, is countered by the recovery of many victims of sexual assault as they learn to deal with the trauma of sexual violence. While the 23 year-old student in New Delhi eventually succumbed to her wounds and passed away, she lives on in the legacy of a new-age women's rights activism that has burgeoned following her rape. The recently amended rape laws in India will probably have a bare minimum effect in curbing the prevalence of rape, but perhaps its most promising aspect lies in its opening up of nationwide discourse on an otherwise taboo topic.

A Violent yet Successful Transition in Civilian Governance in Pakistan

Houda Chergui — 2013-06-02T22:43:12Z

Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) leader Nawaz Sharif was the victor of Pakistan's recent National Assembly elections, his party securing 125 of the 137 seats needed to form a majority government. His primary opponents were Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, son of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and former cricket champion and celebrity Imran Khan. Turnout was nearly 60 percent according to the election commission, which is said to be the highest since 1977.

Many viewed the Pakistan parliamentary elections on May 11 as a real turning point for the country, as it is the first transition between civilian governments since the country's conception in 1947. This is not to say that they were not mired in violence, as fear was more prevalent than hope in these highly contentious elections where there were a reported 150 deaths across the country. The city that has seen the worst of the violence is Karachi, the capital of the Sindh province.

The most shocking death was the assassination of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party co-founder Zahra Shahid Hussain who was shot to death outside her home in an upscale district of Karachi known as NA-250. Officials had contended that it was the result of an attempted robbery, however PTI leader Imran Khan publicly declared that he held leader of Karachi's dominant Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) party, Altaf Hussain responsible for her murder. Hussain allegedly “openly threatened PTI workers and leaders through public broadcasts," according to Khan. The MQM—supported mainly by Muslim Urdu-speaking people whose families moved to the Southern Sindh province during the 1947 partition of India—has strongly denied these claims.

Hussain currently leads his party—designated as a terrorist organization in Canada—from exile in England. Khan also holds the British government partly responsible for Zahra Shahid Hussain's death. Prior to her murder, the MQM had been subject to accusation of electoral fraud on May 11, which caused widespread demand of a rerun of elections in the district. This election round—though proving to be victorious for the PTI in the district—did not have much effect on Sharif's landslide victory in the national elections.

The sudden tragic murder of Zahra Shahid Hussain is symbolic of the dynamics that were at play during the elections. The country is marred with violence, not solely perpetrated by the MQM but the prevalent Taliban who have been the source of bombings in Karachi surrounding election day, which has caused the police to be on guard and prepare for violence to erupt at polling stations. The worst of the attacks took place when eleven people were killed in the bombing of a political office in the city and more than 40 others were wounded in the targeting of an Awami National Party (ANP) candidate. The country's key port, populated by 18 million people, sees more than a dozen murders a day: attacks by the Taliban, sectarian militant groups, political murders, and not to mention street crimes. It is this environment that reveals the existing socio-economic and political climate that dictated the ultimate results of the May 11 elections.

In a country divided between a political Punjabi elite and a poverty-ridden majority, Nawaz Sharif was the preferred candidate. Having served as Prime Minister twice (from 1990 to 1993 and from 1997 to 1999), Sharif spent the past eight years in exile in Saudi Arabia after being thrown out of power in a military coup. When he was exiled, many Pakistanis were relieved, as they found him to be corrupt and not suited as a political leader. A few of his political opponents say that the main reason why Sharif was welcomed back after so many years is because he is from Punjab, the country's richest province where most of the military elite are from. Sharif managed to assure more than half the seats in the National Assembly and had little support outside the province.

Sharif, as opposed to Imran Khan, speaks in terms of money and in his campaigns, his promises involve plans to open banks in every village. Whereas Sharif's rhetoric focused on pleasing the businessmen, the elite, and the poor with inflated dialogue on the economy, Khan's rhetoric was directed at educated urban voters and was more popular with the middle class and voters abroad. In a country where threats from the Taliban are omnipresent and where the growing number of disadvantaged youth is susceptible to recruitment into such terrorist organizations, it is not likely that Khan's demands for an end to corruption will lead to the change that is desired. Sharif, a rich political veteran, relied on a strong patronage system which was the key to his victory, an essential mechanism that Khan lacked. However, although Khan did not win, his election campaign did inspire many in Pakistan, which enabled the PTI to emerge from a marginal party to Pakistan's third largest, which could mean hope for the future of the party and for the sustainability of Pakistan's democratic system as whole.

An Interview with Andrés Fontecilla of Québec Solidaire

Michael Sabelli — 2013-06-02T22:43:07Z

I want to start by speaking to you about your nomination as president of Québec Solidaire (QS), and what are you going to do to continue the development/growth of QS?

To begin with, I was elected a few weeks ago and I have only officially been holding the position for one week. I'm jumping on a train which is already rolling with several elements being developed, so yeah, I'm on board with the process and I intend to continue with the strategies which have been adopted and, if possible contribute in a positive way. In that sense, you know, we're doing some excellent work at the parliamentary level, we are very present in the Assemblée Nationale, and my work is to continue, but that doesn't depend on me, it's mostly up to Françoise David and Amir Khadir as well as the parliamentary team. However, it's very important that we support them and ensure that the party represents a strong foundation for our parliamentary team.

Furthermore, we're actively preparing for the beginning of the autumn term, next September. There are a few things that we consider very important, you know, first of all we have to be ready for an election at any moment, so we are communicating with our members, our activists so they begin preparing for the next general election in order to ensure that they aren't taken by surprise if the PQ government decides to call for elections. Secondly, as of next September, we intend to develop a significant political campaign which we are calling “Vert le Québec de Demain” (Towards a Green Québec Tomorrow). It's a political campaign that is aimed at the whole population of Quebec but more particularly towards the people who voted for us last election. With this green plan we intend to communicate our vision of what is real economic, social and environmental development. This will be an important moment for our party and everyone will be invited to join in. Furthermore, the third element we intend to work on next autumn is our next orientation convention – our next convention in our program – which will address feminist issues and the family. So, our members are called upon to organize different activities together with the population, different restoration activities, in order to nourish the discussions and suggestions which will be addressed at our next convention which will focus on those issues, family and feminism, etc. So these are the three elements with which – they are already planned and I intend to invest a lot in.

Can you speak a little about the team, how the party is different because there are co-spokespersons and when someone is elected they step down from president. Québec Solidaire seems to be very different than other parties.

Indeed, we are a very different party, you know, we believe in democracy and we try to make it so that all our proceedings and the functioning of the party are as close as possible to the notion of internal democracy. Often times this is not easy but we try to move forward in that direction.

We are an alter-globalist party and environmentalists. We are for social projects and we are also feminists, so regarding this last element we uphold the question of legality and parity in our proceedings, as you know we don't have a leader like other parties, we have spokespersons. First of all, we have a male spokesperson and a woman spokesperson and this is the way we carry out all our proceedings. Anytime someone takes the floor there's always a woman and a man. But I'd like to reiterate the notion of spokespersons as opposed to the notion of a leader: once the person is chosen to the position of spokesperson, that means that they reflect a decision, a thought-process, a contribution which has already been collectively developed through our proceedings, either at our convention or at national coordination committee. The spokespersons do not own the party, they are not the supreme source of inspiration. What they do is they communicate to the population what happens, the opinions which are internally elaborated. So, we are a very democratic party and we make significant efforts to ensure that women hold a preponderant position within our proceedings. So, that already, in terms of functioning, means that we are a very different party than the others. To that we can add our programs (policy) and we differentiate ourselves even more.

And that's why you are not very close to the Parti Québecois, you're policies are closer to those of the Parti Vert?

Listen, you know, we have points of convergence and similarities with the different parties, but then again, a similarity with one party is a divergence with the other. For example, with the PQ, we both share the will and desire to achieve Quebec's independence. Well, we each have our own methods, different point-of-views etc…but we do share that goal, which is not the case with the Parti Vert who has not expressed their opinion on the matter. For the green party it kind of depends on the leader. There's one who's a federalist so the party is federalist, then there could be a leader who's more sovereignist, and they become a bit more sovreignist. So it kind of depends on the leader, though the Parti Vert has not taken a position.

However, concerning environmental questions, we do feel much closer to the Parti Vert than the PQ, so yeah, there are points of convergence as well as differences between parties. Another example is the Parti Vert's social program which, to us, seems relatively insufficient, however, the PQ's social program, the program in itself, could potentially be interesting. There could be some similarities, but the problem with the PQ is that during elections, they're going to talk about a program that promotes a vast number of social measures, etc, as we say…they signal for a left turn, but once they are in power, they begin to implement right-wing politics, they make a right turn.

So there you go, it depends on position, it also depends on the moment in which the party is in: meaning a party which is the opposition is not the same party when they become the government, unfortunately. Also a party which has no parliamentary representation is different than a party that does have parliamentary representation. So, we have points of convergence with several parties, but for example, with the Parti Vert, an idea which we share, particularly, is our interest in establishing a proportional system in Quebec, a system for proportional balloting methods.

I read that regarding independence QS has a motto “Un moyen pour une fin et pas une fin en soi” (the means to the end, not the end itself) Can you elaborate?

What we mean is that in order to plan to make a nation, you need a national plan…so, we don't consider independence, like you said, as an end in itself, but as a step towards accomplishing our program on the whole. In that sense, QS believes that independence must comprise – in order to get there, we must ensure that an independence project is also closely connected to a project as a society. It's with these two elements together that we will achieve in convincing a good part of the population that it's worthwhile, that we must go towards independence. Independence alone, for us, loses much of its sense, so what we do is we combine our project for a society, a progressive social program which involves redistribution of wealth, environmentally-friendly economic development as well as political independence, independence from Canada.

Is this because Canadian politics are incorrect? Because Quebec would be better off alone?

Yes, it's not…well, you have to separate the Government of Canada from Canada itself. We don't think that Quebec is going to be more successful than Canada; it's not that at all. We feel that we are different and we can do different things and for that, we need independence. That being said, we don't want independence because we don't like the current Canadian government, so, for example, you were speaking about similarities earlier…moreover, between QS and the NDP's programs there are some similarities. But does that mean that if the NDP ever becomes the Canadian government that QS would drop it's claims for independence? No, obviously not. So in our position, we cannot depend on national politics and on the position of the government which is elected in Canada. But obviously, in the present context with the Conservative Government, a government which supports reactionary politics, politics which aim to push back on a great number of social issues, for example on the question of employment insurance, or a Conservative Party that denounces or withdraws from the Kyoto Protocol and which decidedly supports the oil industry which encourages the production of more greenhouse gasses, a government which attempts to impede scientific research, which, for example, does not believe in national census or opinion, or is the party of law and order and intend to reform laws and implement harsher penalties, you know, a whole series of measures…it's true that we don't agree with that kind of party, and actually, we intend to denounce the Conservative Party in all the ways we can regarding those policies.

In their international vision, which way is QS different than Canada?

Listen, for now, we take a stand…a source of inspiration for us is alter-globalism, which at one time could have been called “internationalism.” We take a stand as a party that aims for a world which has international relations based on justice, peace, dialogue, commercial exchanges that benefit everyone. In that sense, well, depending on the issue, up to now, in our program, we haven't exactly defined our policies regarding different international issues, but we take a stand as a party which advocates international solidarity and feels solidarity for many nations' struggle in freeing themselves, or in their attempt to push back oppressive capitalist systems which attempt to exploit people.

Is there a country, a government, in the international spectrum which has been a source of inspiration?

No, no country has been particularly inspirational to us. Our inspiration comes from multiple places. We have multiple inspirations, every time we see something good happening elsewhere, we have the tendency to support it, however, this does not prevent our activists to be actively involved with different causes. For example, I am from the Latino-American community which, lately, has been very involved with what is happening in Venezuela or even in solidarity with Cuba. But, we have other members who have strong feelings of solidarity with Palestine, and so on. So we don't have specific ties but we support, on a case by case basis, all struggles against oppression and support movements that aim to improve a population's quality of life and seek justice before all.

Is this a reason why QS supports the Palestinian anniversary of Nakba?

For example, we believe that, in the case of the struggle of the people of Palestine, it is catastrophic. There is a great injustice being committed. It's an Apartheid situation in Israel. We support the Palestinian people's right to be a nation.

So do you believe in a two-state solution?

Two separate states? Listen, I don't think it's up to us to define what the solution is in Palestine. The situation is pretty complex and I'll leave it to the Palestinian and Israeli people, but we are calling for both these peoples' to sit down together and seriously negotiate a solution which would benefit both adequately. What is for sure is that the actions on the Israeli side appear to be contrary to an attempt at a well thought-out and reasonable peace which would settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole. But it is not our responsibility to say that we prefer one country and two nations or two separate nations. What is certain is that we support the general struggle of the Palestinian people in their attempt to create a state of their own. As for the final solution, we don't have a specific position regarding this.

Yeah you're right we cannot impose a solution on them, but with the Canadian and US governments giving their support to Israel, nothing is going to change for the Palestinian people.

Yeah, in that sense we disagree with the very partial position of the Stephen Harper's Conservative Government. We do not think that this is a good way to support a peace process in Palestine. Canada, with the Conservative Government, has become a pro-Israeli advocate and that's not the way we are going to contribute to solving that problem.

Regarding the question of Syria, do you see a solution there with the Assad government or…

Well, we are watching that situation, what is going on in Syria, with much sadness. Obviously there is a civil war and as a party we don't have a specific position on the subject, we don't know, well we know the Assad regime a little bit, we know that this regime is a dictatorship. However, we don't really know who they call “the rebels,” so, we're a bit uncomfortable with the situation and we cannot support one movement or another in this case. What is certain is that we are a pacifist party and under those principles we strongly invite the conflicting parties to negotiate, a true negotiation. That's all we can say. But maybe in a more general way, we believe that foreign intervention in terms of military support can only stir up more problems and this is a situation that we must be very attentive to before giving our support to one case or another. But again, here at QS, we do not have a specific…we don't take…we don't have enough information on hand to take an educated position regarding this topic.

Let's talk about the environment now. I'd like to know more about what you think about the tar-sands in Alberta?

To begin with, we believe, in our environmentalist project, our project for society, that, we must begin as early as today, to stop our dependence on petroleum fuels. We know that the tar-sands, well, first of all this is still a petroleum fuel…so to emphasize the development of petroleum does not really represent a long-term solution for our society, we must find other ways to develop…all while getting rid of our dependence on petroleum fuels. And secondly, regarding the question of the tar-sands, the problem with tar-sands is that they pollute more than other kinds of petroleum fuel production, so this is a kind of petroleum fuel which causes additional greenhouse gasses and therefore continuing global warming trends. So in that sense we are very critical of, first of all, the use of petroleum fuel in general and second the use, the exploitation of petroleum fuel sources like the tar-sands because they are even more harmful to the environment.

In Quebec, we are known for our hydroelectricity, do you think that this is a green resource, something renewable?

Renewable? It is a renewable resource, with each snowfall, every time it rains, every time a reservoir fills up, there is electricity that can be produced. We find that the principal wealth in Quebec in terms of energy at this present time is hydroelectricity and therefore we must increase the use of hydroelectricity in our economy. Furthermore, our green campaign, next September, will then bear on the increased use of our hydroelectricity in our economy. That being said, there's other kinds of energy, such as wind power which could be considered or also energy consumption reduction policies because we cannot continue consuming so much energy as a society in the long term.

Because it's still something very intense which changes eco-systems…

Yes, absolutely, we find that, especially regarding hydroelectricity, the best energy, the best electricity is one that is not produced. So, we intend to conduct an energy-economizing campaign, and I think, as the numbers have shown, that there is a vast potential for energy-economizing in Quebec. Indeed, we already have installations, hydroelectric dams that are already significant and others that are still being built following some decisions by the Liberal Party, so I think that for now, we have already harnessed too many rivers in Quebec and for now, if there is another solution it is to put the electricity that is already being produced to good use as well as encouraging energy-economization. If you want I can refer you to our green plan?

Oh I've already read it, but I didn't notice any innovation projects for renewable electricity. I saw things that were more targeted towards emissions and public transport, etc.

Well, listen, there aren't millions of sources of renewable energy you know…we're talking about electricity, we believe that this is a renewable source of energy, there's wind power and there's solar power. So, yeah, wind power, I think that we could greatly improve the way we develop this, actually we are calling for the nationalization of wind power, and concerning solar energy, I feel that this technique can really be improved by technological developments. So there could be some innovation. But we're going with what exists at this moment, so wind power and solar power, for the best use of these resources.

What does your party think of Jean Charest's “Plan Nord”?

We think that in general, this is a project that stems from an old viewpoint, an old concept of what economic development should be. This is a very ancient view, you know, which calls upon the old ‘colonialist' model. Big mining companies, big international capital that are often Canadian, I must say. They come make use of – with financial aid from the Government of Quebec, with our tax support, our fiscal contributions – they come extract our natural resources and pay-out very little royalties and they fill their pockets with the help of our resources and when it's done, they close the town, they close the entire region, they leave environmental disasters behind on the site of their operation and the story is over. I think that we must have a new way to exploit our natural resources, and first of all these resources must serve our purposes primarily for the collective good before all and, thereafter, make sure that the local collective has a word to say regarding mining and also, as a third element, really observe the environmental impact rendered by these operations.

QS celebrated your promotion as a foreign-born president claiming that it is an excellent way to celebrate diversity, but still its difficult to find information in Quebecs largest minority language, English.

We intend to build a Quebec which includes all of the citizens of the Province, whether they're from the historical majority, French-Canadians, or the historical minority, the Anglophones, First-Nations or from communities descended from immigration. I think that the projects we are implementing do not implicate only one community but all communities, and all the components of Quebec's society as a whole. In that sense, the Anglophone community does have a role, an importance and their linguistic right will be respected in QS's view of Quebec. So, for us that Anglophone community is an important component of Quebec society, and our sovereignty project by means of constituents carries an advantage, that is, it bears less on ethnic identity, if you will, stemming from the French-Canadian majority, but we propose a project where everyone will have their place, the Anglophones, Francophones, Allophones as well as First-Nations peoples. So the Anglophone community has a place in Quebec, but obviously, we intend on keeping a Francophone Quebec. I think that this is a widespread opinion, however, we will respect the Anglophone communities' rights.

How do you explain the controversy with the language police over Pastagate?

I think that these are details, obviously, the Office de la langue Française has been a bit excessive. In this Pastagate situation, they have become too fussy, I think that the essential is elsewhere, not there. It's not because there's a button with ‘on/off' written on it that the French language is in jeopardy in Quebec and I think that the essential efforts of the Quebec Government and these institutions in trying to preserve the French language in Quebec and particularly, in Montreal, this can be found in two sectors, first of all, the efficient ‘francisization' of persons coming from immigration and secondly the ‘francisization' of work areas. This is where the primary focus has to be and where the future of the French language in Quebec will be in play.

If QS continues to have success and comes into power, and implement, not only their version of sovereignty, but their economic and environmental policies, which can be attractive to those who are against Canadas Conservative Party, do you think that there would be Anglo support for separation?}} I think that yes. If we give the Quebec Anglophone community – well actually there's nothing regimented here, there's definitely a good part of the Anglophone community in Quebec that will always choose Canada, and since there's a good number of Franco-Quebecers, stemming form the French-Canadian majority who will also always support Canada and federalism, well that's the way it is and its good. But for us, what is important is being able to convince a good part of the Anglophone community that it is possible to gain independence, again, not just to have the independence per se, but in order to accomplish a project as a society. Here at QS, we have among us several Anglophones in our ranks who support us, not essentially because they're sovreignists, but support us mostly because we encourage a coherent social project, a social project which concerns the redistribution of wealth and is aimed at social justice. They feel comfortable with our approach at independence though a constituent assembly, this is, of course, a democratic process and everyone is called to contribute. So in that sense, the QS movement is able to call out to and to stir up the support of, well maybe not all the Anglophone community in Quebec, but maybe a significant part of it.

Transcribed and translated from French by Thomas McDonough